Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Panorama of New York City

Panorama of New York City

 * Reason:This is one of finest available panoramas of NYC on Wikimedia projects, it is already nominated on Commons and gained very good support there,
 * Articles in which this image appears:New York, City, New York City, Architecture of New York City, List of tallest buildings in New York City, Empire State Building, Manhattan
 * Creator:Photographed by: Jnn13, stitched by: LiveChocolate

*Oppose subject is being misrepresented. I had never seen this city before but the shape in the map is very different from what I see in the image. Is is possible to solve this doing some sort of projection?  franklin  22:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --LiveChocolate (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: On the image page, it shows the original photos used (so my next sentence will thus make sense). In the nominated image, there is a stitching error between 8/9...the "Marine Aviation" building has a dip to the right of middle in it.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 23:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Secondary comment: Enc is low in city, and mild in New York. If a suitable place could be found in New York City...  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 23:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Enc concern has been addressed (although I'm not quite sure if the double-panorama picture placement is appropriate, but my stitching concern hasn't.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 00:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Weak Support. It's a good panorama in terms of the amount of information contained, but there are some issues that should be raised. Firstly, this is a very wide view (approaching 180 degrees, I'm guessing), but because it is taken 'at ground level', there are no obvious visual cues that the panorama has a cylindrical projection. As a result, it looks like the buildings on the left and ride sides are much smaller than the ones in the middle, which isn't necessarily the case. So while the EV is increased by the wide view, it's also diminished IMO by the confusion generated by the projection in the absence of visual cues. It also seems to have a bit of a tilt on the right side and I'm kind of surprised that the image quality isn't better considering it was taken with a 5D MkII and has been downsampled considerably already. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmm, I've seen it suggested cylindrical is a good projection for very wide panos as rectilinear becomes distorted at the edges.... is this not right? E.g. Cambridge in Colour. As to building sizes, I think we are centered on the Chelsea neighborhood which is closer to Midtown than Lower Manhattan, so lower Manhattan would naturally look more small and distant. I vaguely remember reading the Manhattan schist comes up closer to the surface around Midtown and the financial district, making it ideal for skyscrapers in those areas. That would create the effect of a "wavy" skyline...not sure if that's what you meant. Fletcher (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right that cylindrical (or other similar projections) is the only projection that really works for panoramas approaching 180 degree AOV or more. I'm not suggesting it was the wrong projection to use, but my point was that because there isn't much in the way of visual cues, it's difficult to tell that it is a wide view. Take this panorama of mine as an example. It's also just under 180 AOV, but because it isn't taken from ground level, everything below the horizon is curved/warped. While some would argue that that is a bad thing (and did during the nomination), at least you can see that there is a 180 degree AOV because there are visual cues (ie in the centre, the buildings are facing you, then as you look to the left, they face diagonally, then when you reach the far left side, the sides are facing you, making it clear that you have just rotated 90 degrees around the scene from centre). Because the visual cues regarding the projection are virtually absent from this NYC image, I think most casual viewers would (subconsciously, if not consciously) view this image and assume that it was a 'normal' rectilinear image taken from a really long way away. It would then follow that the buildings on the left and right side were just 'smaller' or that the island seems to bulge towards us in the middle making the buildings look further away. They are further away, of course, but not further 'behind' the buildings in the middle, they are roughly parallel dispite appearing to be behind. In that sense, I find it misleading. Having said that, I can't think of any better way of showing the entire eastern Manhattan skyline, short of an aerial view from a bit further away. There's no substitute for distance when it comes to panoramas. The further away you are, the more accurate the projection. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  07:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I see what you're saying, but now I think it may be worth a weak support. We have some higher quality panoramas of Manhattan, but they seem to be north-south or nighttime perspectives. So this is a different and worthwhile view. Also, I think you might agree the photographer should get some deference as to the most viable vantage point. This image isn't geotagged, but I'm guessing it was taken near a place called Elysian Park.  You can see from the Google view it is a shoreline park amidst a highly developed area. To back up, you might need access to a high rise to get an unobstructed view. Fletcher (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken, I have changed my vote to a weak support. Agreed that many of the flaws in the image are largely outside of the photographer's control and aerial shots are unrealistic to expect! &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Support The EV needs to be clarified, per Spencer. It's strongest for NYC, obviously; less clear for the "Global Cities" section of City or for New York, the state.Update:EV concern seems resolved. Only weak support for IQ issue Diliff brought up.  Fletcher (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added the image to some other page, you are right, it is more useful on those pages.LiveChocolate (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support. A very high resolution panorama from an exceptionally clear day that shows the entire west side of Manhattan in great detail.  Have added landmark descriptions at the Architecture of New York City article and modified a map to illustrate the range of this photograph.  Highly encyclopedic, meets all criteria.  Durova  408 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since this is an image of the entirety of one side of Manhattan, the EV would be highest in that article, compared to some of the other ones that have less obvious encyclopedic value. I can't see an immediately obvious place for inclusion, but I think it would work well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, it shows more than just Manhattan. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There is just a little bit of Brooklyn to the right and a dock in New Jersey thats all. I don't see any problem. Tim1337 (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Tim1337: other than the bridges every major feature is part of Manhattan. As a note to reviewers who haven't seen New York City firsthand, skyscrapers are so dense in Manhattan that the United Nations building isn't visible at all from this vantage because the UN is on the East River and we're viewing from across the Hudson River.  The Chrysler Building used to be the tallest building in the world; only the spire shows from this angle because the Chrysler Building is on the east side.  This angle gets the Javits Center and the World Financial Center, etc.  Durova  408 17:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the addition of the map. It actually illustrates my point very well. The buildings directly in front of the camera/blue dot are much closer than the ones on the far-left and far-right sides of the panorama, but to look at the image without preconceptions of the geography, you simply wouldn't realise. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Correcting for distortions in panoramas is something you'd know much better than I. One factor to consider is how very few locations offer an unobstructed view this wide.  Durova  409 16:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, In my comment above I pointed to the Google view where you can see how built up the area is. I added a short comment to the caption that might help allay confusion. (?) If it's not disputed it could be added to the articles where the image appears. Fletcher (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Durova. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support as photographer! Jnn13 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as per Durova Tim1337 (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's very bold of you to say the subject is misrepresented when you "had never seen this city before!" Since we know the projection of the photo, but we don't know the projection of the map, perhaps the map does not reflect what one sees with his own eyes??  With respect, I believe this is a thoughtless "Oppose!"Jnn13 (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I live in Queens, even though the picture was taken from the Hudson river. (Not my view of Manhattan, I'm on the East river side) I see nothing wrong with the way it's "represented".Tim1337 (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks round. Is it round? Point 8.4 of criteria.  franklin   13:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Manhattan is round. Jnn13 (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, Manhattan is round then.  franklin   23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Manhattan is not round. And from the location that this photo was taken, Manhattan's visible shoreline is virtually straight. Read my discussion with Fletcher above for why it is misrepresented by the projection. However, there is nothing that can be done to improve the projection because the angle of view approaches 180 degrees. A view that did not curve straight lines would be very distorted towards the edges. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The straight shoreline together with the shrinking of the buildings makes it look round. Like when looking the edge of a coin like here.  franklin   14:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be repeating what was already discussed above. The conclusion was that nothing really could be done (short of cropping out much of the image); the distortion is a consequence of perspective (i.e., where the picture was taken relative to the subject), rather than a problem with the lens or post-processing.  And the difficulty is that it may be hard to find a different perspective because there are so many buildings in the area that would block the view.  So the question, for you, is whether you want to oppose based on this apparent distortion, or whether you'd support because this is a different and valuable view of Manhattan that we don't have.  Please note, I added this sentence to that caption hoping it would clarify things a little: "Due to the wide angle of view, it may be hard to tell that the shoreline is straight, the buildings on the sides approximately parallel to those in the center."  Fletcher (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * :) Now I remember a cartoon in which a maharajah goes around the world to become wise. He parts really quick but didn't listen before to what his counselor was trying to tell him. He returns, and telling the stories of his journeys he confuses all: Pyramids with Egyptian women, the coliseum with a fat centurion... etc. His counselor then brought him some books to read which was what he was trying to tell him. ;)  franklin   03:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment:  Not sure how to create new map. Here are approximate GPS coordinates (decimal?) of camera location: N40.751613, W74.021115  Jnn13 (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din \talk 11:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)