Original - A panoramic view of the Dar es Salaam city.

Edit 1

Edit 2 - Tilt hopefully fixed

Reason

A good quality, high resolution image of the city. Another version of this image was nominated here, but withdrawn due to some stitching errors. This image has both the sea level heights at the extreme left & right the same. The undulating horizon is a geographical feature due to the presence of the Pugu Forests, Pugu Hills and the Kisarawe Mountains. The image is unique with no other free or commercially available alternatives. It was originally meant to be 360 degree panorama but due to some problems, is a few degrees short of that with a few meters of the ocean view cut-off. Unfortunately, it is not possible to re-shoot as the building is not usually open to visitors and is currently undergoing some repairs.

Articles this image appears in

Dar es Salaam

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 12:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A good improvement in alignment and shows good detail of the city. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support there is still a tilt (50-60 px) in sea level left/right that needs to be fixed. --Janke | Talk 13:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It still looks boring to me. Sorry.--Caspian blue 19:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have the right to your opinion, but I don't think that is a valid reason to oppose. Muhammad(talk) 14:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry that you are hurt by my honest opinion, but that is almost same as "no wow factor" at Commons' featured picture. I don't believe the picture to be a featured material.--Caspian blue 20:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commons and wikipedia have different criteria. While commons gives preference to quality and beauty, wikipedia considers encyclopedic value and uniqueness of the image. A no wow factor may thus be acceptable at commons but IMO it is not here. Muhammad(talk) 03:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm well aware of the difference, but I don't think the standards for FP here is not decided by you.--Caspian blue 13:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • But can you tell us where in the criteria it refers to "wow factor"? I agree that it influences votes here, but it definitely is not in the criteria. Muhammad wasn't suggesting that he decides the standards. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Wow" is a plus, but not a requirement. (You could say that "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more." implies some "wow"... ;-) Enc should always be the most important criterium! --Janke | Talk 16:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe you're right, but feature picture is for "perfection" and the gray image is not "eye-catching" in my opinion. If the picture is unique, that is because it is a panorama.--02:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
            • The idea that featured pictures are 'for perfection' is one that has been mentioned quite a bit recently, but this is also completely wrong IMO. Nowhere does it say the picture has to be perfect. The word 'compelling' (as Janke alluded to) is probably the strongest adjective that should be used to describe a FP. A FP can be imperfect in many ways as long as satisfies the criteria. Also, I would say that the picture is fairly unique not just because the image is a 360 degree panorama, but also simply because there are not many (any?) other photos of Dar es Salaam taken from elevation. I'm not saying this alone should guarantee it to be a FP, but regardless, it's rarity should give it some leeway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support per Janke. Durova^Charge! 03:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support Edit 2 per Janke looks better now. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 1 Uploaded --Muhammad(talk) 14:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something is wrong with the stitching - edit 1 has a clearly curved horizon in the right 1/4th of the image, while the original has not. How can we be sure which is right - or that any of them is right? --Janke | Talk 16:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first panorama uploaded (Image:Dar_es_Salaam_City_360.jpg) was stitched using Autopano. It had a 100px difference in the levels of the left and right. This panorama was stiched with PTGui using the automatic control points. The edit 1 had a slight modification in the alignment.All, the Autopano's version, the PTgui's original version and the original individual images have the horizon in the first 1/4 with a slight curve. The edit must have been distorted during the rotation of the panorama to cause a slightly larger curve. I don't want to sound like a moaner but I have already spent more than 6 hrs stitching the panoramas, around 2 hrs with them in photoshop (with a more than 30000px image, photoshop seems to freeze) and over an hour uploading them (with my 5kbps). Is there any acceptable method of simply pulling the curve down or raising the level of the sea on the left? Do these few minor details make much of a difference? Muhammad(talk) 18:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of these two, the first is the better one - less curvature. (A wobbly horizon in a panorama is very unappealing, unless I can be sure it's natural...) Could you just fix the tilt in the first version? --Janke | Talk 20:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixing a small tilt by simply rotating in something this long would most likely result in losing quite a bit of image after cropping back to straight edges. --jjron (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. As I've commented before, I personally don't like 360° panos, however have previously supported them based on good EV, as seen here. However, without wanting to further impinge on Muhammad's time, I wonder if a restitched version showing the key parts of the scene wouldn't have similar EV, while simultaneously resolving the stitching concerns expressed above (I'm thinking of say the first 180° from left, or perhaps even the first 120° would be sufficient, and would result in a less 'stretched' look, and could still link to the 'full' version). --jjron (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Since I can not fix the tilt, do the other voters agree with jjron's suggestion of cutting the panorama to half or a third? Let me know so I should know whether to upload an edit. Muhammad(talk) 14:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a shame your internet connection is so slow. I'd be happy to try to stitch it myself to see if it could be improved, but it would simply take too long for you to upload the photos. It is a shame as I personally think that while there is definitely a curving/lean of the horizon, it is very hard to get exactly right, so I sympathise! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the offer but like you said, uploading 250mb will take forever :) Muhammad(talk) 11:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 2 Uploaded. I think the tilt is now gone, though I had to crop a few pixels out. Muhammad(talk) 15:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 (which I still feel is a bit "wobbly"), mostly because of the high enc of the subject matter. If consensus can be reached for a shorter version, I'll support that, too. --Janke | Talk 16:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2. A great pano of a part of the world currently lacking in images on WP. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit two I think it looks nice. Spencer^T♦C 17:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit two I love panoramas of cities I haven't ever seen before. Great encyclopedic value, few if any technical problems. --Leivick (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Dar es Salaam Panorama edit2.jpg MER-C 07:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]