Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pygoscelis antarctica trying to get to iceberg.wmv.OGG

File:Pygoscelis antarctica trying to get to iceberg.wmv.OGG, not featured

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2009 at 02:23:38

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Any chance of a high-res one for downloading? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Adam. May I please ask you, if you ment that you yourself would like to download the video?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

•  On hold Fantastic and useful file (penguins are rare here), and it's nice to see you improved the quality, but why did the video resolution decreased? VGA format was cool, and for now I don't think I'd feature a video with such a small size. →Diti the penguin — 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah Diti the penguin , to tell you the truth I doubt this video could be featured. I did it mostly for you because I know you like penguins. With videos higher rsolution does not always mean a higher quality, it might be just the opposite. The only video format Commons accept is OGG. Here's the highest resolution I was able to get after I converted my video to OOG: File:Pygoscelis antarctica trying to get to iceberg edit1.OGG. I cannot play it at my computer at all, so I cannot say anything about the quality. It is for you to decide which one is better. I only like to add that we had a big fun watching those penguins. I do not think penguins had fun too. There was a w:Leopard Seal nearby, and somebody even saw a w:killer whale.Thank you for watching, and please feel absolutely free to oppose, everybody.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Info I've been on a category-restructuring frenzy lately, and I just shuffled around a lot of penguin-related categories and images. :) I also made a category for penguin-related videos. This is a good starting point to explore the new category tree, and of course feel free to make any alterations you want. --Notyourbroom (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! May I please ask you, if you were able to watch the higher resolution of the video, and which resolution you liked better? This question is for everybody, please. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I did indeed watch the high-resolution version-- it's a very fascinating scene. Almost like watching salmon try to jump up small waterfalls to go upstream. I'd call it very valuable, but alas, the lack of a tripod to keep the camera steady- as well as just the distance between the camera and the subjects- gives it some technical problems. Still a joy to watch, though, and I envy these experiences you have :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Notyourbroom. Which one worked better for you the nominated or a higher resolution one? --Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not sure I understand your question, Mbz1 :) both versions play fine to me, and it seems to be that as in photography, the highest-resolution version ought to be the preferred archival version. Please clarify your question if I have missed your point. :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I was trying to understand what version you as a viewer would prefer, but you already answered my question. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There is also the issue that my monitor is set to 1920*1080 resolution, so anything of relatively low resolution seems even smaller to me :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)