Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alfenzbrücke Lorüns 360° Panorama 3.jpg
File:Alfenzbrücke Lorüns 360° Panorama 3.jpg, not featured edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 20:41:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info 360 ° panorama in the bicycle bridge over the Alfenz in Lorüns. Built in 2010, according to plans by the architects-marte marte. All by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)- Support Cephas (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support -- Raghith 06:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Unrealistic deformed and distorded panorama picture. Incomprehensible for me. Generally speaking, I don't vote for this kind of pictures because of I dislike very much, but I understand that in FPC it is not a good reason for abstain. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)- Oppose As Jebulon.--Miguel Bugallo 19:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not unrealistic, it should just be viewed properly. On the details page, author provides a link to a panoramic viewer, which is meant for 360° panos. That said, the pano renders weird on the viewer and it's like the bridge is curved, which doesn't match the other version of the picture taken from outside provided. Could this be because the panorama doesn't cover 360° on vertical axis ? - Benh (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
CommentYes it is unrealistic and please do not give lessons about how it should be viewed. --Jebulon (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support this picture is so realistic as a 360°-panorama can be, as long as a 360° pano can candidate here as long the argument "unrealistic" is not valid. this picture gives a good impression of dimension and structure and is technical great work. the distortion because of the 360° pano a healthy mind can realise and convert into reality. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sure there are interesting things to make 360° panos of, but this is not one of them. The mere use of the technique does nor automatically warrant an FP seal. W.S. 05:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support as Wladyslaw. ---donald- (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Despites the technical merit your work deserves, I fail to see the added encyclopedic value of a 360° view of this object. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
