Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Brompton Oratory Nave 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The interior of Brompton Oratory

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 17:34:49 (UTC)

Original – The nave of Brompton Oratory
Reason
It shows the interior of Brompton Oratory, a large Neo-Classical Italianate church in London, in high resolution from an aesthetic angle and with a wide angle view to get as much of the interior as possible. I visited this church a number of times previously and was never entirely happy with the photos I took (dull lighting, people moving around, etc), but I'm finally happy with the result of this one.
Articles in which this image appears
Brompton Oratory
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Support as nominator – Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good choice. Brandmeistertalk 18:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Maybe I would have sacrificed a bit of the field of view to avoid some of the extreme geometrical distortions at the sides, but it is a tradeoff, and I respect your choice. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's always a trade off, and some people accept the wide angle distortions better than others. I think it's nice to be able to show the full width of the pews, and although I could have cropped some off the top, I think it's all of the glass dome or none at all, and if the latter, it introduces its own compromises in the composition. Sometimes having a fixed width lens is simpler. You simply take a photo with the focal length available to you. With stitching, you have an angle of view limited only by your imagination and the hard limits of rectilinear perspective, so it's harder to decide on the ideal framing. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I see what you mean. It is difficult to see how it could be cropped with a more narrow field of view without making it a 'bad' crop. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For those interested, here's a photosphere that I took at the same time from the middle of the church. Gives you the full immersive feel of the church. It's a shame that we don't have a way of viewing these on-Wiki currently. It's something that I'm hoping will change in the near future as I'm uploading a number of them in anticipation of them being useful. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, having the capability to show the photosphere like that would be great as it is a much better way to surf this huge field of view. One thing that amazes me in the photosphere is how you can look down and not see a tripod? How did you do that? It is really cool. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Magic! ;-) No, it's actually as simple as moving the tripod a metre or or so to the side and tilting the camera down at an angle, pointing at the patch previously occupied by the tripod. You then tell PTGui (or whatever other stitching software if it supports it) to treat that image differently - in other words, to not assume it was taken from the same position. In PTGui, it's called 'viewpoint correction' (do you use PTGui? You need to enable advanced options and then go to the Optimiser tab, the option is there). If the floor is flat, it transforms it geometrically using the control points. The only potential problem with that is that reflections on the floor look rather different from another angle! And you have to mask out the areas that aren't the floor, because you can't transform anything that isn't a two dimensional surface. So I masked out the seating around it. Simple as that really. It's a fiddly job, but the result is worth the trouble. We have a number of equirectangular images on Commons (currently unviewable as photospheres though), but very few are done 'professionally' like this one. The tripod remains and looks a bit ugly. The need for significant post-processing work means that it will always be a bit difficult for regular Commons contributors. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Diliff: Yes, I use PTgui Pro, but I did not know you could do this trick with a single 'repair' image. Thanks for the hint! -- Slaunger (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-Jobas (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Rich detail. Sca (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I like the original upload better [1], it has my support !vote. (and why does everyone add an exclamation mark before !vote ?) Bammesk (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a question I've asked, too. Only answer I got was, everybody's doing it. Silly, IMO. Sca (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above. But man, that photosphere is very well done, I wonder if we will have a wikipedia of the future where there exists photospheres of the interiors of famous buildings... I prefer the sphere to the single photograph. Oh well. Mattximus (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Brompton Oratory Nave 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Brompton_Oratory_Nave_2,_London,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg&oldid=1138499772"