Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chouette crâne (2).jpg

File:Chouette crâne (2).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2010 at 12:21:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Chouette crâne (2).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chouette crâne (2).jpg

•  Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment 3 Images; F20; ISO 100; 1/10s
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Not sure there's enough clarity on the recess of the eye socket. Otherwise I'd support. oneblackline (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment -- I wonder why you make a panorama of such a small object. Did you try focus bracketing instead, to guarantee that the whole skull is focused (example here)? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment These are not three types panorama picture: the camera does not move. These are three pictures with three different focus. They are not made-to-end tips but superimposed. With IQ you have a hornet with 8 photos. It's a bit long but the results are interresting. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm confused, how do you get 36 Mp with this camera? Did you upsample the result? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Only 25,7 Mpxl. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Nope, 7,143 x 5,095 = 36,393,585 > 36 Mpix -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The picture that emerges from the device is 25.7 Mpxl, it is very tight on the subject, and as I was told a Portuguese friend, former sea captain, I add a little space for aesthetics. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I understand now. Who's that moron? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Ggia (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support A bit noisy and unsharp, but OK. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Sorry my friend, but a studio shot like this should be perfect. As far as I see, the closest parts of the skull are not on focus (the lowest part of the beak, for example). This means that a larger number of photos have to be made in order to cover the whole depth of the subject. As for the noise/artifacts, I don't thing it is a serious problem, especially if you intend to make paper copies. However it can be minimized by a careful choice of the exposure parameters (longer exposures are associated with more noise). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Reste un problème : la stabilité. Il me faut une table micrométrique, car au déclanchement du rideau l'apareil bouge, avec ces réglages çà ne pardonne pas. Soit alors abandonner l'éclairage continu pour des flashs que je n'aime pas pour minimiser l'erreur. Je continu à chercher et je m'approche de la solution. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Nevertheless --Llez (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 13:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)