Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brompton Oratory 360x180, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Brompton Oratory 360x180, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2016 at 06:56:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
- Info An equirectangular 360x180 degree view of the nave of Brompton Oratory in London, England. Should be viewed in the 360° viewer. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Code -- Code (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Code (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support wow. --Hubertl 07:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Ohh Diliff! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Of course it is very impressive with the "viewer", but every window suffers from flares, a no-go for any single picture here.--Jebulon (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 21:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose While i can appreciate the time and effort taken to compose this photo, i have rarely found these exaggerated perspectives aesthetically pleasing.--Fotoriety (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)- Fotoriety, if you're only viewing it as a regular flat photo (as it seems you are judging by your comment), then you're missing the point of this image. It's intended to be viewed using a special panorama viewer as Code mentioned when he nominated the image. There are no 'exaggerated perspectives' when viewed with the viewer - you can completely control your perspective with it. Diliff (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- I see. Such information and advice escaped me earlier. Sorry. Once viewed in the 360° viewer, your photo is simply stupendous. Congrats!--Fotoriety (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fotoriety, if you're only viewing it as a regular flat photo (as it seems you are judging by your comment), then you're missing the point of this image. It's intended to be viewed using a special panorama viewer as Code mentioned when he nominated the image. There are no 'exaggerated perspectives' when viewed with the viewer - you can completely control your perspective with it. Diliff (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Simply stunning. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support stunning it is... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support A nice 360° panorama. - Benh (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 19:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support I think Jebulon has a point. Perhaps Diliff can explain if the flare is particularly excusable here for a 360? Or was it just the lens you used was prone to it. Still, it is currently one of our finest 360s so FP. -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's just a combination of the lens used (Samyang 14mm) and the fact that it was a very high contrast scene. Flare is accentuated by bracketing / HDR merging, because the brightest exposure in the set (overexposure for almost everything except deep shadow detail) is the one that has the strongest flare, and it ends up being used when HDR merging because the flare is seen as 'useful detail', even though it's really not. So although the flare is not ideal, it's difficult to avoid except with the very best lenses - ultrawides tend to suffer from flare more than most other lenses. I'd do all my 360 panoramas with my much less flare-prone Sigma 35mm lens but it's often prohibitively time consuming as it requires a minimum of 205 images to complete the set. The much higher quality 360 of Chapel Royal was taken with the 35mm lens, although it's really impossible to notice any difference with the limited resolution of the current Commons 360 viewer. Diliff (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Diliff for interesting explanations. But I think that the bunch of supports is due more to the spectacular 360 effect than to the quality of the picture (which is very good, but not excellent). Again, there are flares almost everywhere, and nobody here would have accepted this for a single shot picture. That's why I oppose. (I use this kind of 360° views at my job).--Jebulon (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, FPs are always a combination of excellent image quality and spectacular subject - some just have more of one than the other. I think it's an exaggeration to say that there are flares everywhere... there are only 3-4 windows with significant flares. I do think it's an inherent issue with high contrast HDR scenes though. It can be minimised with pro quality lenses but it is often still there even with the best lenses that money can buy. Diliff (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- The quality via the 360 viewer is disappointing (compared to directly looking at the JPG) but a better experience. However, such a 3D room really shows up that you are still looking at a 2D image rather than a realistic 3D immersive view. -- Colin (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- True, but immersive 3D is still a while off (Light field technology and a lot of processing power is required for it to be both photorealistic and navigable). As far as the viewer goes, I need to bug User:Dschwen again to see if he can put a bit of development time into offering multiple resolution options for the 360 viewer template, or alternatively multi-resolution support in the viewer itself (Pannellum supports multi-res, so it's just a matter of incorporating the feature, I imagine). Diliff (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have this on my radar. I need to write the on-damand serverside processing for multiresolution support. --Dschwen (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- True, but immersive 3D is still a while off (Light field technology and a lot of processing power is required for it to be both photorealistic and navigable). As far as the viewer goes, I need to bug User:Dschwen again to see if he can put a bit of development time into offering multiple resolution options for the 360 viewer template, or alternatively multi-resolution support in the viewer itself (Pannellum supports multi-res, so it's just a matter of incorporating the feature, I imagine). Diliff (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Of course this picture will be promoted. So it is just a discussion. Anyway, the experience is excellent, and a great challenge. Diliff, you must be congratulated because of that. @ Benh, ça me réconcilie avec les panoramiques, je comprends mieux dans ma tête ! Lol. One can make this kind of view in an interactive way, with clickable elements, and links to another room (the treasure room, or the sacristy for instance) and then enjoy a virtual visit etc...--Jebulon (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- The quality via the 360 viewer is disappointing (compared to directly looking at the JPG) but a better experience. However, such a 3D room really shows up that you are still looking at a 2D image rather than a realistic 3D immersive view. -- Colin (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, FPs are always a combination of excellent image quality and spectacular subject - some just have more of one than the other. I think it's an exaggeration to say that there are flares everywhere... there are only 3-4 windows with significant flares. I do think it's an inherent issue with high contrast HDR scenes though. It can be minimised with pro quality lenses but it is often still there even with the best lenses that money can buy. Diliff (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Diliff for interesting explanations. But I think that the bunch of supports is due more to the spectacular 360 effect than to the quality of the picture (which is very good, but not excellent). Again, there are flares almost everywhere, and nobody here would have accepted this for a single shot picture. That's why I oppose. (I use this kind of 360° views at my job).--Jebulon (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's just a combination of the lens used (Samyang 14mm) and the fact that it was a very high contrast scene. Flare is accentuated by bracketing / HDR merging, because the brightest exposure in the set (overexposure for almost everything except deep shadow detail) is the one that has the strongest flare, and it ends up being used when HDR merging because the flare is seen as 'useful detail', even though it's really not. So although the flare is not ideal, it's difficult to avoid except with the very best lenses - ultrawides tend to suffer from flare more than most other lenses. I'd do all my 360 panoramas with my much less flare-prone Sigma 35mm lens but it's often prohibitively time consuming as it requires a minimum of 205 images to complete the set. The much higher quality 360 of Chapel Royal was taken with the 35mm lens, although it's really impossible to notice any difference with the limited resolution of the current Commons 360 viewer. Diliff (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Per Colin. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Undoubtedly one of our finest picture. --Yann (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment undoubtedly ? wow. For you, maybe. I think we should avoid to use this kind of empty words...--Jebulon (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support — Julian H.✈ 14:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support @Rillke: Could be nice see the pano tool in POTY, like this nomination --The Photographer (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings