Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:HDMY Dannebrog (A540) 2017-08-16.jpg

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

File:HDMY Dannebrog (A540) 2017-08-16.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2018 at 16:29:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Her Danish Majesty's Yacht Dannebrog
Discussion on horizontal - fixed
  •  Comment Not horizontal -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basile I don't understand your comment. Do you mean you'd prefer if I was perpendicular to the ship and/or the shore? I am at an angle to both. As far as I can see, using the buildings as reference, the verticals are vertical. I assume the ship masts aren't vertical because of the pitch of the ship in the water at the moment I took it, and also because some ships masts are "raked aft" -- slope back. But I'm not very knowledgeable about ships. -- Colin (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks perfectly ok to me. Most lines on a ship are not vertical or horizontal. The best way to align is sometimes going by some portholes or windows, but that's not good either since most ships tilt some way in water. You can't apply the same rules for ships as for buildings. --cart-Talk 11:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The water is not horizontal. I've added a note. Also I wonder why this photo was downsized from 18,7 to 12,2 Mp on the 27th of February, 2 months after this comment : "It is a vicious-circle if people start routinely downsizing images to improve sharpness, then reviewers get unrealistic expectations of sharpness, which encourages further downsizing" -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how you can tell the water is not horizontal. There is no horizon. The photo has had it's verticals corrected, which entails some stretching towards the top of the image. I initially tried to compensate for that by scaling down a little but in the end decided I had scaled too far and so removed that. As a result I had to work harder to denoise the sky, which was emphasised by the stretch and the fact that when folk pixel-peep to 100% they often see the top left in high magnification. So even in the smaller original upload, the top of the picture is not downsized, only the bottom was. In the larger one, the top of the picture is > 100% size, but there is mainly just sky there so you don't see any stretched pixels. -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basile it would be useful for me, rather than just drawing a line on the image, for you to explain why you think the angle is wrong and how you judge what the angle should be. The technique I use is to ensure that verticals that need to be vertical are vertical (like the building). Horizontals aren't relevant AFAIK unless one is taking architectural shot where one is expected to be perpendicular to the facing wall, or one is photographing the sea and the horizon is in the frame. What you seem to have indicated is the bank of the port at Copenhagen. This is only 200m from me at the nearest point and 1km from me at the opera house. So I'm not expecting the bank to be horizontal in the frame, due to perspective. -- Colin (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a tilt in this picture like there was a tilt in this one recently File:Nolan_warthogs_(Phacochoerus_africanus_africanus)_juveniles_drinking.jpg before it was corrected. And wildlife it is not architectural photography. Wrong horizontal is unpleasant, the problem is just there. Now the photo only needs a rotation of 0,65 degrees to look normal. This will also improve the angle of the masts. Concerning the buildings, the transformation won't affect their verticality because they're so small, such angle has no influence on so little objects. But the inclination of the water sure will stop looking strange, pitching like the boat. The horizon is there : that bank, located at equal distance left and right. It is definitely not 200 meters vs 1 kilometers, because the height of the wall and the height of the guardrail is the same on the left and on the right. An object located at 1 km would look smaller than at 200 meters, this is an elementary rule in perspective : File:Perspective1.jpg. The fact that a perfectly straight strip of regular thickness can link the left and the right of the bank whithout any deformation nor perspective effect clearly indicates the equidistance of the camera from those two points. This is visible on the link given above : in red the wrong inclination, in white the right one. Due to this equidistance, the water should be flat and perfectly horizontal. Only the water around the boat is logically tilted, due to the (very visible) perspective -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will check the verticals again tonight. But the bank is not equidistant. Please follow the geo coordinates and look wehre the "Nyholm Central Guardhouse" is and "Copenhagen Opera House" is. I have measured it and the distances are 200m to the near bank and 1km to the opera house. A bank is not a horizon, and can be very misleading which may be causing your optical upset. I don't see any guardrail on the right of the boat. I do see a car which looks very tiny compared to the two vehicles on the left of the boat. If you look on Bing maps with the aerial view then you can see the actual ship in the water. And you can see the water-edge goes in and out and in and out and has a long way to go to reach the opera house. -- Colin (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per above. This boat measures only 78 meters. The photo was not taken with a telephoto, it was shot with a wide angle of 16mm only. To get such a large image of a ship with a 16mm focal lens, the camera needs to be located at about 30m only from the subject, not further. The boat is attached to the bank on the right side with a visible rope. This rope doesn't measure 1 km. Compared to the size of the boat, this rope measures maybe 80 meters maximum, no more. Addition : 30+78+80 = 188 meters. The camera is located at 188 meters maximum from the point where the boat is attached. The Opera house is far behind, and the ship is no way attached to the Opera house . If the Nyholm Central Guardhouse is located "closer" at 200 meters, then it's just fine. We can see the bank is a continuity from left to right. Exactly the same height and exactly the same direction. The guardrail on the left is regular too : no perspective deformation. Only the water is leaning right. This bank can be considered as a horizon as long as the distance to the left is the same than to the right, which is obviously the case here. Water is always flat, so should be horizontality -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting inspectory work, haha! Having walked along that area for a couple of times, had to check it out too. I think Basile is right based on this pic: The banks on the left and right are a continuation (maybe a 20 metre shift or smth) and should be level. Nevertheless, I like the picture enough. Manelolo (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basile. Ok I see the thing you are talking about and it is not a "bank" and not a "horizon". There is a very thin strip of defensive wood or concrete structure sticking out into the water at various angles as can be seen on Bing maps or the photograph linked above. There isn't a wall or guardrail on the right that I can see, whereas on the left I can see the port bank concrete wall and guardrail behind/above this wooden strip. Measuring on Bing it so happens by complete chance that the wooden strip is placed at various angles from where I guess my camera was that it is around 165m on both sides. I will have another go at levelling it tonight. But I have found all this talk of horizon and water being flat to be a complete red herring. If those strips of wood were at any other angle, they would be quite hopeless as a guide, and there is certainly no horizon in this photo. -- Colin (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basile, Manelolo, I have uploaded a new version with altered horizontals. Hope that is better for you. I think we got there in the end! -- Colin (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
✓  Horizontal now -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 21:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Ships
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:HDMY_Dannebrog_(A540)_2017-08-16.jpg&oldid=291400948"