Commons:Featured media candidates/File:Lumen Sapientiae.webm

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2023 at 05:20:34


File Location File location
 Support Neutral Oppose



  •  Oppose Whatever color correction was used, the artistic style of it is hurting my eyes. Also, the overreliance on drone work is deeply confusing. I just don't see what's so special. -- Sea Cow (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @El Grafo and @Sea Cow , thanks a lot for the comments. We tried to create a nostalgic vibe for the people who have already visited the place/the alumni of the college at the first part of the video (we know, this group of audience is very low in number), then, gradually, we tried to upscale it and tried to make it brighter and hopeful. We didn't consider the artistic part only, we tried to cover every aspect of the subject place in this video. We took 500-550 raw clips following a brief list of historically important areas of the college campus which took almost 2 months. Later we selected only 50-55 shots which can be now seen in the media. I know, single shot-single scene videos are safe in terms of featured media evaluation. On the other hand, media works with a large number of small and well-planned shots are more prone to mistakes, cause you'll have to put them all together and spend hours of editing. This video has 50-55 small shots, which means it is equivalent to 50-55 one-shot type videos, and the effort behind this can never be compared to the single-scene videos. The intention behind covering every possible aspect of the subject in a single media file is to make it more appropriate to use in other Wikimedia project entries on this topic. The subject campus is even related to the history of the independence of a country, we had to include those historical corners also in this media. And we had no other option but to use drones to take those shots which couldn't be done with handheld photography equipment, for example, the position of different academic buildings and playgrounds in the whole campus, the position of the campus in the city, taller buildings, and aerial view of the crowd. Please consider these facts also while evaluating this media file. The whole work took almost 8 months and this media work has been produced just to release on Wikimedia Commons. We produced this video with a lot of restrictions, no financial and technical support, no previous experience, no fancy equipment (the drones and cameras were lent by people), and not even a high-quality monitor to work on the color. That may be a reason behind the difference between expectation and the produced work. --Wasiul Bahar (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wasiul Bahar: Thanks for the response, I suspected something like that... First of all, let me say that I very much appreciated the fact that this is not a simple video of a single shot. Those are boring. Pulling this off is by orders of magnitude harder than most other user-created content we get to see here. I think if you consider alumni and other people with a strong connection to that place as your main audience, this a really good start. But as you say, that's only going to be a negligible fraction of the people here. With your explanations, I can now see what you were going for, but that isn't quite clear from the video itself. I'm by no means a videographer myself, but here are some ideas from an uninvolved mind that might get you closer to your intended result:
    1. Instead of "nostalgic" I got "dreary" vibes. Maybe tone down the vignetting a bit and try some more friendly looking color grading?
    2. When the music picks up, so should the visuals. That could mean a change in color grading (e.g. warmer, punchier colors). Could also mean a switch to less slow tracking, less wide angles, less drone shots, more movement, more people, more faces, more close-ups.
    3. Cut it down to about half the current length. Yes, I know: Ouch! Keep an "extended cut" for actual alumni, but let's face it: most other people won't have the patience to watch 5 minutes of footage about a college they never heard about before. Sorry.
    That being said: now that I've read a bit about it, I'm impressed by the whole NDEC project. Keep it up and be proud of your work! El Grafo (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support FM for me -- Towhidul Islam 21 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Towhidul Islam 21Towhidul Islam 21 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This vote is highly likely meat puppetry, closing admin, please note that this user attends the college that is shown in this video. Sea Cow (talk) Sea Cow (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let me balance that by actually  opposing rather than just commenting. El Grafo (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Towhidul Islam 21: , thanks a lot for your review and the vote. I assume, you voted from a good faith. You, of course, have the right to review and vote any of the fm candidates including this one. But the best-recommended practice is, since you are somehow or other connected to the subject being voted on, to review it in a more neutral style rather than just support it without any criteria being addressed, or just keeping yourself aside from direct support or oppose. This is to ensure that the organic voting process goes on its own way and doesn't get skewed to any particular guided direction. For the same reason, we, the people who are directly involved in this production is trying to be in distance from this review process. Please don't stop reviewing, you can ofc review the other fm, fi, qi or vi candidates. --Mrb Rafi (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_media_candidates/File:Lumen_Sapientiae.webm&oldid=838769929"