Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stereoscope (Loreo).jpg

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

File:Stereoscope (Loreo).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2020 at 22:44:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stereoscope with stereo cards
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •  Info The stereogram of a stereoscope with three stereo cards creates seen through a stereoscope or VR goggles a superb sensation of submersion in reality. -- created by C.Suthorn - uploaded by C.Suthorn - nominated by C.Suthorn -- C.Suthorn (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- C.Suthorn (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose While it’s a witty idea, the resulting picture is below excellence IMHO. Contrast too harsh, visible artifacts. Most of the subject is unsharp, making high resolution pointless. Try focus stacking. --Kreuzschnabel 07:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment the image is meant to be viewed with a stereoscope, or today actually VR goggles. This are available with resolutions of max. 4K. This image viewed in this way gives a better feeling of "real world" than many other 3D images I have seen. While I have no prove for it, I assume, that a contributing factor is, that the downscaling from its original resolution is done by the device used with the goggles (and is different with the device being UHD, QHD, FHD, HDR and 16:9, 18:9, 20:9 or any other individual properties). For me this image has the special "wow" factor, that is asked for in FP, and that to me many but far from all FPs have. --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose using flat objects such as paper is perhaps the worst type of object to use to demonstrate depth in such an image. Unexplained crop, angle, choice of photos and low exposure. Whilst a meta concept, it's not FP worthy compared to other stereo images uploaded.--BevinKacon (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Question You speak about "concept" and it sounds as if you are judging a textual description of the image, no word about what your sensation was, when you saw the 3D image through a stereo device. As I wrote above, this image has to me an appeal, that only a few other 3D images (from commons or oher sources) have. --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I appreciate the clever idea and bringing something unusual to FPC. I think there is an inevitable issue, though, based on your responses above: I don't think it's safe to assume more than one or two reviewers (if that) will be looking at this through a stereoscopic device. Even for someone like me who has a Google Cardboard somewhere, maybe I'm lazy but digging it out, remembering how to set it up, finding a gallery app, downloading an image, and putting it on just doesn't seem like a practical step in the FPC review process. Perhaps if someone were a regular user of such devices, it would be natural, but for most people this will be evaluated as this photo pair, according to typical standards for FPC. And per those standards, one of the main elements is the stereogram in the device, which along with the back of the device is quite soft. I think for someone like me an interesting 3d image starts with some wow factor and educational value built in, but the technical bits need to be there, too. — Rhododendrites talk14:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - If only someone could create a stereoscopic viewing program for this site that's easily clickable like the 3D panorama viewing program, we'd be able to give a fair review of stereoscopic images. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per above, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]