Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Earth's atmosphere.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Earth's atmosphere.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2013 at 01:14:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Slice showing layers of Earth's atmosphere

* Oppose At the moment, the shape inclined is not OK, and the layers at the bottom are too close.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I uploaded a new upright version. I cannot do anything about the layers at the bottom being too close, that's just how they are—Expanding them would either 1) Make the diagram ridiculously large or 2) Take it out of scale, rendering it useless.—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It took a while for me to "get" that the image is intended to be a three-dimensional, prismatic cross-sectional slice through the atmosphere. I understand the taper is to reflect the fact that this is a radial slice, but the top and bottom triangles of the slice do not match—the angles are very different. Are you trying to convey a sense of perspective? Why are you using a ground-based view of the aurorae? Should you not be using a space-based view? Perhaps if you experimented with re-positioning the clouds in the lower levels, the mental confusion that I have can be alleviated. My brain says, "this is supposed to be three-dimensional", but my gut remains unconvinced. Most of the big stuff is bunched up at the rear face of the prism, hardly anything is towards the front edge, adding to my feeling that this is not "really" a three dimensional view. In that case, what's wrong with a good old-fashioned planar diagram? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the aurorae are correct in their perspective. They look the same from 30° above and from 30° below, as they are transparent. And I didn't find the perspective so difficult to understand, really. --Julian H. (talk/files) 10:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am currently viewing the diagram on a monitor in which the top portion of the diagram is almost solid black. I can barely see the triangular top of the prismatic section. This forces the entire diagram to look two-dimensional, like a black strip of construction paper with some colored triangles at the bottom. On my monitor at home, however, I can clearly see the top of the prism and the shading intended to give a three-dimensional effect. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1—For the auroræ, you may be seeing an optical illusion, which causes them to seem reversed. 2—Only the cumulonimbus clouds are at the back, the rest of the objects are in the middle or in the front. 3—please see Commons:Image guidelines.—Kelvinsong (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1—I would say that it is more due to subtle features of aerial perspective that cause my mind to insist that, for instance, the right side of the auroral arc at 10 o'clock, being duller in color, is further away than the left side, and this forces my mental orientation of the other auroral arcs. Compare with ISS photographs of aurorae as seen from space. The Necker cube works because of a complete lack of perspective cues. 2—Yes, and they are far more prominent than the cirrus clouds or the barely visible contrails. 3—The typical computer user does not generally adjust their monitors according to the careful standards outlined. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1—There are no volumetrics in this image—while it would certainly help with judging locations of objects, it is an extremely complex effect that's hard to do in inkscape, and even harder under librsvg. Plus the air is so thin it's almost nonexistent in the thermosphere anyway. The only reason the aurora looks brighter in the back left is because there's a bend and it's curving away from the camera, so you're seeing two layers of auroræ there, as well as a fresnel effect. Also, auroræ aren't homogenous in color and brightness, they an vary and taper off in brightness, even towards the viewer.
3—There is a reason why those guidelines exist—so illustrators and photographers know they are seeing the same things as the reviewers. If I were to brighten the triangle for you, then everyone else would be seeing a too-bright triangle.—Kelvinsong (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the concept of this image was a very difficult one to pull off. You gave yourself a real challenge here. I visited your user page, by the way. You've done some really beautiful and impressive work! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've brightened the triangle a little, better now?—Kelvinsong (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can let you know Monday lunchtime when I'm free to browse from work. I expect it to be much better. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at it from my work monitor. Much better. Just remember that on LCD displays, viewing angle strongly affects the appearance. Even with the brightening, when viewed from the wrong angle, the shapes at the top disappear. What would happen if you outlined the edges? Would that be too cartoonish? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could give you a long, stupid, "artist-person" answer, but it would probably be incomprehensible to most, so short answer is no—more or less the same reason you mentioned.—Kelvinsong (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Only after reading Stigmatella aurantiaca's comment did I notice that this is supposed to represent a 3D object. I was thinking all the time that it was flat and having a very strange shape. I agree that it's because the triangular top is too dark and hardly can be seen. The sides could also be of more distinct colors. Capmo (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I've increased the brightness of the top triangle and the contrast in the thermosphere, even though it violates the shading system in the rest of the picture. For Capmo, the sides are shaded differently, but it's very hard to see on a transparent object—they have little shading, so we usually rely on reflection—something which doesn't apply to a volume like air.—Kelvinsong (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Earth%27s_atmosphere.svg&oldid=89171786"