Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Notre Dame de France Church Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

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

File:Notre Dame de France Church Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2015 at 09:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Notre Dame de France Church
  • As I explained below, Benh is right. In the context he used it, one doesn't mean the number one, it means people. Benh's use of the word 'only' before it does make it extra confusing and I think replacing 'only' with 'however' would be clearer, but he has used it correctly and a native English speaker would (probably) recognise the context properly. It's no surprise that the two people arguing against it are not native speakers of English. Why can't you just trust us that you misunderstood? Diliff (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't really country-specific. Benh is right, it does mean "any person" in that context, generally and can easily be substituted for "you" (which in that context doesn't mean you specifically, it means people in general) and mean the same thing. See here, specifically definitions 19 to 21. I can see how it's confusing for non-native English speakers though. As you can see, the word has a lot of different definitions in different contexts. Diliff (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a forum where English acts as a de facto common language and most contributors don't feel too comfortable with that language, I think it's good to take the time to clear up misunderstandings (and this is one!). Think we've all been there :) - Benh (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But he is the reference by which the other opposers have justified their votes, and he has started a little argument about the use of English that he misunderstood... It still needs to be sorted out even if it isn't directly related to votes. Misunderstandings can quickly multiply (as the 'per' votes may show). Diliff (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is. But not the same kind. As I already said, some projections keep lines straight, other keep proportions and/or areas... There always are some kind of tradeoff. But because we are used to small to medium FOV and rectilinear, as most lenses are, we find it unusual when seeing something fisheye, or rectilinear with a wide FOV... Just a matter of education. - Benh (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think what Dllu means is that there was no distortion other than normal rectilinear perspective distortion. I suspect he knows this as his user page says he's studied engineering physics and 3D graphics and geometry. That's a pretty good basis to understand geometric distortion. I agree that it's simply a matter of education. People are unfamiliar with views this wide. We think our eyes can see this wide (and in a weird way, they do give you that impression), but really we see a very narrow field of view at any time, and scan our eyes around a room to build a wide angle mental picture of the scene. This lets us 'cheat' perspective distortion because the image only exists as a concept in our minds. ;-) We never have to truly deal with keeping lines straight and vertical at the periphery of our vision. Diliff (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I "don't like the result", and I hope that "matter of education" is not as offensive in a french translation as it could sound at first. I don't feel "miseducated", I just feel this picture unreal, like the other opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not disputing that people might not like the result. I'm just trying to clarify that what people might be calling distortion is a misunderstanding that the room is actually curved and not rectangular. As for "education", it was a fellow Frenchman that mentioned it first. ;-) But read what I said above... I believe a lot of the discomfort that some people feel with a wide angle rectilinear view is because we're simply not familiar with it. It is 'real' in terms of geometry, it just isn't a view that the eye (and brain) usually sees and so I think some people have an instinctual reaction against it. I'm not saying you have to like the result. I just disagree that it isn't real. Of course less perspective distortion would be great, but you'd be sacrificing a lot of the interior space to avoid it. In a small interior, it's simply not possible to get further back to reduce the angle of view (and therefore perspective distortion) while maintaining the amount of the interior shown. Diliff (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not offensive. It's in the sense growing up with it, and so getting used to it. It's not in the sense "you are stupid and so cannot understand it. Just to be clear :) - Benh (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Notre_Dame_de_France_Church_Interior,_London,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg&oldid=168070936"