Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/El Castillo Stitch 2008 Edit 2.jpg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

El Castillo Stitch 2008 Edit 2.jpg[edit]

El Castillo is the largest and most well known of the structures at Chichen Itza and, indeed, the Mayan civilization.
Outlines of the 3 mentioned pictures so far, clearly demonstrating Image:El Castillo Stitch 2008 Edit 2.jpg is distorted somehow.
Reason
Currently not used in the article space at all. Superseded by a higher quality image.
Articles this image appears in
None.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/El Castillo Stitch 2008 Edit 2.jpg
Nominator
J Milburn (talk)
  • Delist — J Milburn (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference: File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg - the newer image. Jujutacular T · C 00:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I was going to say why don't we remove the other lower quality images from the article and leave this image, but I don't think that it would be best served by doing that. These two images are from nearly identical viewpoints, so I don't foresee ever having the need for both of them being in the article. The new image is clearly superior. Jujutacular T · C 00:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist in favor of superior image. Kaldari (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question. I mentioned it in the nom up the page, but there's been no reply - compared side by side, the new one looks to be considerably flatter and less steep than this one. Given they're both taken from an almost identical position, it looks like one of them has suffered more distortion during stitching. Do we know which one is closer to reality? (This single shot (I assume) again from about the same spot appears to me closer in shape to the newer version). --jjron (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the single-shot (assuming it is so) is more similar in appearance to the newer image, given more reason to delist this. Jujutacular T · C 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would trust that Dschwen has corrected the distortion accurately in his image, but hard to be sure with subjects like this where there are no known vertical lines. What I would say is that if this image appears more like the single image, then it is more likely to be distorted, assuming that the single image has not been corrected for the upward tilt. What I don't understand is why Fcb's image doesn't replace the lead image, since it's far better. But it's arguable that there is justification for two similar images anyway IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought they may have been far enough back not to be overly affected by an upwards tilt anyway, but perhaps you could elaborate a bit. My inclination was that these things were pretty steep which made me think Fcb's was more realistic, and the shape of the blocks also looked a bit more 'natural', but I can't really say anything definite. The people are probably too small to really tell if they're squashed or stretched. I had a bit of look back at the article history a few days ago and I think the current lead image may have replaced Fcb's at some stage (which would reinforce what I said in the active nom about unilateral decisions being made on image replacement). --jjron (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful delist. Both are quality images but Dschwen's is just slightly more detailed (although less sharp too). FWIW, I do prefer the lighting in this image, but as it's no longer used in any articles, we can't really keep it as an FP. As an aside, it's interesting to note that the placement of the people in the two photos makes the size of the structure seem very different - it's smaller looking in Fcb981's and larger in Dschwen's. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, contingent on it remaining in Tourism in Mexico. I think it has weaker EV now as it's more of a value-add to that article, but it can't hurt to keep it in there, given it has better aesthetics than the newer FP. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Keep I think this image is better than the newer/Alt in several aspects, most prominently lighting. And I certainly think is better for illustrating Tourism in Mexico, in which I just replaced a lower quality image with this one. Please consider its EV in this light. --Elekhh (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist overall proportion not correct. --Elekhh (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it superseeded is an oversimplification IMO. Both are very good images but with different qualities, and while one might fit best one article another one can fit better another article. I believe that having several very good but different images of a subject would result in a higher collective EV than having the same image in all articles. --Elekhh (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're both images of the same structure from the same vantage point... the only differences is one's higher quality, less distracting foreground (people) but to some's views eyes less than favorable light, this one only argument I saw that might hold weight is lighting, to me that's not enough of a redeeming factor to make up for the others. So I feel superseded is a valid delist on it if the new one is promoted. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My argument was that depending on the article it illustrates (i.e. tourism) the presence of tourist can be positive.--Elekhh (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also created an image that I think demonstrates that something is not right with this image, there is a clear distortion making the tower taller then. File:Chitzen Itze.JPG appears to be a single shot from same area of the structure, and it's prospective is nearly identical to File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg, whereas Image:El Castillo Stitch 2008 Edit 2.jpg is taller, but again from nearly the same spot. Actually when I was zoomed in to the two, it appears as if File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg and Image:El Castillo Stitch 2008 Edit 2.jpg are taken closer to the same spot and File:Chitzen Itze.JPG is taken from a nearby spot from the way the ramps occlude some of the tiers near the top left of the structure, but that's definitely my opinion. I think the image shows that LIKELY the stitching of this file has caused unwanted distortion to the prospective. — raeky (talk | edits) 12:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice graph. I did an aditional rough verification of the proportions: given that in the image the proportion between the projection of the left base x and right base y is ca. 1:1.63 and the article states that the lenght of the base is l=55.3m that means (l²=x²+y²) that the overall projection of the base (x+y) is ca.76m. Based again on the article the height is 26m (not including the temple) yet from the photograph the resulting height is ca.27m, which confirms your finding that the proportion is verticaly exagerated. --Elekhh (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow your calcs here, but proportionally from your diagram if that taller one is 27m, that would make the other ones about 24-25m. --jjron (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is what happens to a single photograph without perspective correction
Keep As original nominator. I personally see this image as being more aesthetic (lighting, sky, etc), sharper at full resolution, and otherwise not inferior to the new nomination. I would argue that this image is more proportional than the single image, because without the use of a Perspective correction lens, photographs taken without the camera pointed level at the horizon exhibit substantial perspective error. In the stitching process, I defined the horizon manually, and therefor the software rendered a theoretically more accurate perspective. for example this image obviously is exhibiting distortions and is a single shot. Whereas the farther away the image is taken from and the closer the camera is aligned with the horizon, the more accurate the perspective (ie. this). Now I'm not saying the perspective of my shot is perfect, but people should think before drawing beautiful profile comparisons, and spewing mis-information from a position of ignorance. The only way to do a mathematical calculation of height from a photograph is to know the angle of the sensor plane in relation to the true vertical (ϴ), the horizontal distance from the base of the monument to the nodal point of the lens (x), the height of the nodal point of the lens (y), and the distance to either 1) the topmost point of the tower (hypotenuse), or 2) to the point directly underneath the topmost point of the tower at the height of the nodal point of the lens; at which point a trigonometric evaluation would be possible. Have a nice day, may your ignorance carry you far. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and actually I forgot, the focal length of the lens must also be known, or alternately an object of known size at a know distance must be in the photo to determine focal length and to measure real-world angles in comparison to the image. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, ignoring that you're probably dangerously close to violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, you're stating you believe your image is a more correct visual representation of the actual structure then the other two photographs? And exactly how much tilt you think these photographs represent, because to me they appear to be shot near horizontal to the horizon with a wide angle lens. I've got a fairly extensive background in visual arts and photography and my opinion is that your composite image is MOST LIKELY unnaturally distorting the structure. — raeky (talk | edits) 22:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wider the angle of view (wide-angle lens) of a photograph the more pronounced the effects of camera tilt become. This is due simply to a larger portion of the subject being visible, at a constant distance from subject and tilt angle. It's prohibitively difficult for us to determine mathematically which images are more accurate, so you are entitled to your opinion. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fcb981, thanks for your participation in the discussion. A friendlier tone would indeed be even more welcomed. I obviously did not account for perspective or optical distortions, for several reasons you just mentioned (a) not enough information about exact position of the camera available, (b) perspective correction is allowed at FPC, (c) minimising perspective distortion is desirable in order to provide a good illustration of the subject, and I thought I made it clear by using the word "projection". What I was saying was that the representation of the subject in this image creates the impression that it would be taller than it actually is (based on the dimensions provided in the article), but I am open (I withdrawn my delist in order to highlight this) for a discussion of the merits of any particular perspective. --Elekhh (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the unfriendly tone, i happened to log-on to see that an image of mine was being delisted, several days after the beginning of the nomination, and based on what I view to be poor rational. It's very open-minded of you to retract your delist vote and I thank you for that open-mindedness. My intent in the original comment was to walk the fine line of remaining civil, and strongly voicing my annoyance with how (it seems) a baseless conjecture as to 'distorted perspective' was so readily taken up by many voters as a glaring fault. If people feel that this image should be delisted based on its lower final resolution, or other true differences, thats fine; what bothers me, is that I think people are carelessly assuming a newer and larger image is better, even though I don't see any other merits to it. In fact, this image being sharper at full size, I would argue, negates much of the benefit of more resolution. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The primary reason it's being delisted is because Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg has superseded it. It was not used in the article space anymore because better images was found. The issue of the prospective came up separately after we got to looking at it compared to other images of the subject, which I find it hard to believe that all the other images are incorrect and yours is the most accurate. Your image to the naked eye looks taller or stretched when you look at other pictures of the subject. That right there should tell you something is wrong. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you didn't read the entire above discussion, or perhaps you're being purposely obtuse. The word "supersede", in this case, is surely a matter of opinion. I'm not the only one with doubts as to whether the new image actually supersedes anything. To so callously assert that this image was superseded ignores the entire discussion thread to which you are replying, and makes me doubt your objectivity. It's also an oblivious overstatement to say "all the other images are incorrect and yours is the most accurate", when "all other images" refers to two images chosen specifically because they were so similar. In addition, my assertion that this image is "most accurate", was academic to the discussion, and qualified with the statement "now I'm not saying the perspective of my image is perfect". My point was that there is reason to suspect the "exaggerated vertical perspective" of this image, may in fact be accurate, and therefor not constitute a flaw. Here is where I must editorialize somewhat; your comments, Raeky, come off as passive-aggressive, and myopic. They conveniently ignored everything I said in my initial comment. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supersede in this sense here at FPC we generally don't allow more then one image of the same subject to be a FP at once. Since we prompted, imho a superior version of this structure (bigger, probably better prospective, etc..) that would mean out of practice this one would be delisted. I don't see how people walking around slightly closer to the camera makes this image better suited for some articles then the other which also has people milling around in it too. Likewise I don't think this is a good fit for Tourism imho. — raeky (talk | edits) 06:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Diliff. NauticaShades 09:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as no unequivocal evidence available that this image would be less accurate representation of the subject, and per my previous arguments regarding EV. --Elekhh (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist To be replaced by Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg --Iankap99 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nom has been open 16 days. 6D, 5K with current trend to change from D to K. No consensus to delist. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/El_Castillo_Stitch_2008_Edit_2.jpg&oldid=1138148826"