Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:STS 131 Post-Undocking Relative Separation.jpg

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

File:STS 131 Post-Undocking Relative Separation.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2010 at 10:22:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

STS 131 Post-Undocking Relative Separation
  •  Info created by NASA Expedition 23 crew member - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info The underside of space shuttle Discovery as it passes over the south end of Isla de Providencia.
  •  Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This image is full of strong jpeg-artifacts especially the dark blue water area. It is a nice composition but the quality is not sufficient. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment - are you sure that isn't waves? I don't see any jpg artifacts there. - MPF (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Yes. First I had the same idea as you. But when zooming in I saw clearly visible square blocks. And waves are not square shaped (normally...) -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) There are definitely waves passing from left to right; you can see them changing as they reach the reef. They seem highly pixelated, however. They don't even look right at the 800x529px size shown on the image description page. Compare with this, for example. Other artefacts are also visible at full size, e.g. around the edges and corners of the shuttle, and noise on the land, but at least they disappear when the picture is viewed at a more reasonable size. --Avenue (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment It seems this image has been retouched. I've uploaded the original here, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't suffer from these artifacts (at least not as bad). –Tryphon☂ 14:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Reviewing the original has been one of my first mouse clicks. Sorry for not mentioning it here. The original has weaker colours but suffers from the same problem. Improving the contrast has just emphasised the problem. What we see here may be the technical limit of the jpeg format. The fine grain structure of the ocean waves has a really high spatial frequency. A compression of the picture is nearly impossible without loosing information. I assume that the problem was already created when taking the picture. Since we don't have raw data of it we can't recover the original data. Sorry, but I can't change my negative vote. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree the same problems are apparent in the original NASA picture, although the artefacts (and especially the fringing) was made more obvious by the retouching. Anyway, now there is another reason to oppose the nominated version; the image description contains no documentation at all about this retouching. Colours and contrast seem to have been strengthened, and the image is slightly cropped, but we shouldn't have to guess at such things. --Avenue (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Per Xorx, but I love the composition and the subject matter. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support interesting viewpoint - MPF (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Xorx, and for strong colour fringing above the bright parts. A shame. --Avenue (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm at a complete loss as to what viewpoint I'm looking at it from. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose too bad :( --Leafnode✉ 09:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:STS_131_Post-Undocking_Relative_Separation.jpg&oldid=39052582"