I really would prefer, if there was a better photo. So if you can get one, please upload it. I onicly had the smartphone ready, and this was the best, I could do. The display is in the way it was installed a short time before, I do not know, if it has been modified since. -- C.Suthorn (talk)
Oppose - Although of course I take the point that this is the best you could do when you had the chance, I think this is not good enough in quality to be a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'll have to agree with Ikan, it seems to fail criterion 3 ("must illustrate its subject well"). Not because of the technical quality (which is low but might be sufficient at the review size), but because of what is being displayed on the sign. I guess that's some kind of transition effect while going from one kind of information to another one? File:Biɕcycle information system Copenhagen 03.jpg seems to be more useful in that regard. It looks even worse technically, but maybe this could be mended to some degree by careful post-processing? --El Grafo (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a general problem with this kind of led displays. May be it is to lower the power consumption, but they are not contiously on, but are actually always flashing. Maybe only a tripod and an exposure time of 1/4 sec or more will get a better result. I have experienced the same efect with different cameras with displays of buses and in railway stations. Pic 03 may be possibly enhanced, but not by me, i only would make it worse. I will wait some time for a beter file, but then probably nominate 03. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
