Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aussie Stadium

Aussie Stadium


(Note: Thumbnail size increased due to image's wide aspect ratio.)

A self-nomination. I created the final image by taking and combining three separate images. Taken just before the game on 9 October 2005 (see caption). Currently appears in Aussie Stadium, A-League and Sport in Australia.


 * Nominate and support. - Chuq 05:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to me. The "Bay 35" sign is a little distracting, but it is a part of the Aussie Stadium. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-10-22 06:33
 * I wonder whether people are going to complain about the fisheye lens ;) Enochlau 06:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I still think the distortion is disturbing. However, on this picture, it isn't due to a fisheye lens, but to the combining of the 3 images. Globally the result is the same (distortion). Unfortunately the trick I normally use to fix fisheyed images does not work well on this picture (too large HFOV). I won't vote on this one ;-) Glaurung 07:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I will! =) Seriously, I love the effect of the lens. Photography by nature tends to be rather "flat" when compared with 3-D reality, but the panorama gives an illusion of three dimensions. Support --Kerowyn 05:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Interesting and impressive, but a pity about that "35". Enochlau 07:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm a bit partial to panoramas and this is pretty good. Its a shame about the stitching issues in the crowd, but that is virtually impossible to avoid. Other than that, I can't see any stitching artifacts - Looks fine to me. Very clear view of the stadium. I don't think that the 35 is overly distracting and as mentioned previously, it is just part of the stadium. Diliff 12:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry, it fits the articles well, but I just don't find it particularly interesting. It looks like any other sports stadium. Too much concrete and crowd, and not enough field. And the players aren't even playing. Stephen Turner 15:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose, mainly because it seems a bad choice for a pic to show what a stadium is. Halibutt 23:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was ever intended to show what A stadium is - it was intended to show what that particular stadium is, or more appropriately, what the view is from that particular angle, and I think in that sense, it does a pretty good job. Diliff 04:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Halibutt does have a point though. We can't very well have featured pictures of every stadium out there. Our general unwritten policy has been that the featured picture candidate should not be of a topic for which we already have a featured picture. That is why we don't accept fractals or nebulas too easily anymore; they'd have to be pretty stunning to get past the fact that we already have such images as featured. So, when you pick an image, you can easily think of it in terms of "this will represent the topic of _____" (in this case, a stadium). &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-10-29 13:50
 * Note: I'm the photographer/submitter so I may be biased here! Have you looked at the Stadium article?  (Admittedly, I hadn't until I read these comments)  There are few pictures there, but none of them are featured, and none of them show as much of the inside of a moderm stadium as this image does.  When I took the pictures I only intended it to be an illustration for the Aussie Stadium aticle, but now that I have looked at the Stadium article I'm contemplating putting it there as well.  I'd also like to clarify what Halibutt means by "seems a bad choice for a pic to show what a stadium is" - in what way?  Doesn't it look enough like a stadium? -- Chuq 01:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with Chuq - compared with the other pictures in Stadium, this one looks quite exceptional. However, it might not be appropriate as an illustration of what a stadium looks like because: a) it's distorted b) doesn't quite show the structure much (from an architectural point of view, you're missing a lot of the roof supports etc) c) it's not quite full (although few of the other ones at Stadium are either...). And in response to Brian, what pictures of stadiums do we currently have? A quick search reveals none - so the floodgate argument doesn't really apply yet like it does to fractals. Enochlau 11:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually in defense of the panorama, I have to say that it isn't really distorted at all. This is actually pretty much what it would look like if our eyes had such a wide field of view. The distance between the ends of the pitch and the centre where the photographer was sitting is quite large, and it is pure physics that dictates that it should look the way it does. If the viewer was much further way (which is in reality impossible) looking THROUGH the seating of the stadium, then yes, you would avoid most of the 'distortion', but from the angle of view that is realistic, the way it looks is unavaoidable, panorama or not. Diliff 03:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose The image is too busy and just isn't that spectacular. Also, the stadium looks slightly tilted (Right higher than left) --Ironchef8000 02:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Great image.  Shows the entire field and parts of the crowd at near and far distances, plus the effect of the sun on the field is striking and it is not over/under exposed.  Really like the wide angle.  Jeeb 05:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 11:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

