Contents

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vancouver, BC night panorama

• Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. Cacophony (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I would have liked this to be shot a little later for a brighter landscape. Very nicely done overall. victorrocha (talk) 1:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You of course meant earlier! ;-) --Fir0002 10:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't catch that. Yup that's what I meant thanks. victorrocha (talk) 9:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.210.251 (talk)
• Support Excellent sharpness and detail - however whats with the banding in the sky on the LH corner of the image? --Fir0002 10:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

banding? I only see clouds. Mfield (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not significant - in fact you only really notice it if you scroll through the pano (as I did) - you don't really see it if you just stare at it. The banding is a little more visible in this edit - as I say it's not significant but it's odd that only that section of the sky suffers from it and I was wondering if there was a particular reason. --Fir0002 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what - i think it's rain. About 10 mins after shooting this and packing up and walking back across the bridge to my hotel, it started pouring with rain. Maybe its a front of rain moving in from the west. It sure isn't any kind of banding from exposure or blending. Mfield (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC) oops, didn't look at your edit before typing that, it sure is odd, maybe it somehow got introduced during the downsize as its not there in the full size original. When I get a minute I'll fix it anyway. Mfield (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that its just the usual posterisation introduced by lifting extreme shadow detail slightly. It happens in horizontal/vertical bands because of the way the amplifier circuits work on the sensor, apparently. As Fir said, it isn't really visible unless you're scrolling (that said, how else do you view this image?), or looking for it specifically. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but this image hasn't received anything approaching an 'extreme' shadow lift at all - (apart from Fir's edit to show it up of course) and ISO100 on a 5D is pretty much noise free as you know, unless there was something that affected this one RAW frame, but i need to dig out the RAW files to check that. I agree it does look like sensor noise banding in this version of the image yet it's not apparent in the 40000 wide original, I am looking into whether something in the downsize caused these artifacts to become more prominent. Mfield (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the 100ISO noise, it's worth noting that by the 20th 6s exposure in a row (this was shot from right to left) the CMOS had warmed a fair degree and consequently noise would have risen. Its amazing how apparent this effect is, especially on astro sequences. Mfield (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Either. Sharp and informative. In all, a great panorama. NauticaShades 22:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Nauticashades. Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support extreme aspect ratio, but I find it very nice otherwise. Blieusong (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Would have liked to see a bit more of the sky though, both for compositional balance and a more pleasing aspect ratio, but it is very nice as-is. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice work. Aspect ratio is very large as pointed out above, but detail compensates despite being taken perhaps a tad late. That small bright patch of sky is a little off-putting as well and perhaps could be toned down a bit. --jjron (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Preference for Edit overall, even though it does make that bright patch of sky even worse (you can't selectively darken that a bit can you?). --jjron (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• ooh Support either one I couldn't choose! Both great panoramas Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both, with preference to the edit. Spencer^T♦C 01:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So, have finally managed to free up enough swap file space and free enough RAM for my machine to enfuse two 40000 wide original versions to create a new edit sized as above that's superior to both versions voted upon already. Now I am torn as to whether to add it as a third version this late in the game or to withdraw this nom completely and start again with the new one to save confusion? Mfield (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be tempted to start again. You know its going to pass, the only question is which version, so I don't think all the support votes will be in vain, and from my experience, enfused images in scenes like this work very well (as long as you choose the exposures sensibly) - worth doing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not let it be promoted as is, then put the new version up in a "Delist and replace" nom? --jjron (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • More administrative work required to update the various locations for FP twice, I suppose? But I'm not fussed however we do it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eh, close this as not promoted then close the new nomination most likely as promoted, versus close this as promoted then close the delist and replace - administratively it's basically six of one, half-dozen of the other. Anyway, it's withdrawn now. Personally I wouldn't withdraw my image if it was about to be promoted, but each to their own. --jjron (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Nautica, with preference for +2ev. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw the nomination because i am about to upload and renominate a better version per my discussion above. Mfield (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]