Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Mary Aldermary Church, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2014 at 14:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Diliff (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)- Comment. Just before anyone asks (I know you will), the reason why the rear stained glass and ceiling appears to be tilted is because it's not facing the camera, it's angled away slightly (I think because of the tight spaces that the church is built around in central London). Diliff (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment Please add technical details about the shot on the file page. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)- Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support I don't have a problem with it if the church building actually is that way. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 17:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Regretfully, I think the distorted ceiling is just too weird. The upper circular pattern (rose?) looks almost vertical, but is actually horizontal (see File:St Mary Aldermary Church Interior.jpg). This is what one would see when looking up, but that circle is clearly considerably forward of the camera. Would another projection or cropping below the circle minimise the effect? -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I think the fact that it looks so circular is actually an optical illusion caused by the rectilinear projection. It looks like you're viewing it from virtually directly underneith it but as you say, it's considerably forward from the camera and the angle of view is no larger than any of my other interior panoramas (in fact, the vertical angle of view is lower than many). I suspect it is because the shape of it is concave (an effect similar to this). I could crop it but it would be a shame as the top of the arch would be lost and the aspect ratio would be square. I personally think it's just one of those situations where you have to acknowledge that it looks weird, but that it's not actually as distorted as it appears. Diliff (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- IIRC from my reading over the Summer on projections and the issues with rectilinear with wide/tall angle-of-view, the problem is made worse when there are objects affected that the brain knows the shape of. We know, for example, that you don't get egg-shaped windows in buildings or that people and cars have certain proportions. In the "General Panini" projection in Hugin (Vedutismo in PtGui) one can alter the parameters, perhaps giving more compression to the top and standard rectilinear to the bottom. I wish there was a rectilinear projection that one could combine with graduated vertical compression in the top third. -- Colin (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it would certainly be handy to be able to make adjustments to the projection that were progressive and local. However, it seems what this image needs is less compression at the top, not more. It's already had the effect of being compressed due to the illusion I mentioned previously but in actual fact there is no compression at all. Diliff (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- IIRC from my reading over the Summer on projections and the issues with rectilinear with wide/tall angle-of-view, the problem is made worse when there are objects affected that the brain knows the shape of. We know, for example, that you don't get egg-shaped windows in buildings or that people and cars have certain proportions. In the "General Panini" projection in Hugin (Vedutismo in PtGui) one can alter the parameters, perhaps giving more compression to the top and standard rectilinear to the bottom. I wish there was a rectilinear projection that one could combine with graduated vertical compression in the top third. -- Colin (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I think the fact that it looks so circular is actually an optical illusion caused by the rectilinear projection. It looks like you're viewing it from virtually directly underneith it but as you say, it's considerably forward from the camera and the angle of view is no larger than any of my other interior panoramas (in fact, the vertical angle of view is lower than many). I suspect it is because the shape of it is concave (an effect similar to this). I could crop it but it would be a shame as the top of the arch would be lost and the aspect ratio would be square. I personally think it's just one of those situations where you have to acknowledge that it looks weird, but that it's not actually as distorted as it appears. Diliff (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support It looks weird, but still is great. Basik07 (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --///EuroCarGT 03:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
