Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A Visit to the Seaside

A Visit to the Seaside
Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2015  at 14:33:37 (UTC)
 * Reason:high historical and encyclopedic value
 * Articles in which this image appears:A Visit to the Seaside, Kinemacolor, Color motion picture film, George Albert Smith, List of color film systems, List of early color feature films
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
 * Creator:George Albert Smith


 * Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It's really very special... Historical value and EV are high. --Tremonist (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – How did they ever get the first 10 seconds past the censors? Sca (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Back then girls in a color film was all you need for that. Brandmeistertalk  18:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support high EV. sst✈(discuss) 00:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Regretful Oppose, despite enormous historical significance. The quality is way too low for FP status, I'm pretty sure there must be a better transfer somewhere - no-one transfers a film at this low quality. --Janke | Talk 08:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support without prejudice This is here now, and its historical; if a better version is located then I would move for a delist and replace, but we can cross that bridge when if/we get there. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Did a little sleuthing, there is better quality available; take a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY2EyLEGsyA Looks like this candidate is picked from that 2008 restoration, which may be copyrighted. Thus it may be a copyvio. IANAL, so let the ones in the know find out, and if it is a copyvio, then Speedy Close. --Janke | Talk 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't have better arguments, please stay aside. How do you know it is a restoration? Anyway, that wouldn't give a new copyright. There is obviously no reason to speedy close this nomination. Yann (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How do I know it's a restoration? I watched that Youtube link (by DeBergerac Productions), and from the discussion on that page, it is pretty apparent that they did the restoration. As for speedy close, I said if. --Janke | Talk 21:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A previous deletion discussion held that it was "not settled in US courts whether restoration renews copyright." and the file in question was kept. I still disagree, but we do have precedent for keeping the film. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is different. It is reconstruction of the full-color film from 3 one-color films. So it doesn't involve any creativity, it is just a mechanical process. Regards, Yann (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My point was simple: even if this is a restoration, consensus on Commons is that it can be kept. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's surely a difference between "there's a consensus on Commons that we can keep this" and "this is definitely free". We can legitimately demand quite a high standard at FPC, I think. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we don't talk about the same thing. Restoration as "repairing a damaged work" is not an automated process. It may require creativity, and a lot of artistic skills. So the copyright on that is a legitimate question. But I don't think there is restoration in that sense here. These films needed a special projector for "projecting a black-and-white film behind alternating red and green filters". So to create a digital version, and since these projectors do not exist anymore, merging this is needed, but it is a mechanical process, without any creativity. See Kinemacolor for the details. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is definitely a creative element involved in a restoration of this kind, namely, the choice of separation colors. They can be anything from red to orange, and blue to green. (Yann: Please note that there are only two colors, not three...) They will give different final color results, i.e. a creative aspect. Furthermore, why feature a lower quality video, when a better one is available on YouTube? See the link in my first comment. For these reasons, I still stand by both my Oppose and Speedy Close. --Janke | Talk 11:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you see a better video. The one you link is 320x240, as this one is 640x480. Here, it is, just for you: File:A Visit to the Seaside - S.webm. Yann (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I see now. You did the upload, and it's actually a part taken from the Youtube link (by DeBergerac Productions) I mentioned. Downloaded from YT, and uploaded to Wiki it has been re-sized and re-coded, and is thus less sharp. BTW, you asked: " How do you know it is a restoration?" - well, you must have known that, since you linked to the YT restoration demo! Note to others: This is a fragment of a YT restoration demonstration video by DeBergerac Productions (see link above), and for that reason I consider it a copyvio. --Janke | Talk 09:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Jobas (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 18:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Added it to Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment instead. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)