Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Smithsonian Castle
- Reason
- Somewhat high detail achieved using the patented Diliff method.
- Articles this image appears in
- Smithsonian Institution
- Creator
- User:Noclip
- Nominator
- Noclip
- Support — Noclip 19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support either Beautiful! --TotoBaggins 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Extremely nearly support - Excellent image, rivalling (crikey!) Diliff standards. My only (very, very) minor niggles would be that the sky could do with just a smidge of noise reduction, and that I've spotted a 1px stitching error in the left-hand wall of the central tower. Both easily fixed, I'd have thought. Great work, Noclip. --YFB ¿ 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1. Excellent job there Noclip. One issue... thats some serious luminance noise in the sky there. Not a deal breaker but it is so simple to fix I couldn't help but upload an edit. I've run noise reduction specifically on the sky only so no other detail is lost. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- By the way Noclip, what method/equipment did you use for this? How many segments? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- 23 images, not all of us have 13 megapixels to work with.
By the way, how did you manage to fix the brightness discrepancy in the sky? I slaved over it for a while but never could get it to appear perfectly seamless.Noclip 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)- Not sure what you were referring to before you struck it out.. I did notice that in the sky though but you can't really see it when you view it full sized. The thumbnail just squeezes it all together. You didn't really answer my question fully though. What method did you use? Ie what program did you use to stitch it/blend it? That might be part of the problem of the discrepancies in the sky. I use smartblend and find it to be pretty much as good as anything else I've seen. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I used the standard enblend. Should I try restitching? Noclip 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- You still haven't really fully answerwed though.. What program do you use? Enblend does the stitching but you need a GUI to create/warp the segments. I'd recommend using smartblend over enblend. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I use hugin, but I could never get smartblend to work (it would open a command line window and close immediately yielding no output file) so I settled for enblend. Noclip 23:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure why it didn't work but I use PTGui. You can download a trial version and run it with smartblend to see whether it'll blend better for you, at least. If you can be bothered anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Check out the new enblend version 3.0. It also has blendline-optimization (just like smartblend) and huge speed-improvements. --Dschwen(A) 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Based on my limited testing so far, enblend 3.0 is pretty fast but the stitching/blending isn't quite as good. Smartblend seems a bit 'smarter' in choosing the seam lines to minimise parallax and sliced people. Will keep testing and see what conclusions I reach... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Check out the new enblend version 3.0. It also has blendline-optimization (just like smartblend) and huge speed-improvements. --Dschwen(A) 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure why it didn't work but I use PTGui. You can download a trial version and run it with smartblend to see whether it'll blend better for you, at least. If you can be bothered anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I use hugin, but I could never get smartblend to work (it would open a command line window and close immediately yielding no output file) so I settled for enblend. Noclip 23:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- You still haven't really fully answerwed though.. What program do you use? Enblend does the stitching but you need a GUI to create/warp the segments. I'd recommend using smartblend over enblend. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I used the standard enblend. Should I try restitching? Noclip 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure what you were referring to before you struck it out.. I did notice that in the sky though but you can't really see it when you view it full sized. The thumbnail just squeezes it all together. You didn't really answer my question fully though. What method did you use? Ie what program did you use to stitch it/blend it? That might be part of the problem of the discrepancies in the sky. I use smartblend and find it to be pretty much as good as anything else I've seen. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- 23 images, not all of us have 13 megapixels to work with.
- By the way Noclip, what method/equipment did you use for this? How many segments? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 The great focus, detail of the shot definitly out-weigh the somewhat mundane subject. -Fcb981 23:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, criteria 8 says you need a good caption. I'd also recommend you add information to the image page about date taken, author, type of camera too... since all of your metadata was removed when you photoshopped it, it seems. Those are all useful things to have an in the future can help to alleviate any copyright concerns. It'd also be nice if you put it on the commons. gren グレン 17:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 assuming gren's concerns are addressed. A very well technically composed image of a notable building.-Andrew c 02:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like large crisp pictures. Very nice! Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
- Support. If the Diliff method is patented, are you paying him license fees? :) howcheng {chat} 07:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Kudos to the photographer for making this look interesting. - Mgm|(talk) 11:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Smithsonian Building NR.jpg Raven4x4x 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)