Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Algol AB movie

Algol AB movie imaged with the CHARA interferometer
Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 02:18:42 (UTC)
 * Reason:This animation of the eclipsing binary star Algol illustrates the extremely high resolution offered by current interferometric techniques in astronomy. The images vary in quality, but the best have a resolution of 0.5 milliarcseconds, or approximately 200 times better than the Hubble Space Telescope. High EV FP in Commons.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Algol Binary star Star system
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding
 * Creator:Dr. Fabien Baron, Dept. of Astronomy, University of Michigan


 * Support as nominator --Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; Zephyris made a very good suggestion. I also prefer Edit 1. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Fantastic! Jujutacular (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure all the frames are equal time lengths. It'd be good to check the animation timing, and adjust it to provide a more realistic motion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The observations of Algol, taken between 2006 and 2010 at the CHARA Array interferometer, were not regular. Telescope time is expensive, and CHARA is a heavily oversubscribed instrument. Observations of Algol were a bit catch-as-catch-can. Algol was frequently not the primary target at all, but was only observed because atmospheric conditions were unsuitable for observation of fainter targets. There were no observations past phase 0.86, resulting in the distinct jump in the animation. See Baron et al., 2012. &mdash; Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like it's a little slow on the left side, then a bit quick going across to the right. Has the time been distributed by bisecting the gaps either side of the image, or by assigning the time to next image to the previous image? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I experimented with both methods. Neither attempt seemed very much better than Dr. Baron's original assembly of frames which assigned equal time to each image, so I originally decided to upload his unretouched gif. But thumbnails of his 330 frame file wouldn't animate. So I uploaded my reduced size, 55 frame version where frame duration was proportional to the sum of the bisected gaps on either side of each image. That's how I managed only 21 minutes between my original upload on 08:24, 4 October 2012 and my decreased file size upload on 08:45, 4 October 2012. I had already created the reduced file size version, not thinking that I would actually be using it. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what you see is a real effect. On the left side, there are a lot of closely spaced frames which ideally should be timed only a few milliseconds apart. However, even a fast computer is unable to render them quickly enough to avoid a bit of a lag. I have absolutely no desire to throw away any of the frames. That would be taking excessive liberties with Dr. Baron's work, equivalent to excessively Photoshopping a still image, or this famous botched art restoration. &mdash; Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright, Support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer Edit 1. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Very impressive, but I would only support this if either the frames are changed in length according to the interval between image captures or text indicating the time at which the image was captured is added to each frame. In my opinion it loses its ev without a more accurate indication of time. - Zephyris Talk 13:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That has already been done. Dr. Baron's original animation repeated the animation sequence six-fold resulting in a large, 2.37 MB file with 330 frames that would not play as a thumbnail. Using GIMP, I extracted the 55 distinct images from the original animation and reassembled them into a 405 KB file, assigning each image a duration such that it would appear at a time corresponding to its orbital phase. See the file history for this movie. &mdash; Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added the phase of each image in this edited version of the animation. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case I am happy to Support. I would prefer Edit 1. - Zephyris Talk 14:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Another impressive image by . --D.H (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support JJ Harrison (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support  ceran  thor 15:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 02:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)