Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Platonic Solids Stereo Animations

Set Candidate - Platonic Solids Stereo Animations, featured

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 11:36:26

•  Info created, uploaded & nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Animated stereo[1] images of the five Platonic solids, unfolding & refolding themselves to highlight their structure. Recommended viewing distance: 30-50 cm. Designed & rendered with Wolfram Mathematica 7, assembled & optimized with Ulead GIF Animator 5. See User:JovanCormac for a page with all the animations at full size. -- JovanCormac (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Caution: Internet Explorer has difficulty displaying high-quality, large animated GIFs smoothly. Using Firefox or another alternative browser is highly recommended for optimal viewing. -- JovanCormac (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Poor Kepler. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Why is each object displayed twice? --Ernie (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info It isn't. The right vesion is slightly rotated to the left. Those are not normal pictures, but autostereograms which can be viewed in 3D (you probably know Magic Eye). For more information, and viewing instructions, see [2]. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info (ec) I'd assume it's because they're stereograms. You're supposed to uncross your eyes to see them in 3D. (Incidentally, having the different images side by side is really distracting when you try to do that. I've been bold and added some <br> tags above to make the layout more stereo-friendly. Oh, and these are not autostereograms, just plain old stereograms.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you for aligning the pictures, Ilmari. And yes, those are autostereograms, not just stereograms. From Wikipedia: "Autostereograms are similar to normal stereograms except they are viewed without a stereoscope." Well, to view those images, you only need to cross your eyes, not use a stereoscope. -- JovanCormac (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC) The relevant Wikipedia articles seem not to distinguish precisely between stereogram and autostereogram. I have relabeled the series as simply "stereograms" to avoid confusion. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think that sentence is meant to be a definition, merely a description. It certainly doesn't match the definition of "autostereogram" that I'm aware of, which is essentially what's given in the terminology section of the article, as well as the lead sentence: "An autostereogram is a single-image stereogram [...]". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose To me it looks like the sides do are not stiched together completely, like there is a small gap as both the background and the edges are white. ( I can't judge the stereo part of this as I have never managed to see the 3D in such images although I have tried many times ). /Daniel78 (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I'd support the dodecahedron but I'm not sure they all should be FPs. --Calibas (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support That's awesome! →Diti the penguin — 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Cool --Muhammad (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice. --Svgalbertian (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support very cool. Time3000 (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support useful and well made, good job ! --ianaré (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Oooh! Normally, I simply ignore animations as I find myself unable to judge them adequately. I find most animations quite simplistic and crude, mostly due to the limitations of technology and filesize. I was about to ignore this one (a bunch of rotating shapes), when I read that it was a 3D image. Once you cross your eyes in the right way and see the 3D, it is really well done! Good job, and I definitely support! --JalalV (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)