Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Templeborough Roman Fort visualised 3D flythrough - Rotherham.webm
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Templeborough Roman Fort visualised 3D flythrough - Rotherham.webm, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2017 at 16:24:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
- Info created by Rotherham Museums and Archives - uploaded by PatHadley - nominated by Richard Nevell. The Roman fort no longer survives, but this museum reconstruction shows how the site may have appeared. -- Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Broken thumbnail. This should be fixed before anything: phab:T164401. Yann (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- +1; will wait to !vote until this is fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - The video is playing for me, and it's very valuable and something I'd usually vote to feature without a second thought. However, there is some unfortunate distortion in some frames that I would like to be edited out, unless it's somehow on my end, in which case, I may not be able to fairly judge this video. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I can watch it (and I like what I've seen so far). But what I see at this nomination is just the play button floating over this ... no thumbscene. I think that's what Yann is talking about. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have that same view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I can watch it (and I like what I've seen so far). But what I see at this nomination is just the play button floating over this ... no thumbscene. I think that's what Yann is talking about. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a good visualisation. But the resolution is low, especially since texture filtering and anti-aliasing show noticeable problems and compression artifacts are really prominent. — Julian H.✈ 09:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment If memory serves, I had to use VLC to convert it from some obscure format. I'll see if I can dig out the original file and stick it on a server somewhere so someone with better AV file knowledge can do a better conversion? PatHadley (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- @PatHadley: If it's mts, avi, mov, wmv, mp4, ogv, ogg and mpeg the Video Convert tool can do the job pretty well. I'd be happy to try. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results: