- Reason
- High resolution stitch, shows the entire front of the building.
- Articles this image appears in
- United States Capitol
- Creator
- User:Noclip
- Support as nominator — Noclip 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Sky is screwed up by the stitch. -- Dschwen 22:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)- Support original 1, Oppose reshoot and Edit2. The sky is still a bit uneven (rivet counting), but otherwise its a great pic. -- Dschwen 14:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support This is a very nice image, and is very encyclopedic. Much better than the other Capitol image nominee. 76.189.28.183 23:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice... except for the sky part. 8thstar 00:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice, though I would like to see the sky fixed a bit if possible. Staxringold talk contribs 00:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support I'm supprised that nobody mentioned it, considering that its been brought up too often, but the front surfaces of the capital are pretty blown. lighting is good elsewhere . otherwise good. - Fcb981 01:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
SupportThe Statue of Freedom has a very slight tilt if you look carefully and the dome does look slightly blown. However, none of these slight technical problems are distracting and are hardly noticeable. Oh...and very good stitching job. Very encyclopedic pic. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)- Support edit 1, 2 and 3 They frankly all look about the same to me. The original has an extra tree blocking the view, so I prefer the edit versions. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose unless the sky is fixed. Also, it needs more meta info: when were the shots taken, with what kind of camera, etc.-- ragesoss 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose (for now). Per above about the sky, mostly.-- Tewy 05:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)- Support original only. There are still some stitching errors, but they're very minor in the scope of the image. Great shot. --
Tewy
19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Edits based off of edit 1 are too bright, and the people in the foreground are more distracting than in the original. -- Tewy 01:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support original only. There are still some stitching errors, but they're very minor in the scope of the image. Great shot. --
Tewy
19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I love this photo - the detail is so crisp that you can see inside the windows. But the sky has broad vertical stripes. How should this balance out? Pstuart84 Talk 10:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This really looks like a Diliff picture at first glance (and I find them outstanding), but there are too many stitching errors which should prevent it from being featured. I have spotted some and show them here Image:Capitol_Building_Full_View_err.jpg. Blieusong 16:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'll have a go at re-stitching this if you want, no-clip. Just send me an email and we can arrange something. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: Per above comments about the sky and the fact that this may seem a bit biased to our friends in the UK.- Excuse me?! So it is ok to feature The houses of parliament and Tower bridge, but the capitol is suddenly bias? -- Dschwen 08:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Eh? I'm British... why would I have a problem with the Capitol being featured? I'm not going to claim US bias, firstly because there are plenty of British pictures featured, and secondly - who gets angry over whether a picture involving their country is featured or not? That ludicrous... —
Vanderdecken∴
∫
ξ
φ
09:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm British too, and I don't have a problem with it, so i support--
Hadz
Talk
13:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry: I'm new around this project, so I don't know which pictures have been featured. I've struck it out. ~ Step trip 17:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm British too, and I don't have a problem with it, so i support--
Hadz
Talk
13:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Am I the only one who noticed that it's tilted? -- Sturgeonman 20:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, the Statue of Freedom has a very slight tilt, but barely noticeable. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 02:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The image has been re-stitched to address the sky and errors have been greatly minimized. The changes are reflected in the original image above as the edit is an objective improvement.
Noclip
19:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: You may need to purge the cache. -- Tewy 19:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Problems with stitching now gone (to my eyes anyway). Sky is slightly noisy and easily fixable but I don't think its worth uploading an edit over. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, I keep opposing this to be featured. Most of the stitching errors remain and there are even some new ones. I think the main reason for supporting this picture is its top notch quality (shaaaaarp) and therefore I think we can't let the stitch errors spoils it all. You should use horizontal control points especially to the left and right borders of the picture where horizontal lines lose their property. Also, I believe this should be easy to stitch since you are far away from the subject and parallax errors should me minimal. As
Diliff proposed before, I can try to help if you want to, in which case you could email me (but I think emailing him would be better choice, he has proven his skills).
Blieusong
22:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's better but there are some new stitching errors in the edit. I still oppose until someone does an adequate stitch.-- ragesoss 19:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Now hold on, the biggest stitching error in this image is 2.8 pixels and there's opposition all over the place.
This image by Diliff on the other hand slid right by with nary a mention of the much larger stitching errors (at the very top in the center, looks to be ~10 pixels). What's with the double standards?
Noclip
19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Answer I am newbie here. I also noticed some errors on some pictures from Diliff (the manhattan panorama Image:Lower_Manhattan_from_Staten_Island_Ferry_Corrected_Jan_2006.jpg which is featured has tons of them). Had I been around here by that time, I would have opposed. Some people are more forgiving about this, I am not, especially given that the main reason for supporting Diliff's pic are their top notch technical quality. I really like your picture and, again, I'm sure the errors can be corrected without too too much efforts (and also again still offer to stitch it). Blieusong 21:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support original or edit 1 and no others - I know Noclip isn't a newbie, but opposing on the basis of stitching errors of a pixel or two on an image like this is frankly
biting. I'd say exactly the same in the case of Diliff's Staten Island Ferry shot - is anyone here seriously suggesting that either of these images aren't among the best we have at Wikipedia? Because of a stitching error of a few pixels out of thousands (and in Diliff's case, in a photo taken from a moving platform on water - moving water being one of the most difficult things to stitch properly)? I have no problem with opposing for glaring errors which hurt the enc, but people who are spending time actively searching out 1-2px errors are wasting their own and everybody else's time. We will end up losing valuable contributors with this sort of nitpicking. --
YFB
¿
23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't take more than a few seconds for a trained eye to notice errors like this. Here we have one in the middle of the picture. Hard to miss. This picture could have been made from a single shot, instead, author chose to take several pictures to stitch them and (I guess) scale the result down so it has tons of details and looks sharper per pixel. It is therefore meant to be pixel peeped, and that's why stitching errors, even a few pixels wide or something are to me unforgivable.
Blieusong
20:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you're right in saying that stitched images are automatically meant to be pixel peeped by-design. The idea of a stitched image is primarily to provide a higher resolution and more detailed image than could be captured in a single frame. Standards are already set by the community and if an image exceeds that standard, I don't think that means that they should be automatically scrutinised to an even higher standard. Stitched images will always have the tendency to exhibit slight stitching errors, although we do our best to minimise them and for the most part they do not misrepresent the scene. Single frame images will always have the tendency to be softer or lower resolution. It is a trade off. Would you reject images on the basis of lesser detail (but above the minimum standards)? Some stitching errors are so minor that they would be completely obscured by a significant downsampling to the equivalent resolution of that single frame. As for the Lower Manhattan image, I can only see two obvious stitching errors - one on the waterline in the middle and one two-thirds of the way across on a building roofline. I don't really see tons of them, but I'd be interested if you could point out others. Some of them along the water appear to be stitching errors but I'm fairly sure they are just deviations of the geography.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs)
16:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. I believe one cannot spend time to make such a detailed pic and not expect it to be looked at pixel size. if you want detail, you expect them to be looked at real size, so you shouldn't present the viewer stich errors. I agree that minor stitch errors go away with downscaling, but here (before edit1) they were still there after. I also agree that some errors are in some place they are likely not to be seen easily so they are more acceptable. I wouldn't reject image which have less details but I reject image which want to produce more details and are spoiled especially if I know it can be corrected. Of course, my opinion is only one amongst (?) many other, so if others like it, they just can say it. About the manhattan image, I spotted most of the errors here. (I think this should be asked for deletion once you see it !). Blieusong 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you're right in saying that stitched images are automatically meant to be pixel peeped by-design. The idea of a stitched image is primarily to provide a higher resolution and more detailed image than could be captured in a single frame. Standards are already set by the community and if an image exceeds that standard, I don't think that means that they should be automatically scrutinised to an even higher standard. Stitched images will always have the tendency to exhibit slight stitching errors, although we do our best to minimise them and for the most part they do not misrepresent the scene. Single frame images will always have the tendency to be softer or lower resolution. It is a trade off. Would you reject images on the basis of lesser detail (but above the minimum standards)? Some stitching errors are so minor that they would be completely obscured by a significant downsampling to the equivalent resolution of that single frame. As for the Lower Manhattan image, I can only see two obvious stitching errors - one on the waterline in the middle and one two-thirds of the way across on a building roofline. I don't really see tons of them, but I'd be interested if you could point out others. Some of them along the water appear to be stitching errors but I'm fairly sure they are just deviations of the geography.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs)
16:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't take more than a few seconds for a trained eye to notice errors like this. Here we have one in the middle of the picture. Hard to miss. This picture could have been made from a single shot, instead, author chose to take several pictures to stitch them and (I guess) scale the result down so it has tons of details and looks sharper per pixel. It is therefore meant to be pixel peeped, and that's why stitching errors, even a few pixels wide or something are to me unforgivable.
Blieusong
20:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I updated my vote. I don't see any benefit in either of the images except the introduction of artifacts. Saturation was fine in the first two version and Edit 3 is definitely a step for the worse. Blieusong, you're entitled to your opinion but I think you're wrong about some of the stitching errors you've identified in Diliff's image. -- YFB ¿ 17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose – Boring angle. Much more interesting pictures could be taken of such a complex piece of architecture. This is just straight on, on a day with a (boring) clear sky. -- jacobolus (t) 04:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I hate to muddy the waters of this nomination even further but I wasn't too happy with the sharpness at full size so I went out and re-shot this from a closer position. Edit 1 is the result and I believe it does the "Diliff process" much more justice.
Noclip
00:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say, but I'm afraid the lighting is better in the original. -- Tewy 03:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Edit 2 only High quality pic --
Fir0002
06:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with tewy, the reshot and especially Fir's edit look glaringly overexposed. --
Dschwen
15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that building is actually supposed to be white right? I mean making it a dull underexposed gray just so there are no white pixels is not very helpful, for enc or aesthetics. As you can see it's not over exposed because there is only a couple of 255,255,255 pixels. I find people ridiculously adverse to having any pixels white, white is part of a good image's spectrum! --
Fir0002
22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, and in fact exposure metering in cameras always allows for a certain percentage of blown pixels (otherwise the highlights would force an underexposure of most pictures). But the issue is not whether white is allowed, but if that certain exposure shows as much detail as the first shot, which showed the same white building just with more detail, so there should be no dispute about enc. -- Dschwen 06:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that building is actually supposed to be white right? I mean making it a dull underexposed gray just so there are no white pixels is not very helpful, for enc or aesthetics. As you can see it's not over exposed because there is only a couple of 255,255,255 pixels. I find people ridiculously adverse to having any pixels white, white is part of a good image's spectrum! --
Fir0002
22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with tewy, the reshot and especially Fir's edit look glaringly overexposed. --
Dschwen
15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, there still are... OK this isn't funny :) a really great stitching job here, I wish a "blieusong" process gives something similar... so I
weak support Edit1 and Edit2 (weak because of overexposition, which is something which can be easy fixed anyways). Blieusong 18:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC) - Support Edit 3 I tried to address overexposition issue on that edit.
Blieusong
20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overexposure can not be fixed easily. The bright areas lack contrast. Just darkening the whole image does not help. Plus the edit accentuates the noise in the sky. --
Dschwen
20:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I've just uploaded a second version of my edit (replacing the old one). It took me much more than expected to achieve it (I haven't simply darkened the whole picture). Now we can see slightly more details on the bright areas. Noise in the sky isn't that big an issue here (and maybe one over here has some software which can get rid of it). Overall, I believe it's the closest to the original, without the errors. Blieusong 20:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overexposure can not be fixed easily. The bright areas lack contrast. Just darkening the whole image does not help. Plus the edit accentuates the noise in the sky. --
Dschwen
20:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Edits 2 and 3 go too far, I can understand darkening the image but there is no reason to jack up the saturation in the harsh manner of these edits. Aside from the unnatural sky and grass, the saturation boost accentuates noise and produces weird green and orange discoloration on the building itself. Noclip 01:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edits 1, 2, and 3: These fixed everything. ~ Step trip 01:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The caption isn't quite correct. This appears to be the west side of the building which technically is the back, not the front. Note that the statue is facing away from the camera. Also, out of curiosity, why is there a flag on the north (Senate side) flagpole but not on the south (House side)? -- dm (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I have to oppose all versions. I would care less about niggly stitching errors, even alleged over-exposure (although edits 2 onwards do look like they have too bright a mid-tone) but the plain fact is this view of the building suffers more from being shot at an unfortunate time of day (with the sun full-on) which all but destroys detail and hence has the appearance of being overexposed. Whereas the original submission is ok for people but obscured by trees, the second shot reverses the problem, ie. too many people, neatly deforested. For this kind of subject, half the battle is to capture it at an opportune moment, if it's not to be judged as a high-resolution snapshot, as I am.
mikaul
talk
09:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Although this is a very good picture, it would probably be much better if taken at another day time. - Wutschwlllm 21:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 - Looks good to me, and best version, IMO. - Bluedog423 Talk 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Capitol Building Full View.jpg -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 23:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)