Oppose This is such a huge file that it image fails Valued image criteria no 3.3, namely "The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image). Its usability in printed format is not considered." Even when I opened the 1280 x 49 pixel version, the labels were totally illegible and spoilt the picture. When I eventually managed to open the full version, parts of the image were so blurred that the features could not be made out. Sorry. Maybe you should try to be less ambitious. Please remember that the aim of a VI is to produce images that can be used on-line so you should try to ensure that the 1280 x N pixel version is usable. Martinvl (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question This is the second time this issue has some up; should Valued image criteria no 3.3, namely: The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image) be reconsidered or clarified? With higher mp cameras becoming more available and panoramas can become massive files quite easily. I can only foresee this issue continuing. Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Useful and used. I'm agree with Sixflashphoto, I think that 3.3. should be reviewed to adapt to cases like this and the case of the higher MP cameras. If someone opens this debate in the talk page, I will participate, because it is an interesting issue to address. Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, @Martinvl: per COM:VI, the VI project is to recognise and encourage those who contribute to the building of this resource of valuable images of high diversity and usability and of difficult subjects, for the use of creators of online content. I'd say the contributor of this image has earned that. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
