Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crissy Field beach and Golden Gate Bridge with fixed errors.jpg

File:Crissy Field beach and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg, featured edit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 16:14:24
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stitching errors were corrected thanks to Slaunger. The color balance was corrected. The info about the fog was added to the description of the image.

It is correct that I have pointed out some errors. I do not agree though that they have been fixed. I have marked one pretty severe stitching error in the moving waves on the file page as an annotation. Remember to clear your cache, if you have not used annotations before. I am by the way wondering how come I cannot make local annotations on this nom subpage. Did you make the new subpage as a copy&paste of the original nom, or did you use the new revised nomination process, where annotation "magic" is added to the nomination page?--Slaunger (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reason is that this nomination subpage was not created using template {{FPCnom/Basic}} but manually. I've fixed that manually and moved your nomination-related notes to this nomination page. Lupo 08:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image was nominated before. That's why I created the nomination with a new name. I was not sure how to do it. Sorry if I have done something wrong. It was not in purpose.--Two+two=4 (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have acted in good faith and it is no big deal. It is a mess to renominate an image and you have to switch to manual when that happens. --Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I will never learn how do it as well as I will never learn how to find stitching errors

--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Theklan (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Not very informative[reply]

The reason please?--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yann (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is great now. Julielangford (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 12:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~changed my vote, see below Massive stitching errors on the left (the blue thing near the boarder) and in the waves! In the sea there is also a diagonal edge over the whole picture. It looks like a fake... --Leviathan (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no stitching error on "the blue thing near the boarder". The images were not stitched even close to that place. The images were stitched only horizontally. "Diagonal edge" in the sea is absolutely natural.--Two+two=4 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you can see what I talk about! --Leviathan (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help me out. I've corrected some of the problems you mentioned and I cannot see the others. I am sorry but maybe you could work with my latest version and mark the errors you see with a red mark and uplad the full resolution that I would be able to see the errors. For example I am not sure what problems you see in your third insert. If you're talking about the white things in the background these are only saleboats and some structures in the fog and not the waves. --Two+two=4 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Prblem! I look at the new version and I will post a marked version tomorrow. Greetings, Leviathan (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here (don`t forget to clear the cache) is the new version with marked errors. Its, again, the blue thing near the boarder and the light buoy on the right looks like "cut off" in my eyes. The rest is OK imho! Greets Leviathan (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am sure these are no errors. They both are too close to the borders. There was no stitching done there. I'll try to take a close up of the buoy today and upload the image. I will let you know. Cheers.--Two+two=4 (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

now

Neutral, to good to oppose, but I´m not 100% happy with it. (per Slaunger) Greets, Leviathan (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~Modified my vote, see below. --Slaunger (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC) How would you control in Hugin that images are only stitched horizontally? I do not agree that the diagonal edge is the sea is natural. It looks like a very typical example of the kind of stitching error you can get in Hugin when stitching over moving sea waves. --Slaunger (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say that I worked with a single row of the images. I do not know how Hugin could make a stitching error all over the image.--Two+two=4 (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK. My pioint is that recent versions of Hugin tries to make seams between images by traversing a path in the overlap betwen images, where the difference between the two images is minimal. In this manner conflicts between two images caused by a moving object placed differently on two neighboring images can be avoided if the image overlap is sufficiently large (the seam path avoids selects one of them for inclsusion). That means the seams are not always vertical even on a horizontal strip of images. And when there are large differences as with moving waves bwteen images, there is no way it can find a good path, and you get these odd looking edges between areas taken at different moments in time. It is almost impossible to do right with the kind of wave crests you have there unless you do extensive cloning afterwards, using, e.g., individual projected image files from Hugin as selective clone masks. It can be done though, see File:Porto Covo pano April 2009-4.jpg but that also required a lot of cloning and the detailed knowledge of the creator, who is a physical oceanographer. --Slaunger (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I did more work in the areas you pointed out (Thanks). I hope that it is OK now and even a physical oceanographer will not find any problems with the waves now.

--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The stitching problems are less severe than before, but they are still quite prominent in the two problem areas I have marked. They do not spoil the entire photo anymore, though. Thus my change to a neutral vote. --Slaunger (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The fog looks so unlifelike, but good quality --ka ʁs tn 13:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a normal fog for San Francisco. Have you read the Info about the fog I added to the image description?--Two+two=4 (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lots of details to annotate. -- User:Docu at 14:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special image and interesting discussion. Ultimately it's FP worthy IMO. -- MJJR (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image indeed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture, rare view. And yay to the annotation tool! -- JovanCormac 14:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support An interesting and quality image, who's creator has worked long and hard to fix any errors. It`s a very detailed scene and it would be rude to oppose it after so much work. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Interesting picture but dull composition, with a centered horizon and poorly placed persons in the foreground -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as kallerna. Lycaon (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places