Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Passiflora caerulea STEREO (R-L) 2019-06-27.jpg

Passiflora caerulea (blue passionflower) STEREO (R-L)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 17:50:07 (UTC)

Original – Two Passiflora caerulea flowers arranged as a stereo image pair. To be viewed cross-eyed.

Reason: It is the first cross-eyed stereo image included in the stereoscopy article and one of very few cross-eyed stereo images at all, Featured picture (also Quality image) within the category "plants" on Wiki commons, POTD 2019-08-14 on French Wikipedia, high-resolution image, link to stereoscopy article on French wikipedia.
Articles in which this image appears: stereoscopy, fr: Stéréoscopie, fr: "Image du jour" / Picture of the Day 2019-08-14
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
Creator: Franz van Duns

Support as nominator – Franz van Duns (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs to be in article for 7 days to be eligible. Shall we wait, or will you re-nominate is when 7 days have passed? ~~Tentative~~ support. --Janke | Talk 19:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oops, many thanks for this crucial hint! I admit I had overlooked this statement "min. 7 days wait after adding to the article before nominating" on my highly exciting journey through the ways and wends of Wikipedia's numerous regulation pages, coming as I am from just over a year's membership at Wiki commons with its slightly different set of nomination proceedings. Yes, of course, I am absolutely willing to comply and thus agree to wait the required 7 days' latency period (i.e. from 15 August till 23 August 2019) before proceeding, and I'll surely wait for the required 7 days should I ever nominate another image. But in this case I do think this image's encyclopaedic value will entice enough supporters within the given time span and will thus justify this extra quarantine period. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have tried to look at this in 3D, but no luck! Am I missing something, is there a technique, glasses, etc? Bammesk (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- For some people, it's simply impossible. You can at least try by displaying the pair in a smaller size (say, 100 mm or so), then concentrate your focus on your own nose tip, and slowly let your eye muscles relax. At some point the images (may hopefully) coalesce, and you see the 3-D image. This one is really good, BTW. --Janke | Talk 07:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As Janke correctly states, cross-eyed viewing is impossible for some people (including my wife and others I have tested in this request, check Stereoscopy#Visual_requirements), but it is otherwise very handy for unaided viewing straight from the screen, as no viewing apparatus is required. Works astoundingly well (at least for me) even if the stereo pair is displayed at full screen size, thus providing a level of detail not possible with standard stereo viewers due to their limited image size. See article Stereoscopy#Freeviewing, which explains the two possible arrangements for stereo viewing.
  For all others I have supplied a version arrranged for parallel viewing (click on the above image and scroll to "Other versions"), which can be viewed under a stereoscope / stereoscopic viewer after having been resized to a range between 60x60 mm and 100x100 mm each image. And, for any other purpose, e.g. stereo viewing of individual sections of a stereo image, I have also supplied the two single images which compose the stereo pairs. Just enlarge these, each within its own individual window, say to 50%, then shift both images until the detail you are interested in is centered in each window. Arrange the two windows (R-L or L-R) as required for your chosen viewing method and now enjoy an abundancy of details within this section in full stereo that even a full screen display simply cannot render. This is only possible if the images, as here, are provided with a relatively high resolution.
  Caveat: I know that this is, of course, not encyclopaedic information, but it may be of value for others who have difficulties viewing stereo images or for those who intend to enhance their knowledge about methods of viewing images. I have been taking stereo images for quite a number of years and would designate myself as an experienced photography amateur, now retired, with a background of astrophysics. Would it help if I extended the section Freeviewing by a concise version of "What must I do? I simply can't see any stereo effect." or similar. Who would I as a newbie have to contact ahead before adding any unwelcome text and thus possibly causing an uproar amongst a multitude of seasoned editors? My wiki experience to date is limited to some 50 image uploads to Wiki commons and, well, to this particular image as my first and singular addition to wikipedia. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  See your talk page, I commented there. --Janke | Talk 17:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC) - Thanks![reply]
Do you have an image with only a single flower in it? I'm thinking you can substitute the infobox image in Passiflora caerulea with such an image. Anyway, one flower in the pair has the same physical resolution and better DOF than that image. The seven day waiting period is a good idea to sit out, this is one of those topics that has a high turnover of images. If it sticks, then support. But suspend for a week first. MER-C 14:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @MER-C: Many thanks for your suggestion. I propose the following image, taken in June 2019: File:Passiflora-caerulea 2019-06-23 (DSC2447-1).jpg. In the past two months I have taken quite a number of Passiflora images at different angles and sizes, some of which I intend to upload soon; some are side views, some taken from underneath, and some focussed on the centre features. The Passiflora vine that produced these images is still flowering and I am continuously taking images as long as this lasts. Are you asking me to replace the existing image in Passiflora caerulea without consulting anyone ahead? OK, I have read Janke's comment on my talk page regarding addition of new content to wikipedia, and all my contributions to Wiki commons are, of course, new content, but do the same rules also apply to replacement of existing content? I emphasize that I have great respect for all those who have agreeably contributed to the Wiki universe over many years and do not want to create unnecessary antagonisms by disrespectfully ignoring any of the unwritten rules that govern which content may be replaced and which must remain. This said I deduce that a tentative entry on the corresponding "talk page" would be the correct entrée. Ok with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz van Duns (talk • contribs) 20:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't need to ask, especially if the image is obviously better. MER-C 10:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - DONE: Replaced top infobox image in Passiflora caerulea with this recent high-resolution, fully frontal image: File:Passiflora_caerulea_(2019-06-24)_frontal-view.jpg.
Conditional Support per MER-C. Bammesk (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI The image was added to the article on Aug. 15th, so it becomes eligible already on the 22nd. --Janke | Talk 07:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my behalf: with the clock ticking relentlessly and only just over 50 hours to go, this one last ploy on my own behalf.
This stereo image of two flowers was explicitly entered into as a Featured picture candidate for Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment, not of the individual flower I replaced on the page Passiflora caerulea, even though the depicted object certainly has its non-technical charms. It isn't perfect, no picture truely is, but the following technical considerations do give support to my entry: this image is an example of a photographic technique rarely practiced nowadays, it reproduces all colours without undue exaggeration, and it displays a tremendous amount of detail from one edge to the other, even if fully viewed at a resolution only few contemporary camera sensors can provide. Other versions supplied are a parallel-view stereo version for use with a stereoscope and also the two individual images. IMHO images of this kind enrich the technical expertise and scope of wikipedia and thus qualify for Featured picture status. Now it is up to you to comment and/or vote ... -- Franz van Duns (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur, and strike "tentative" from my post above. --Janke | Talk 18:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I cannot get the stereoscopic effect to work (at any reasonable size) with something that wide, so I need to take your word for it being good. An image taller than it is wide is way easier to stereoscope. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 16:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It absolutely works. Personally, I can merge cross-eyed images of up to 300 mm width at normal monitor viewing distance, but that really strains the eye muscles - and I look like Ben Turpin. This one, displayed about 150 mm wide on my setup is a cinch. YMMV... ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Passiflora caerulea STEREO (R-L) 2019-06-27.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]