Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Montreal Twilight Panorama

Montreal Twilight Panorama


This image newly appears on the Montreal page, as I took it earlier today. This is actually a 5 segment by 3 row panorama stitched in landscape format. It is one of my highest resolution (9118x2774!) panoramas yet and I'm pretty happy with the results. View at 100% to appreciate the details available (beware the file size however :/ - ~8mb).


 * Nominate and support. - Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 05:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - I love the "busyness". --Kilo-Lima 15:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Awesome! Tell us, how did you stitch this? (I'm curious, since I'm into panoramic photography myself, I even own a rotating-lens camera...) --Janke | Talk 17:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I used a program called PTGui and a blending plugin called Smartblend to aid in smoothing any vignetting/exposure differences (although there shouldn't be any differences as I use the same white balance/exposure settings for each frame obviously). Works very well. :) There is a demo version of PTGui available but it places an annoying watermark on the photo. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You said it a large file size - no more. From 8Mb to 3.7Mb. And that puts me with a Very Strong Support for either pic - amazing level of detail. The only reason I didn't go smaller than 3Mb was that I was afraid I'd lose all of the fantastic detail, like the folders lying on a desk in the central office block. &mdash;Vanderdecken&there4;&int;&xi;&phi;  18:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I thought you were joking about the folders on the desk until I downloaded the whole image in all its glory. --Surgeonsmate 05:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support either version. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-5 20:46
 * ( + ) Support Well done Diliff. Only tiny complaint is that there is probably too much out-of-focus branches in the foreground - a little is good for the scene but IMO there is too much. But spectacular and definetly FP material --Fir0002 23:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Good stuff. Alr 00:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support of course. Raven4x4x 01:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Incredible image with amazing sharpness and detail, FP definitely. Camerafiend 02:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Neutralitytalk 03:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great image, however I don't support the lower resolution version. That's what the preview page is for. &#126;MDD4696 03:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * drumguy 8800  - speak? 06:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Sarah Ewart 13:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Echoing MDD's comments.--Deglr6328 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - TomStar81 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, but we do not need the low res, the server scales it down automatically -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original. I have a little problem with the huge Improved by Vanderecken box for just resaving it at higher compression, so my support goes to the original only. --Dschwen 00:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We're commenting on the image, not the description page. I agree that box was a bit large, I downsized it yesterday. And also, please try to spell my name right. Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V are two very simple key combinations. &mdash;Vanderdecken&there4;&int;&xi;&phi;  11:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original. Wow. enochlau (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very nice, and I'd give it a "good image" if there was one... but, I'm not sure that it's the best time or location of a panorama of Montreal. So many good pictures coming in lately, that I'm not sure it matches up to all of the competition. (Also, keep the largest size image they say) gren グレン 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What time/location would you suggest? Mount Royal is well known as being a great lookout onto downtown Montreal, and as far as the time goes, I can show you a similar panorama that I took a couple of hours earlier in the day from that very spot, and I don't think it is nearly as striking. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support  D a Gizza Chat  (c) 04:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. --Darwinek 23:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --TomStar81 02:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Impresive! Andrew 18 @  01:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 06:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

