Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ultrasound of fetal spine at 20 weeks 3D Dr. Moroder.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Ultrasound of fetal spine at 20 weeks 3D Dr. Moroder.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2011 at 12:47:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose -- Sorry, this is too small at 411,156 pixels. See Commons:Image guidelines. —Bruce1eetalk 13:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)- InfoThis image is not a photograph but has been generated by high frequency (5Mhz) mechanical vibrations. Therefore rules of photography do not apply in determining the image quality in terms of pixels.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - really too small. I'd suggest nominating for valued image status. It is possible to create a 2MPx ultrasound image, so while the "rules of photography" may not apply, our rules concerning image size still do. --Claritas (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- InfoThe biggest image size I can produce with a ultrasound device is a 3Dcolor bitmapped image 1,78 MB. As far as I read image size is not essential for FP it is only for QI --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's the width × height (in pixels) of the image which is mentioned in the guidelines not to be confused by the file size in Mb. This product shall under normal circumstances be above 2 million (2 Mpixels), unless there are good mitigating reasons. (Your type of ultrasound generated image may or may not be considered mitigatable, but that depends on the opinion of the reviewers and the per pixel information content). Interesting and refreshing topic though. --Slaunger (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. The point is, that ultrasound images have a low resolution due to the wavelenght of mechanical vibrations compared to electromagnetic vibrations (light). These physical facts should be considered by reviewers. Therefore, I stated and repeat it that this is NOT a photography but it is a picture and that should not preclude it to become FP--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC).
- Did I say it was a photo :-)? I have been working for years with Scanning tunneling microscopes which produces computer generated images like this in less than 2Mpixel resolution, so I know what you mean, which is also the reason I say the technique may be considered a reason for mitigating the minimum 2Mpixel resolution guideline. --Slaunger (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Uploaded image with higher pixel number and .tif format --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
