Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:80 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:80 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2009 at 20:44:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Machu Picchu
  •  Info All by me -- S23678 (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This picture is 97 mpx. It has been assembled from 3 different exposures, 12 pictures per exposure. It has been downsampled a little in the center (to get under the 100 mpx limit), but it's upsampled on the outside because of the projection choosen (rectilinear), which explain the softer sides. There's some defects I could not get rid of from the method used to assemble the pictures (this is something like my 10th try at stitching it), like 1 pixel shifts between exposures, because of the displacement of the stitching line from one exposure to another (I hope I'm clear), which is happening on less than 1% of the image, and would disappear immediately on downsampling. A drastic 25 to 1 downsampling would still be 2 times larger than the minimum required, and show none of the defects I am talking about. Still, I chose to nominate this picture at it's original size, hoping people will see the size as a strong mitigating factor for quality issues.
  •  Support -- S23678 (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost one Mb per MP seems a bit much. Looks like you went overboard with the JPG quality setting. Nah well, better than overcompressing I guess. --Dschwen (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm now always saving my JPEGs at the highest quality. It's maybe an overkill, but given the huge size of the TIFF files (more than a Gb for this one), the JPEG is the only thing I keep once my workflow is completed. As you said, I think it's better to push it on this side than on the overcompressing side --S23678 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment That looks really impressive. But IMO the defects you are talking about are quite serious to me and unfortunately very visible. If this can be resolved by downsampling, I would really like to see a downsampled version. --NEUROtiker ⇌ 21:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment A small version will be useful for many people who don't have the bandwith to download this file in a reasonable time. Yann (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment, I think you should nominate a smaller version (say, 30-40 mpx), and link to this version from the file page. This may be a local occurrence, but Firefox 3.5 refuses to load the picture no matter how long I wait (and the Windows XP picture viewer is unable to zoom in the picture). Additionally, the picture isn't really detailed enough for the 97 mpx - at this size, it is rather unsharp (somewhat similar to how pictures a compact digital camera with 12 mpx don't have enough details for the high resolution to be useful). I appreciate that the full resolution version is useful for certain purposes, such as making huge prints, but even if we feature a smaller version of the picture and link to this version from the file page, anyone who needs the full version of the picture can use the non-FP version. --Aqwis (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that is a sensible suggestion. I can second that. It probably is not worth the trouble convincing that a downsampled version doesn't actually offer better quality, when it will still be huge and suddenly appear immaculate at 100%. --Dschwen (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 True... given the vast amount of comments I've received (within 1 hour of nomination), I'll withdraw my nomination, try to correct it with all of your comments (which are all very good BTW), and submit a better version later. Thank you all --S23678 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Sure, it takes time to open the image, but I could open it with only DSL 700, Windows XP and T-Online Browser. I saw the enlarged image in the resolution 1600x1200, it is mostly very sharp. It shows the town in warm colors and in many details. Yes, there is also a problem with unsharp and twin-lined small parts or strips of the image, above all on the left and lower margin and on some other places. But all together: it is a very interesting image from Machu Picchu to get a general idea of this old town. I hope you will find a way to repair the image in great detail. Later on it will be easy and quick to enlarge such an image with DSL 5000, 10000.... --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:80_-_Machu_Picchu_-_Juin_2009.jpg&oldid=28072324"