Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tuebingen Neckarfront 2006-06-11.jpg

Image:Tuebingen Neckarfront 2006-06-11.jpg, not featured edit

Info created and uploaded by Klaus with K - nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 ^talk 20:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 ^talk 20:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question hmm (again, sorry): is this a bend, a corner or is this a straight part with an exotic (excusez le mot) projection? Lycaon 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it is a cylindrical projection, but you would have to ask Klaus with K. For this picture I think a cylindrical projection is better than a straight, equirectangular projection, which IMO would make it boring. --Digon3 ^talk 22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm, I just wanted to illustrate here how to remove some dust...and now that. Yes it is a cylindrical projection, in panorama context I would call that a bog-standard projection. The horizontal angle covered is 180 degrees, too much for a rectilinear projection. -- Klaus with K 13:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support catches the mood (and now with infos and cats) -- Klaus with K 14:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like cylindrical projection for this picture. --Lestat 10:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question what other projection covering 180+ degrees FoV do you suggest? -- Klaus with K 12:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be more than 180 degrees and looks like a rectilinear projection? Maybe its possible? --Digon3 ^talk 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be rectilinear. My guess is its cylindrical too, wit a semistatistical distribution of trees you just don't notice it. In Klaus' picture there are many straight and linear elements which get distorted by the projection. No biggie for me, I prefer conserved proportions over straight lines in this case. --Dschwen 20:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Because of the projection used (building don't look vertical), unsharpness and slight purple fringing. Benh 20:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical features do show as vertical. Some old buildings are simply not vertical. -- Klaus with K

Support Some strange projection effects, but it's FP worthy. -- MJJR 20:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit underexposed on the sides, but still good for FP. I don't see projection as a problem at all. --Nattfodd 07:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC) As Lestat[reply]
Support Incredibly detailed. Amazed how you have avoided observable stitching errors with som many moving people. -- Slaunger 22:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 18:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]