Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Galton box.webm

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Galton box.webm, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2017 at 09:33:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

W.carter thanks for the review, and... I can't, I really tried, however my computer couldn't handle the file, in PhotoShop is quite simple, although a bit laborious (60fps*7s 420 images), take the frames and put a black mask. In Primeire I'm not that familiar, what I tried, my pc also couldn't handle. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 11:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Nice box but as a video it has two significant flaws and two lesser flaws. First the operator's hands are visible and really distracting. Second the ceiling lamp is visible as the box is rotated, which is also distracting. Surely it is possible to rotate this box from horizontal to vertical without these distractions. As a minor point, while 16:9 is useful to have, most of the fame is black and so for many web purposes (including Wikipedia) a square crop would be much more useful and without waste. Also the lighting is uneven, with the bottom of the box rather dark. -- Colin (talk)
Thanks Colin for the review, I don't see the lamp as a significant flaw, as this occurs before the action starts. The hands are distractions, not that much as they are away darker than the object... but I couldn't handle, as said to Carter. About 16:9, well it's a free media, you can create your version, I'm busy as hell and upload video here is a parturition... I'll take a while to upload a squared version. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
long discussion
I think both significant flaws should have been avoided at filming stage, rather than trying to mask out something in post. Consider if a still photo had a picture of hands floating above the box, and a reflection of the lamp in the glass. It wouldn't be FP so don't see why a video should be either. FP is about getting those sort of things right. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin. you are assuming that I did this as a snapshot, that is not even close to the truth, this was a afternoon of filming, no, is not easy to remove the hands, and lamp, especially the hands, you can list ways to do, I'll tell why it can't be done, because I really try to handle in the action, and really tried to handle in post.
This is not a still photo, and should not be evaluated as a still. In the important frames the lamp is not in the frame.
As here:   not flaws here, but I don't see this as a FP.
This is not half impressive as in movement, and you are not take into account the EV of it. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 13:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "assuming it is a snapshot", but nor frankly do I think that 10s of footage is an "afternoon of filming", even if you include time taken to darken the room and arrange the subject. A very significant portion of the short video has these defects. Like a studio still, this is a short video with arranged lighting and position, so I don't think it unreasonable to expect all those 10s to be visually good. I don't really want to get into a discussion over what you feel was hard. The end result is a short studio video with significant flaws. -- Colin (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin did you ever made a video from scratch?
Take a while to make 10s video...
And not a studio, this are the conditions:
 
And again not significant, as this do not affect the understanding of the main message, actually the flaws that you are pointing as majors, vanishes before the middle of the video... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 13:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Plasma globe 23s.webm. No hands. No reflections in the glass globe. The conditions of the shoot are your problem, not something for FP to worry about. The beginning rotation sequence is not relevant to the mathematical model the device simulates, but a consequence of it not having a trap door mechanism for releasing the grains. -- Colin (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the candidature should take into account the conditions, I'm just showing that you are wrong
This was not a studio, and this took a while to be set-upped, the whole afternoon , things that you are saying without knowing...
No hands, no reflection, also: File:Clumsy wagon (IME-USP).webm, but a whole different situation, as your example, nothing related. I don't know what you wanted to show... Prove that you could remove the hands, give a way to do. the reflection I could remove, with a studio light, that I don't have. But again, do not interfere in the history, in your case, yes, the reflection and hands would be a huge interference, here.. not the case. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 15:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "studio" is the room, table, the lighting, the black background, where you set up an object to photograph. I didn't claim it was a professional photographic studio. None of us have one of them. I'm not trying to show/prove anything. You asked "did you ever make a video from scratch". I have. I'm unwatching this page now. -- Colin (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support One would wish for a smoother rotation at the beginning, but it makes its point. One day videos will be common enough that we will be able to promote a better one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose I like this video, however, need edition to remove re-flexion, human iteration. Also the video cuts abruptly when the process has not yet finished, it seems to me something abrupt. Also, We need more information about this object like the Author (not the photographer) --The Photographer 19:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment One possibility for an edit that wouldn't be so difficult, would be to cut the first couple seconds off and start fading in at about the time the reflection of the light passes the light part of the box (the top), just before the rotation is complete. The hands are minimally visible after that point. It would probably be best for the audio to be on a longer fade to avoid starting on a loud *knock*. From an overall video quality point of view, yes, ideally the rotation action would be there, too, and I think the filmmaker had the right idea starting with a view of the back, but encyclopedic value would still be there with the beginning cut. I would take a stab at it myself, but I only have Lightworks at the moment, and it doesn't seem to want to work with a webm. Just a thought. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Joalpe (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose - At first, I was going to support this nomination, but I think the opposers have meritorious arguments. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Galton_box.webm&oldid=240056240"