Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Northern Lights timelapse.gif
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Northern Lights timelapse.gif, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 23:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
- Info created and- uploaded by Kristian Pikner - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- >>>Direct link to the timelapse For some reason the gif is not showing up directly as thumb on all browsers. Anyone know why and how to fix it? --cart-Talk 23:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I think the thumb is failing because of a long job queue. Ainali (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ah! Yes at 18MB it is a heavy gif file to process. I was comparing it with one of my own gifs but that is only 4MB and is no problem in small size. cart-Talk 10:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - That's a great document. It's very small for FP, but because it's a timelapse and not one or more single pictures of the aurora, I think making an exception to our usual size requirements can be justified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - One caveat: I would hope that before we feature this file, the time interval of the time lapses will be identified in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This won't display properly on FF, IE, Chrome, Opera, or Safari, on Windows, OS, and Linux (I tested it out with a useragent switcher). I would support this if the display issue is fixed, but I can't support something with a serious technical problem. lNeverCry 02:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Worked on Firefox for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Is changing the user agent really relevant? It doesn't increase the software capabilities if the browser cannot handle it. Works fine on Chrome on Android. Ainali (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Ainali (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral per primarily viewing it in Firefox, and also the tendency of some of the Wikipedias to discourage the use of these .gifs when possible because of technical issues like this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
NeutralSupport Impressive, no doubt! I'm just not sure whether gifs like this one belong here as they are a good deal more like movies than stills. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC).
- Comment - We've judged web videos and animated GIFs here before. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's true, and (if I remember correctly) I also supported some of these nominations. Still, shouldn't there be another project specifically for that, something like "Featured Movies"? Or should we redefine FPC to evolve into something like "Featured Media"? Not that's its a terribly pressing problem - the number of truly good vids/animations/etc. on Commons pales into insignificance when compared to our massive holdings of excellent still photography --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Someone started Commons:Featured media candidates but there is no nomination process. Ainali (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- @W.carter: It displays great at full size, no? lNeverCry 09:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, that really lit up the page! :) --cart-Talk 10:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support It is simply a great picture, however I would also like the timeframe in the description. Looking at the un-traily stars and the airplanes going by I guess it is about a couple of minutes. It would also be great if there was a smaller version of this (below 4MB) as an alternative (linked to under "other versions") so that this can work as a thumb or smaller picture, otherwise it is almost impossible to use this in an article; for that there has to be something else than an annoying little icon up in the frame for the reader to click on. Many Wikipedia editors would love to use this, but as it is now they can't. I think the problem with displaying it here in any other way than full size really illustrates the problem. (Can anyone see it as a thumb here, or even at x300px?) cart-Talk 10:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Display problem solved by Kristian who uploaded a smaller version for use. The original full-screen version is still accessible in the file's history. Now it can be used in articles as well as seen in its full glory. Many thanks! --cart-Talk 11:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- strong oppose IMO animated GIFs have no place in a serious image repository, and are especially unsuitable for photographic animation rather than simple CGI models. This is 2016 and we have video formats now going all the way up to 4k and true colour rather than a palette of 256! See File:Falkirk Wheel Timelapse, Scotland - Diliff.webm for an example video created from stills. The only reason such GIFs are popular on the internet is that Apple killed Flash and we've yet to find a universal alternative for moving images one can't turn off. I would support this if a quality video file was created instead. The GIF here has been reduced in size so that it is only 500x331, which is smaller than an old standard-definition TV from last century. If it was a video, then an HD image would be possible, it could be streamed, and viewers can start/stop/pause/rewind. There's really no excuse for choosing this file format. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Colin. Yann (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Colin makes a strong case for opposing this. I had thought of supporting if this display issue was fixed, but it really wasn't fixed. The creator had to upload a much smaller version instead. I'm going to stay at oppose. I wonder if Colin, Yann, and others would be interested in starting a discussion or RFC on excluding .gif (and perhaps a few other formats) from FPC? I would support that. lNeverCry 19:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Its good to see it, but i see banding even on this small size. Without, in normal size, some 1080px, this could be FP. For now, maybe Valued Image. But those planes, i got feeling meteorits are flying from the Earth to the sky. --Mile (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 08:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)