Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Skyline New York City

Skyline panorama of New York City from Empire State Building.

Reason: Even though there are some problems with the stitching, I have seen much worse panoramas; the Microsoft Encarta panoramas look pretty bad compared to this one. I believe this is a picture of extraordinary value, hence my nomination.
Articles this image appears in: New York City, Empire State Building
Creator: Martin Dürrschnabel (Martin-D1 of de.wiki.x.io)
Nominator: Wutschwlllm

Support — Wutschwlllm 21:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are clear visible edges (?) in the image, one for example 30% from left, the different parts have different colors also. the vertical resolution is a bit low for panoramas of this sort, should at least have a vertical resolution of 1000px. _→AzaToth 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Changing the thumbnail size does not make the actual picture any bigger. What AzaToth was talking about is demonstrated here. Also, in order for a picture to become featured, it must be at least 1000px in either the vertical or horizontal direction. This one is 7979x740 pixels, so it does meet the requirement in the horizontal direction. I've reduced the size of the thumbnail from 1000px (and that's actually the total amount of pixels, not just the number of pixels in one direction), so that it will fit on most screens. --Tewy 23:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret the requirement to be both 1000px vertical and horizontal resolution. _→AzaToth 23:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From part 2 of Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?: While larger images are generally prefered, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated. There's that tiny little word "or" in there. So actually, if you come across a worthy image that is 1000px in just one direction, you can go ahead and nominated it (I too recently learned that it could be in either direction). --Tewy 23:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I just changed the size of the thumb, so that the image is a little bit better visible. In case of the 1000px rule, I'd go along with Tewy. In my opinion, this panorama conveys enough information in this resolution (although it is understandable that one would argue for a higher resolution; the question however is, if this image is good enough to be a featured picture and I'd say it is). -Wutschwlllm 01:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something I forgot to mention is that in my opinion this panorama adds to the quality of both the New York and the Empire State Building articles enormously. In my opinion it is very interesting to see a panorama shot like this. -Wutschwlllm 01:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support The 1000 pixel size is desirable but is not a "law" so, because this pic is so interesting to scan over, I support it. Any stitching errors do not spoil my enjoyment - Adrian Pingstone 23:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. (Dah! Two edit conflicts in a row...go figure). While there may be much worse panoramas, there are also better ones on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama for examples). I think this image's biggest problem is the different exposure times. The far left and the far right of the image, which include the same buildings, should look almost identical, but the left is much darker. There is also a bent horizon, but I'm not sure how readily that can be fixed. --Tewy 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tewy. FP is for the best of the best. I can imagine this picture much better. tiZom_(2¢) 00:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Roller coaster horizon, tilting buildings... i.e. very bad stitching. --Janke | Talk 06:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad stitching, tilted verticals, bad choice of time of day/weather (shadows too hard, a (partly) overcast sky would be better), most of the buildings in shadow (which also indicates limited dynamic range), and the high-rises should be in the middle of the panoram for composition reasons. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 08:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's quite soft even though it had been downsampled (even my soft skytower panorama is sharper than that), lacking in vertical view angle (where it starts to get really annoying in stitching), and stitch outline uncropped in the top left corner... Just a list of faults I can list out of my head, you would have better chance using a better stitching software such as Hgin, or as someone reccommends, ptgui. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 08:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have always loved this detailed panorama ("I can see my office from here!") but the horizon makes me seasick. I'm sure there are worse stitching jobs than this, but not many. --Bridgecross 14:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More than 360 degree panorama is confusing. Also, I assume the photographer must have walked around the observation deck as he took each shot; panoramas should be taken from a fixed position or it's easy to spot the distortion --⁪froth^{T C} 19:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In most places it is really impossible to take 360 degree panorama from one single point inside a building, the centre point is usually where the elevator is and even if you remove the elevator you would be so far away from the windows the view angle is very limited. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 00:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Yeah, you'd have to climb to the top King Kong style. Nonetheless the quality like this is not acceptable for FP. The only way I see is settling for several smaller angle panos. --Dschwen 10:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is great! Ilikefood 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak but-not-so-weak support. Sure there are stitching problems...but it is unique and it is some of Wikipedia's best work. Definitely more imaginative than some view from Jersey City or Brooklyn's waterfront. Further, I can see my house from there, where I used to work, where I asked my girlfriend to marry me, etc. etc. etc. —ExplorerCDT 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Done to death, not a spectacular image despite spectacular subject. I suppose you could resolve the stitching problems even from multiple points by taking an excessive amount (like 50) of overlapping shots with a wide FOV, then stitching highly cropped versions. Regardless, an NYC skyline panorama taken from the river would probably illustrate the subject better anyway. Noclip 05:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The problems with this panorama are not as a result of parallax error. As long as you don't photograph anything particularly close to the building, the error is minimal and probably completely concealable. The main problem with this is simply that there is major curvature of the horizon. Where stitching faults exist, they are extremely minor. The weather is slightly ordinary too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like how it's all spread out and the stitching together could make it seem counfusing since those things aren't really in line like that. --¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 01:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MER-C (talk • contribs).