Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:California Sea Lions at Pier 39 August 7 2009.jpg

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

Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2009 at 12:48:59
Pier 39

Why panorama? I believed that it is interesting to show wild sea lions peacefully minding their own business in the center of a big city. There are hundreds of the images similar to the one you mentioned. There are very few panoramas, maybe none is as complete as mine is.--Two+two=4 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Several severe stiching errors - too numerous to point out individually. There is something else, which distracts my eye. It is as if there is some wavyness in the horizon and/or vertical lines in the buildings are not vertical. Have not checked with a ruler (yet) though. But if you fix the stitching errors, I will spend some more time scrutinizing it. --Slaunger (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I cannot fix the stitching errors because I do not see them on my 20 inches monitor. Maybe you could point out three or four the most severe ones? Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral You've fixed two significant stitching errors. One of them gave us a turning sea lion in action, good. So I think we are getting there. I have added observations regarding two minor stitching errors as annotations on the file page - I have reported one of them previously. The annotations are just informative, feel free to remove them again from the file page if you find them too pedantic - the annotations are convenient for pointing them out. Hell, if you fix those two as well, I might even support . --Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support despite the stitching errors. Those should be fixed, though. @Two+two=4: Look along the bridge in the left half of the picture. You will find it is "broken" in some places. -- JovanCormac 05:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jovan is right, also look along the roofs. A good way to detect stitching errors is to look for discontinuities (abrupt displacements) in lines which ought to be straight, like in the bridge mentioned. There are plenty of those there, which I can easily see on my 15 inch laptop monitor. I am quite surprised no-one else has noticed that and/or withheld support until it is fixed and it makes me wonder if reviewers take the time to go beyond preview size. We should go for the best of the best at FPC at that includes nitpicking over fixable details IMO. Only one image in 2300 image on Commons gets featured after all... --Slaunger (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      If you mean the roof of the building just below the palms, there are no errors there. It is how the roof really looks. I could upload one of the originals with the roof, if you'd like me to.Otherwise I still see no errors along the roofs. Maybe you could name one specific roof you have in mind. I could upload an original of the roof and we could compare. --Two+two=4 (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Kallerna -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could only repeat that it is not a problem to take images of sea lions in California. They are everywhere even in the places where they do not suppose to be like for example here.I believe it is much more interesting and much more encyclopedic to take images of sea lions with a view of their surroundings.--Two+two=4 (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominator on this point. It is more interesting to see the sea lions in a context where its surroundings are seen. --Slaunger (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Kallerna. The biggest "Pier 39" disturb me. Between the two "Pier 39" there is two panorama errors : a head of a sea lion is not sticked with his body but few centimeters down. Upper, a part of a sea lion head is missing -- Olivier Jaulent (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no missing head. Sea lions they could turn their heads you know. Maybe it is better to make sure before claiming such severe error as a missing head, Here's the original with a "missing head" --Two+two=4 (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not speaking about a sea lion which is turning his head. I saw that you have corrected the first head I was speaking about, the one which was not sticked with the body. But There is always a mistake. The second error is just upper the one you have corrected, it is the sea lion which is sleeping a black one : a part of the head if cover by the wood of the floor. --Olivier Jaulent (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about the black sea lion who is sleeping on the dock before the last one he too looks exactly the same as he does at the original image that I linked to just above.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinate of error : 4174x1305 (when you take upper left as start point - 0x0 - ), but as I said there is the big "Pier 39" which is really disturbing me too --Olivier Jaulent (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to work with coordinates. Maybe you could mark the error and upload the image? I'd like to ask Slaunger to do the same. Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some stitching problems

Sure, here are my observations. One of them wre the sea lion head which really looked cut of, I have striked that out. Hope this helps in sending the message. It is not easy to do when the animals are moving between images. --Slaunger (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stitching errors in the background are really minor. The major problems are in the foreground. --Slaunger (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will work on it.--Two+two=4 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know which stitching software you are using (could be relevant to specify on the file page btw), but I can recommend thee freely license application Hugin as has an intelligent blend mechanism which avoid moving objects in the overlap between images provided that the overlap is sufficiently large and the movements are not too massive. It may work, or it may not work in your case, I don't know. --Slaunger (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used Hugin but it was a very hard image to stitch. Too much was going on including the tourists who were popping up in my view finder all the time. Thanks for helping me to find the errors. I corrected foreground ones. For correcting background errors I first need to order a new eyeglasses I guess --Two+two=4 (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your challenges with the stitching. It is a hard job with all those movements, and maybe I am overkeen 'bout them stitching errors, but thanks for addressing the worst ones anyhow. See my changed vote above. --Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Slaunger. It is really nice of you not only to help me to find the errors, but even to change your oppose vote. I corrected few more.--Two+two=4 (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I realize I am a pedantic pain in the a....--Slaunger (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I had to search for several minutes to find what appeared to be a stitching error; that's hardly significant enough to justify denying the photo featured status. I also don't mind the sign. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I really like the complete view and showing the sea lions' environment. However, maybe I am also too pedantic, but allowing stitching errors is a no-no for an FP. (I realise the major ones have been fixed, but the others (particularly the one on the bridge) are still important to me.) Sometimes the errors are unavoidable or extremely difficult to fix, I know that, but as a result, not every good view can be an FP. I also feel silly saying this, but that Pier 39 sign is annoying, :-) I would like this so much more if the view was from behind the sign instead of in front of it. Sorry! Maedin\talk 13:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, you wanted me to take the images behind the sign, which means to jump to the docks , hurt myself and then got arrested for the approaching sea lions? Strange.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I didn't know if it was possible or not! Sounds like it's a good thing the sign is in the pic, then, . Maedin\talk 14:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is how it looks and by the way all the errors pointed out by Slaunger were fixed.--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So they have, looks good! Thanks for letting me know, I switch to  Support. Maedin\talk 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleared my cache three times, reloaded again and again, but on my screen I still see the same two medium stitching errors I have marked as annotations on the file page. So either I am hallucinating, do not know how to reload or the errors are still there... --Slaunger (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am missing something but I do not know where to look for the annotations you added to the file page. Could you please link me to them? Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I forgot to tell you about Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator. It is a cool new gadget, which will very soon be enabled by default (I hope), see Commons:Village Pump#New interface feature. I think it will be of great help at FPC in the future for discussion specific problems with nominations. --Slaunger (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You simply need to enable that as described, and then, when your mouse is hovering over the file preview on the file page, everything will be clear for you. --Slaunger (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did it, but for some reason it does not work for me. Were the errors you poinet out to in the annotations the same ones that you pointed out at the image you've uploaded?--Two+two=4 (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you cleared your cache also? If yes, you should see two very small boxes indicating problem areas on the file page preview (not on this page), when hovering the mouse over the image. One of the areas is a previously marked one, which does not seems to have been addressed. The other one is a new one. --Slaunger (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected one more error (the old one) I do not thing there is an error in the other place you poined out. Here's the original.--Two+two=4 (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas