Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glass is Liquide

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Glass is Liquide

[edit]
Illustration of refraction in various materials, made in Dielectric Shader. Three different Dielectric interfaces, demonstrating the use of Dielectric Shaders.
Alternative 1 - You can also vote for this one or both.
This is not a photo. Nor is it for voting. Avert your eyes.
Nothing is real.
Reason
I searched a lot for a better image with free licence, but I couldn't find any. Describes the subject very well.
Articles this image appears in
Dielectric Shader
Creator
Mehran Moghtadai
I believe that would be due to refraction. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "shadow" is actually a reflection on the glass of what's in front of the object. This was photographied in a "white box" witch is a standard studio photography technique when it come up to take picture of reflective or semi-reflective objects (glass, metal, etc...). The object is surrounded all in white with a diffused flash on the top and a narrow opening in the front. The openning is actually the black "shadow" on the glass. PYMontpetit 17:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice description... but this isn't a photograph. It's a computer-generated image, using the technique of dielectric shading to make it look real. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I thought this wasn't a photograph. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of which really answers my question! Whether its real or simulated, there are shadows (or reflections) on both jars which appear to bear no relation to any of the objects depicted. Is that intentional or erroneous? Sorry to persist but it's not clear from the picture, the caption, the article or ‘refraction’. Pstuart84 Talk 20:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author is my friend. I'll see him soon and ask him about reflections. But I'm pretty sure he didn't made a mistake. --Arad 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's great. Pstuart84 Talk 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Highly encyclopedic and beautiful! - Alvesgaspar 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • question - many of you view this as highly encyclopedic. How does it illustrate Dielectric shading? For example, I don't know which of the aspects of the image are only possible with this rendering technique, I think a less stylized, but more annotated image would be much more instructive. Perhaps I'm not understanding something though?Debivort 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - This is a nice example of the capabilities of the Dielectric shader but doesn't tell me anything about how it works or what it does. A sequence from wireframe to solid shaded to transparent to dielectric or something might be a good illustration, but as it is this is pretty but not particularly enc. I'm also a little puzzled by the reflection in the blue glass, which seems unrealistic (unless it's a reflection of something else in the scene). Also, isn't the use of the Stella Artois logo a copyright/trademark violation? --YFB ¿ 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I checked Fair use and it might be possible that in this case, the picture doesn't violate copyrights. Although the material copied is clearly a copyrighted one, we can safely assume there is no commercial intention behind the picture. The goal of author was probably to make a realistic rendering of a glass of beer, and he had to use a realistic logo to do so. He arranged the scene so only parts of logos are in sight (but maybe more than one third the logo is too much). Also, I think this may only benefit to the brand. Blieusong 11:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To an average person looking at that it just looks like ornate coloured glass... also the article itself isnt helpful in its explanation to the average person. It is rightly labeled with the {{context}} tag. So overall, unhelpful picture and unhelpful article so the image has no value --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 09:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Whichever way you look at this (top pic) it's a clear FP promotion. Ok, encyclopedically it may be a liitle weak but I really don't think there is a better way of illustrating the technique than by finished example, which this verifiably is. The reflections of these ray-trace illustrations infuriate me, they're so accurate; I can see nothing there which wouldn't feasibly appear in an equally high-res studio shot. It's even got some 'real' flaws - the graduated background is exactly like a (not very well-done) single-toplight white bg shot. Very clever, very nice. mikaultalk 09:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • hmm.. looking again, those bubbles are wrong in a differnt way; they look metallic, like mercury rather than air. I'd expect real-world air bubbles to show more colour. This is probably down to some limitation in the software, so I'll not change my vote. mikaultalk 09:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose pretty but unencyclopedic. Kind of like using one of Dschwen's new images to illustrate "Canon 5D".Debivort 00:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With frames illustrating the process - as YFB suggested above. Or close up views of examples of each of those dilectric interfaces (I still don't know what they refer to, despite that phrase appearing in the caption). Debivort 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean? Those are shadows of "Window like" objects in the scene (or behind the scene)! The author tried to make it realistic. --Arad 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Glass_is_Liquide&oldid=1138504362"