Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama Egmond aan Zee Leuchtturm 2014.jpg

File:Panorama Egmond aan Zee Leuchtturm 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 14:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama Egmond aan Zee Leuchtturm 2014.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama Egmond aan Zee Leuchtturm 2014.jpg

10180

1172

443

1667

27312

5210

Vertical lines from the base of the edges of the tower does not align at the same places on the top protruding structure. It appears to be slightly tilted to the right.

•  Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Very nice stitch and very impressive resolution and overall quality. The Leuchtturm is leaning a bit to the right. Is it leaning in reality also? (difficult to find good vertical alignment points on the conically shaped mast). -- Slaunger (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • IMHO OK as it is. If you draw a vertical line through the red top the line reaches exactly the middle of the lighthouse. I've vertically aligned to the buildings at the background and the pano head was perfectly adjusted. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Weird, it does not reach the exact middle on my monitor. First I got, an impression of leaning by just seeing it in thumb. Then I thought it could be some kind of perceived leaning, so I checked by panning over an approximate 50% view and look at the edges of the base of the tower and where the corresponding vertical lines intersected the top. The intersection points are not symmetrical, which I think they should be. I will try to indicate with an annotation, although it is hard to get sufficient precision in drawing the box. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    •  Comment I agree that the remaining building like the church have very good vertical alignment, but the lighthouse protudes much higher and it is really not possible to properly insert vertical alignment points as there are no vertical lines in the lighthouse to align with, and it is my experience that this can easily lead to extrapolation errors although the base align well vertically. Its difficult, its difficult. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Fixed, Slaunger. It took me a lot of time but you had been right, something was wrong there. The problem is that near the light house there are only very few (and short) vertical lines in the background. The solution was to manually add a vertical line with manually estimated coordinates (without having such a long vertical line there). IMHO it is better now, please take another look. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
        •  Support Well done! I send you a mail shortly after my initial comment offering to send a crop showing it, but you found out yourself. It was subtle to see, I agree.-- Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Very little barrel distortion, the sea at the edges is at a higher elevation. I agree that the lighthouse seems leaning. But all the others verticals are straight, so for me it is leaning in reality. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not sure if it is barrel distortion, but I have now fixed the sea level at both sides. Please take another look, Christian (if you have time) and give me a feedback if the elevation issued is fixed for you. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

At full resolution I moved the cursor of the window from a side to the other : The sea at right is straight but is higher than the sea of the left. The level of the sea at left is more straight than the first version but is always a bit leaning especially near the land. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 06:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done It had been only a few pixels, Christian - should now finally corrected. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Perfectly straight, however the right is always a bit higher than the left... -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 07:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO only pixels, with regard to the size of the pano neglectable. Probably a rounding error in Hugin :) --Tuxyso (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Question Something I forgot to ask, when I got distracted by the lighthouse leaning, which is now fixed... The sky alternates between blue and more white: Did you use a polarization filter? -- Slaunger (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Slaunger, using a polarizing filter with Panos is a no-go. If you take a look on the EXIF data you can see that the angle of view is very wide - about 270° - the setting sun is left to the left edge, and right to the right edge thus this is the explanation for the alternating brightness. Exposure time was identical with all shots, light situation did not change during the shot. The brighter areas in the middle are imho due to the opposing sun. Don't expect a 100% homogeneous sky with such a wide view. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • (ec) I agree completely. I had actually looked for FOV information but overlooked it in the EXIF. I just wanted to be sure it was not due to using a polarization filter as that could have given such an effect with smaller FOV. With a FOV of 270° the effect as shown here is as expected and is unavoidable. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • (EC) Add: If you take a look on this 360° pano by Böhringer you can observe a similiar effect: You have two bright spots: The direct sun (and the areas around there) and a brighter area exactly opposed to the direct sun (180° to the direct sun). In my pano the brighter areas around the direct sun are visible at the left and right border, the area 180° from the direct sun is visible in the middle of my pano. All in all I see no problem there. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

so ist es --Böhringer (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Neutral Frankly, I'm sorry but I'm not sure this ordinary (IMO) landscape deserves a so huge work. The technical performance is probably very high, but I feel no wow in any way (and I prefer remain silent about sharpness...).--Jebulon (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Every motive deserves huge work, but time is often limited, Jebulon. If you are on vacation you can take the time, wait for golden hour light and make a highres pano of an (imho) not ordinary landscape. BTW: A panorama of a similiar position with overexposed sky and bad light was sold in the local shops for 300 euros :) Now a much better pano is freely available. Isn't it a benefit? I do not understand your last sentence: "and I prefer remain silent about sharpness". If you see seriously problems with sharpness I can answer: The pano shown here is an unscaled (!!) sensor resolution version - imho the optical performance of the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 I've used here is impressive. Normally panoramic views (also all of my former panos) are normally downscaled (default setting in Hugin is e.g. 70%) thus they look surely sharper at 100% view. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Tuxyso, I think, on sharpness, that Jebulon's comment is saying he would prefer not to engage in yet another FPC discussion over "pixel-peeping" reviews and whether to downsize for FP. Let's agree to disagree on that one and move on. [but I agree with you that the picture is impressively sharp for a non-downscaled pano] -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Colin, got the point now. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Colin, that is exactly what I meant (sorry Tuxyso for the misunderstanding, actualy this part of my comment was not for you)--Jebulon (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --· Favalli ⟡ 00:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 11:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose n.th. featureable --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Laitche (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. Alphama (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas