Commons:Featured picture candidates/Sd.Kfz. 250-1 (alt) 01.png

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

Image:Sd.Kfz. 250-1 (alt) 01.png - not featured

[edit]

Sd.Kfz. 250/1 (alt)

{{FPX|too small and lacking proper image description. --[[User:Norro|norro]] 09:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)}}

  • FPX can't be used when there are already two support votes. --MichaelMaggs 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I've just added sources. Render at 2000x1500px is in prograss (it will take a couple of hours). Im waiting for more conclusions, so I could correct/unify rest of my work. Spike78 11:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Theres a small technical problem with bigger render. Ill try to fix it but ill take some more time. Spike78 17:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Could you please supply more detail about what is shown and why it's of interest, and also about the program you used to create it? I'm a bit concerned about the sources you used; you give ISBNs but not titles and dates of publication. Were the sources within those books photographs or drawings, and are you able to show that they are out of copyright? Otherwise, there may be a copyright infringement problem. --MichaelMaggs 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is a 3D model drawn in Autodesk Autocad 2007, i dont understand Your concerns about copyright: 2D plans were published as well as photos as copyrighted. So I redrawned 2D plans in acad and then made 3D model and then corrected the model by comparing it to several photos... well I think details of whole algorithm isn't worth writing. This picture isn't even similar to any of graphics nor photos published in sources. I will add full (and then redundant) information about sources and anything You like. I've (unfortunately) never disputed seriously about these works so im grateful for Your comments. Spike78 12:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Has been contructed, as I understand it, essentially from plans and photos published in two recent books. Unless we have a reason to suppose those plans and photos are in the public domain my concerns that this is a copyright infringement remain. --MichaelMaggs 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Errrr... if I'd do a photo of modern building would You be concerned if "plans are copyrighted" because building is "recent"? I don't undersand it. Oh, do You have a permission to use this for a photo from the manufacturer? 'cause there may be a copyright infringement problem. Spike78 01:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Completely irrelevant. 3D based on published 2D plans cannot be a subject of any "copyrights" (regarding 2D plans authors). If so, all models (especially modern ones, like airliners) would be violating these, because we dont think that Boeing has relased its design and plans into PD? 3D modelling of any form is far beyond of any "derivativeness". Please think about it, and verify your vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masur (talk • contribs) 05:39, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
      • My oppose is based on the copying of 2D plans into another 2D form in acad. That is copyright infringement unless the original plans can be shown to be in the public domain, or you have a licence. The chess example is different since (a) I did not do any 2D -> 2D copying of any original plans, and (b) that design is out of copyright. To answer the question about buildings: yes, buildings do have copyright, which normally expires 70 years after the death of the architect. There are special provisions in some countries, though, which allow photographs to be freely taken in spite of that. See Commons:Freedom of panorama. --MichaelMaggs 06:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So? Plans were coppied and? We don't have them anymore in the final work. Pls think about those Boeing models. One can say, that capturing and publishing a photo of that models was a copyrights violation of 2d plans, because 2D plans were included in a box with model and "derivative" work (3D model, not even 3D, but photo of it) was finally released under GNU license. Dont be ridiculous. In your oppinion, as far as I understood it, ANY 2D/3D work based on existing template is copyvio... What concerns also buildings, airplanes, models, and so on... photos. Oh, another example - one can buy a architectonic plans and legally build a house based on them. And now, when I take a photo of that house, and relase it, i will make a copyvio? I think that somewhere is a limit of "derivativeness", and it is closer than you think. Otherwise we wouldnt be allowed to build any models! Masur 06:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please see Commons:Derivative works. --MichaelMaggs 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • So i think all is about: In short, all transfers of a creative, copyrightable work into a new media count as derivative works. But creating (because its creating! not reproducing or simply changing media) 3d model basing on 2d plans, is, IMO, not a transfer to a new media. Because I create (build) sth completely new and uniqe, as well as my interpretation of those plans is original (i.e. color schemes, details). And you just gave me the link to that page , but you didnt answer what about other models? Those plastics ones i.e. If this particular work (3D digital construction based on 2D (i dont go deep into how accurate is that reconstruction, cosit may be that changes of original concept from plans can be so large that no copyrights can be potentially aplied anyway) printed plans) is for you copyvio, ANY other model is a copyvio too. Cos in most cases they are constructed basing on plans prepared and sold by certain company (i.e. Italeri, if I remember the name of one of them). Pls notice also that those plan were not intended to be basis of any 3D digital reconstruction, I assume that they were more or less simple profile drawings or projections. And once again - plans are only recipe and NOT a work themselves. Masur 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support PMG 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't like it for FP, because it does not WOW me. --Taraxacum 14:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Wow for me though -βαςεLXIV™ 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ala z talk 14:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Good modeling but standard rendering & cheap lighting. The wood shader is very poor, same for the metal shader on the tools. The MG 42 has a poor antialiasing same here with the shader. I miss decals. It's 2008 now and there are much better renderer around such as Maxwell or Vray. --Richard Bartz 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Decals hmmm... I've done models with and without them. If theres a need (and I also like them) i can make them. But i wanted to show "standard vehicle". Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Johney (T∀LK) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice idea for a rendering, but would need a bit more work done on it such as lighting etc. --Freedom to share 18:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ill try to make better ambient. Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Good but I agree it needs a bit more work. /Daniel78 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Work on what? Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I should be more clear :) I was mostly thinking about the lighting as mentioned by others. And perhaps there could be some sort of texture on the metal plates ? I do not know how it looks in reality but currently it looks slightly plastic instead of metallic to me. /Daniel78 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ill try to find better texture for it. Using better lightning is now for me out of question. I've rendered this under Acad (and the ambient light is simulated by approx. 100 point lights placed spherically), now i will do it (and the others) on my gf comp under 3dmax. I didn't care about it 'cause I've allways considered these works as "technical" not "artistic". Take a look at my earlier models - they have even more simplified lightning, Ill correct them too after this discussion but I want to "collect" any "cons" so I could do it absolutely-total-good-and-nice. I just want Wiki to have the best pics in this matter all over the net. That's why I'm asking about any "cons" to be precise. And thank You for Your opinion. Spike78 12:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral for now --Amazing 3D model with lots of details of this vehicle, but some small issues should be corrected as the overall quality deserves it : the lightning could be much better, the dim shadow around the vehicle looks like it has been made with MS Paint and as R. Bartz wrote, some anti aliasing corrections are needed. Well done ! Sting 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose poor antialiasing and small size. Lycaon 20:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Dull lighting, I am sorry. Barabas

 Info All negatives ale better than positives for me. I've allways wanted to know how to do it better. I know that 3d-model alone isn't all - but I've got a pretty dull comp, so the lightning is also dull ;) My GF agreed to help me with her hot-machine ;) Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

9 support, 10 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Sd.Kfz._250-1_(alt)_01.png&oldid=141880926"