Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/View from Sky Tower Akl

View from Sky Tower Akl[edit]

This is my first time nominating, but I've been lurking around here for ages and finally found a pic I thought was worthy of being Featured. This picture appears in Auckland and Sky Tower and I think excellently depicts a large part of Auckland, including the hospital, university, port, marina, Harbour Bridge & Viaduct Harbour. It is also clearly shows a large part of the Waitemata Harbour and the placement of the North Shore (particularly Devenport & the two volcanoes) and Rangitoto. The quality is excellent. It was created by User:Antilived.

Nominate and support. - -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I like it but there are pretty serious stitching defects to the bottom left and up right of the "crowne plaza' building. Debivort 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for nominating my image but I agree that there are some pretty serious artifects. I tried to fix it manually but can't manage to fix everything. I will try another stitch soon with even more control points (15k already) in Hugin. --antilived ^{T | C} 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I saw no other stitching issues Debivort 03:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I've fixed quite a few of them manually already. The crowne plaza one was not transformed correctly and I cannot fix it without breaking other things and there are also quite a few breakage in the west (far right) which I hid but can still be spotted on the full resolution one. BTW, I cannot see the breakage in the bottom left. Can you be more specific? --antilived ^{T | C} 03:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My description was badly worded. I mean to say that there are problems both down-left and up-right of the Crowne Plaza. Debivort 06:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Almost there but not quite. I'm not usually one to scream "blown highlights!" but the sky is quite badly overexposed. Antilived, would you mind if I attempted to re-stitch it? I'm not saying I could definitely do a better job but I could give it a shot. If you're happy to let me, send me an email through wiki. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's where the sun is and in order to keep the details of Northshore I have to overexpose the sky (can't really do HDR or the like as there are quite a few people up there the day I went and they probably don't want me to hog the view all day. Also I didn't bring a tripod and I doubt my computer can handle that as it struggles to do this). --antilived ^{T | C} 08:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is it taken from the inside? Then it would be a rotation >10m off the nodal point of the camera (shooting while walking aling the panoramic winwos of the observation deck). That's a tough stitch job in any case. Apart from that I don't like the exposure too much. Looks like you tried to capture the sky a bit, which renders the streets overly dark. I'd rather have a completely blown out sky and good exposure on the street level than both only half good. --Dschwen 08:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is taken from the Sky Deck in the Sky Tower. I took two pictures (One for top and bottom) from 17 of the 34 segments of the Sky Deck. I have no idea what that nodal point thing means but yea it is quite a tough job on stitching. If I had blown sky I would have quite a few "blown highlight" comment and IMHO this is a nice balance point between it, not too much blown highlight and the details on the streets are still visible. If only it was a cloudless day and I could actually use my polariser.... (but then the sun will be destroying the north-west part of the panorma) --antilived ^{T | C} 09:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used to think the Nodal Point is the pivot point for panoramic photography which allows parallax-free overlap (for easy stitching). But the wikipedia article just told me thats a common misconception :-). Anyways you'll find that the term Nodal Point is widely abused for just this purpose. --Dschwen 13:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the nodal point is so near to the same thing that unless you're doing macro panoramas (a weird concept, thats for sure.. you'd have to find a perfectly spherically concave subject to keep it all in focus), you wouldn't need to know there was a difference. Its easy to approximate it to being the 'middle of the lens' - SOMEWHERE inside it is the focal point! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just uploaded a new version which addresses some things like the stitching artifect and the blown sky. --antilived ^{T | C} 10:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately there are still some stitching artifacts.. There is one to the right on the horizon. It is subtle but there - the clouds, horizon and to an extent the houses are split down the seam line. Also, the horizon is not parallel. You know what I think might be contributing to the faults (just a thought).. The glass might be distorting the view just enough to make lining things up exactly impossible. That said, you've done a good job. I had just as much trouble trying to stitch it without fault. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh Diliff can you correct the colour tint of the glass? There are quite a few breakages in the building and one in Northshore but nevertheless a good stitch. PS: do you know why is there moiré in the water? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 03:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I see those errors in the building :/. I really think there was some diffraction or something going on with the window glass cause it just warps so suddenly, but your version seems to have 'fixed' it, so I'm not sure. As for the colour tint of the glass, are you sure thats what it is? Yours is more contrasty and brighter and less 'overcast' looking but it was overcast from what I can see. You might need to apply the colour edit yourself since you know what you intended it to look like. As for the moire, I have no idea as I can't refer back to the original files (at work at the moment) but your version has it too so it must be something common to both. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure it's the tint of the glass. My version looks more natural and it wasn't really overcast, just patchy sky. I just used a fairly high temperature and low on green WB to correct it. The moiré is there on the RAW and that question is inteneded to ask do you know how it got there in the first place (first time I see moiré on non-man made object on my camera). --antilived ^{T | C | G} 06:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1. A very encyclopedic image. NauticaShad e s 15:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]