Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sacsayhuamán Décembre 2006 - Vue Panoramique - Pleine résolution.jpg

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

Image:Sacsayhuamán Décembre 2006 - Vue Panoramique - Pleine résolution.jpg, featured[edit]

Ruines de Sacsayhuamán 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Simonizer (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1, not featured[edit]

Sacsayhuamán

  •  Info Downsampled (10 mpx) version of previous picture. Sharper at 100% zoom, but the same effect is achieved with a 50% zoom of the full sized picture.
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Calibas (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Dtarazona (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose downsampling destroys data. – flamurai 05:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Did you shoot these with DSC V-1? If yes, you might need 2-3 rows instead of one row. Full resolution * 0.25 is the best for DC, resolution <> detail. Also, you already had an argument in here. ALL producers make the Camera's resolution high by Aliasing the image before it is saved to JPEG. The purpose of downsample is: 1.Reduce Noise/Grain 2.Make the image look sharper ... Let me give you one more example, the FP Image:Saint Chely Tarn.jpg has 19 megapixels, the author downsampled from full res to 30%. That could be calulated: (2592*3888)*30%/6 = 503884.8(resolution per 1/6 individual segment). The entire image has 14 segments, WHEN excluding the overlaps, there are 40 parts of 1/6. 40(parts)*503884.8(best res per 1/6 part)=20.1 , similar to the UPLOADED 19.6 megapix. AFTER Croping, it's perfectly logical. --Base64 (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've used my old DSC-V1, and the picture is taken at the maximum zoom of 4x, so the picture is at it's maximum possible resolution. I totally agree that a oversampled picture of a very big mosaic reduces noise/grain and makes the image sharper, I'd be a fool to think otherwise. But that downsampling results in a loss of information. Commons being a deposit of free images, someone can take my full resolution image and modify/rotate/downsample it with a higher quality in the end than if he was working with the already downsampled version. For example, if someone would like to do a wallpaper with the left edge of the picture (Cusco and Sacsayhuamán) for a screen like mine (1680x1050), he would downsample from my full resolution version (1050<2068 vertical pixels), but would have to zoom on my downsampled picture (1050>1032 vertical pixels). I admit that I've posted these 2 different resolutions to make a point, since my last FPC had 4 of the 5 oppose votes because of lack of details at 100% zoom on a 4800 x 3500 full resolution picture. And I hope this vote will support the guideline's point on maximum resolution, and future un-downsampled FPC will be able to refer to this vote for support. --S23678 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Your statement is unclear... what is going on in the foreground? Clarify your reason please. --S23678 (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Comment This comment was inserted by MathbfC, not by me. --S23678 (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The need for further explanation of a vote, while there is nothing to stop anyone from continuing to ask; I personally am more interested in the answering of a similar question which was asked at the nomination of Paeonia Detail and that image is much closer to the closing of the evaluation time than this one is (I think). -- carol (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment (sorry, English is my second language). Can you re-write please saying what is the similar question at this FPC, and what is the relation with my FPC. Thank you. --S23678 (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a more interesting query into the meaning of a review can be found at that other nomination. Simply due to the fact that that image is older in the process, that question seems more important to be answered. I feel assured that the whole nomination page can be viewed by everyone nominating, reviewing and making opinions here, perhaps this is not the case? -- carol (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Sacsayhuamán_Décembre_2006_-_Vue_Panoramique_-_Pleine_résolution.jpg&oldid=12547586"