Comment Excellent encyclopedic documentation, I almost gave it a support vote. However, camera angle and grid perspective (especially the right one) seems too much off to me. --Foroa14:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you elaborate on that? As you can see in the file history, the illustration was subject of several improvements remarked by three users. However, I very much appreciate your review. --norro15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Somehow there is a disparity between the subject of the illustration and the scope. What is shown is how a 2D-representation of a scene changes with the point of view of the camera, and it illustrates the reason for that quite well. On the other hand, Epipolar geometry refers to the mathematical method of analysing that effect. How that is done, is in no way an object matter here. So, strictly speaking, the more technical illustrations of the same category like Image:Epipolar_geometry.svg have more merits in actually explaining things. However, they would not mean much without the nominated one to tell what it is all about. -- Hk kng19:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image does not meet the scope: It depicts a stereo camera setup and nicely shows how the pictures are formed. Nevertheless the Epipolar Geometry - which it is claiming in the scope - is not really visible. For that scope at least one epipolar line containing an image ray of one camera and its projection into the image of the other camera would be essential. That is why I oppose based on criteria 2 and 3 which are both not fulfilled. Anyway the picture is valuable and I would recommend changing the scope to Most valuable image of a Stereo Camera Setup and renominating it. -- Dr. Schorsch07:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
