Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aurora Australis From ISS.JPG

Aurora australis

 * Reason:A fantastic image from an unusual angle. The low light explains the graininess, and it would be hard to get a better camera into this position.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Aurora (astronomy)
 * FP category for this image:Featured_pictures/Sciences/Astronomy
 * Creator:NASA/ISS Expedition 23 crew


 * Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Support, the amazing EV and the difficulty of recreating make up for any technical shortcomings. --Golbez (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty crazy shot of the aurora from space, very good EV. Technical issues should be less of an issue, it's difficult to get equipment into space and we have to take what we can get. If in the future something vastly better is produced from space like this then we can look at a delist-replace, but for now this is pretty amazing. — raeky ( talk 15:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Support edit great ev, but poor resolution (less than 2MPixels): the upload history shows an earlier version with higher resolution (12 MPix). I suggest to suspend the nomination until someone uploads the original picture and checks the relevant license information.--Banzoo (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sourced the raw camera image from which is much larger... — raeky ( talk 15:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the edited version. I did previously express disapproval of this picture, but given the noise removal and larger resolution found, I can support. A very different view of the aurora - most people probably haven't seen this angle.  Jujutacular  T · C 17:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I do like this image, spectacular and good EV. At ISO 6400 and 1/6s I'd say light was pretty low, so some technical 'issues' are expected and excused for a unique opportunity. Could do with more prominent placement in the article. Neutral on the version at this stage. --jjron (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit. Good God from Goldsboro, as my granddaddy would say. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Stunning.  upstate NYer  21:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support (either) Now millions more will have a chance to see something wondrous. Greg L (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Edit, the edit made a big difference --Iankap99 (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edit. Edit looks heavily artefacted and is three times the file size. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They're the same size? What you looking at? — raeky ( talk 08:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * File size, as I said: 2.14MB for the original, 5.76MB for the edit. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He probably saved it at like JPEG quality 11 or so, which is prudent since everytime you save a JPEG it looses quality, so it's best to save edits of JPEG's at high jpeg settings to prevent anymore loss. — raeky ( talk 08:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Raeky is correct, though I use GIMP, which numbers it a little differently. The apparent artifacting is actually the remaining parts of the graininess - while you can conceal it more than that, you do lose a bit in the process, and I decided to go very minimal. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing stops the fact that you're losing information, and I'm not convinced that the despeckle filter is the correct one to use in this case. When you've got glowing ions in the "air", how can you determine what's noise? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Superb. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support original Very strong EV, but pervasive grain (yes, I do understand the conditions) detracts some from the overall quality.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 21:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since Wikipedia is a place of learning, I thought many who voted “support” on this one would like to know about the Solar storm of 1859, also known as the “Richard Carrington flare.” It was a coronal mass ejection that was a once-in-a-thousand-year event. Notwithstanding the rarity of such an event, Richard Carrington, a solar astronomer, happen to be mapping the very sunspot that produced the flare. He was making measurements using an 11-inch projected image on a white-topped mapping table when the white-light eruption burst forth with blinding intensity. According to our own Wikipedia article, the next day, “Aurorae were seen around the world, most notably over the Caribbean; also noteworthy were those over the Rocky Mountains that were so bright, the glow awoke gold miners, who began preparing breakfast because they thought it was morning.” More about Carrington’s Sept. 1, 1859 super-flare is available here at NASA’s A Super Solar Flare. That article speaks of how “Just before dawn the next day, skies all over planet Earth erupted in red, green, and purple auroras so brilliant that newspapers could be read as easily as in daylight.” It also tells of how “telegraph systems worldwide went haywire. Spark discharges shocked telegraph operators and set the telegraph paper on fire. Even when telegraphers disconnected the batteries powering the lines, aurora-induced electric currents in the wires still allowed messages to be transmitted.” Greg L (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. Oh, BTW, my 88-year-old mother was born in 1922. She lived in an old mining town that had wooden sidewalks and a single, dirt road through town. Mail in the winter came by horse-drawn sleigh once a week. When she was six years old, there were several old men in their early 80s who lived in cabins on the edge of town. They had come to north Idaho to escape being drafted into the Civil War. My own mother met men who might well have witnessed the Solar Storm Of 1859. Greg L (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support original upstateNYer says it best - stunning Gazhiley (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Neutral Important image for sure, but not very good quality at full scale. All versions are too fuzzy, maybe just reduced size image instead? Nice, but irrelevant, story Greg. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. That’s because it was supposed to be a nice but irrelevant (off on a related tangent irrespective of voting) story. ;-) Greg L (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IdLoveOne, you've said that elsewhere as well. That's simply not a valid argument- we do not downsample simply so something looks higher quality. J Milburn (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just a suggestion because I do want to support this, but with the graininess as it is I just don't feel this is one of the best images on Wikipedia. We've got plenty of images as astounding as this that were even harder to get and make and in higher quality, therefore I don't support these candidate images - As is, but that's my minor opinion and everyone else sees it differently than I do anyhow. This is a great image, so I guess it'll still be nice to see one of these get FP. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

'''Comments on the edit vs. the original, please. Which do we prefer?''' Makeemlighter (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WTF. How is the 12 image of a fully illustrated article great EV and images that are the main image of multiple articles not high EV?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is maybe why you are having issues with FPC editors - EV isn't just based on whether it is the main or indeed only picture in an article. it's whether that picture tells you what you need to know about the subject... This is a great and pretty much unique angle of the Aurora Australis and as such has high EV in an article that as you pointed out has 12 other images... Having the other images there does not reduce this picture's EV... The pictures you spam across multiple articles have low EV for their placements as the pictures usually have no bearing to the article other than co-incidence or "say so"... For example your sports centre picture the other day... Saying it should go in Counterweight is not right, as it does not show a counterweight in the picture, and therefore the picture has low EV. there may be counterweights in the building, but you cannot see that from the picture, and thus the picture is a bad example of counterweights... So irrespective of how many pictures are in the Aurora (astronomy) article, this picture has high EV as it actually shows the topic of the article... Gazhiley (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. We’ve all seen a gazillion pictures of the aurora from ground. Seeing one from this vantage point (like the ISS was going to fly right over the top of it) is an exceedingly rare privilege. This is a truly amazing image that provides insight into the large-scale structure of aurora that one can only imagine from an earth-bound point of view. Greg L (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support original - the noise only adds to the amazing piece of art that this picture is. - Negative Twoth —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Support per above. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I know that there is a really big snow ball above me, but I don't find this image inspiring. While naturally wondrous, it lacking in clarity. Gut Monk (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Very good EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I get that the quality isn't omg!brilliant, but this is an incredibly rare image and the fact we have it at all makes the EV very, very high. I prefer the original for the colour quality, but either works. Amphy (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Original Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Either, with a preference for the noise-cleaned one. I think it actually makes it easier to recognize cloud features. It certainly doesn’t make anything worse. Greg L (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edit I'll repeat my arguments from earlier: Edit looks heavily artefacted and obscures the fact that these are glowing ions hopping about. Same camera, same ISO convinces me that the "noise" is in fact the phenomenon for which EV is being claimed. another sample from an independent source Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And the same exposure time? And the same lighting conditions? No. Both are factor in producing noise.  Jujutacular  T · C 21:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Beyond the ISO rating, it's mostly heat through incident light that causes noise; arguably, if the exposure is the same for two images, exposure time shouldn't matter much. I haven't heard any proper reply to my hypothesis that the scatter is caused by uneven distribution of the actual ions that cause the aurora. I think that's the main point here in terms of EV. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The noise appears to be uniformly distributed across the image and it was dark enough that the camera had to be set at ISO 6400. So, in my opinion, the noise is just from the usual sources, Shot noise, Thermal noise etc. The exposure time is also sufficient to blur cloud movement, so supposing that there was some uneven distribution, then I don't think you could see it here. I don't feel that I know enough about atmospheric physics to really comment on the plausibility of uneven ion distribution, but I don't think you'd see any such distribution in this photo. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Original I would support the original over the edit, since the edit does loose some image detail. — raeky ( talk 05:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Original over edit. Color quality's better IMO. Amphy (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Close, but the original has it. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)