Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:FullColourGIF.gif
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:FullColourGIF.gif, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2014 at 20:34:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by GDallimore - uploaded by GDallimore - nominated by GDallimore -- GDallimore (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Support -- GDallimore (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Question -- The original image has 3,580 colours. Yet the gif implies 1880 colours is full colour. Why the difference? Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- As I understand, you break the normal 256 color limit in a GIF by splitting it into 16 squares, each with its own local pallete of 156 colors, and animate the patches with a frame delay of zero. Now in principle such a patchwork of 16 GIFs could contain up to 16x256=4096 distinct colors, but since some of the colors are reused in different patches due to the manner the color pattern is created, you do not get so many different distinct colors in the end and "only" end up with 1880 distinct colors when you combine the 16 local palettes. It is explained very detailed in the file page (not why it ends up with 1880 though). --Slaunger (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I understand now. That perhaps should be explained in the description. Also I used the small file for the thumb so people can actually see the effect. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- In my view it is explained: "Further improvements in image quality could be obtained by selecting the blocks more carefully such that each block has no more than 255 colours in the original image; the blocks also need not be contiguous regions. Alternatively, smaller blocks could be used: a 16x16 block has 256 pixels so would contain at most that many colours and would be a suitable choice for all but the most complex of images. "
- Also, I've put the image back to the full size GIF. That's the file that's being nominated and has much more wow factor than the smaller version which is for use only in Wikipedia articles to get around technical limitations. GDallimore (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually the image is being displayed at full size because I removed the hard pixel size. Originally it was set to 300px thus the effect was borked. I used the smaller file so as not to fill people's screens. That aside, if you think that is a good explanation of my original question so be it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support Interesting effect. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 09:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
