Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Everest base camp

Everest Base camp



 * Reason:Very high resolution panorama of a beautiful and dangerous area. Gives a very immediate impression of how dangerous the Khumbu icefall is.
 * Articles this image appears in:Mount Everest Everest Base Camp
 * Creator:Nuno Nogueira (Nmnogueira)
 * Nominator: Debivort


 * Support &mdash; Debivort 06:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neutral Bad technical quality, almost no fine texture, and lacking in vertical view angle is well. --antilivedT 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It could be downsampled (even as much as 8:1). Where do you stand on the larger (less detail per pixel) vs smaller (more detail per pixel) argument? I know many people believe that any downsampling causes a loss of information, and should be avoided if it is just for the sake of generating the appearance of detail... Debivort 07:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose original, I'd be willing to look at a downsampled version but I don't think it would be large enough at a level with no fuzziness. gren グレン 08:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a downsampled version, definitely large enough (4000px on one axis). If you see blurriness in it, please point it out because I cannot find any. Debivort 09:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely better... not sure I'd support it. gren グレン 09:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 07:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 Beautiful, enc, and still high rez.--HereToHelp 13:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I really don't understand why there is so much discussion about resolution and detail; the image is fine in both respects. It falls flat for me solely in terms of composition. Panoramic is a very poor format choice, losing both foreground subject detail and a sense of proportion in the mountain. A 'straight' 3:2 format capture would have been a winner. mikaul 17:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a stitching error to the right of the guy. ~ trialsanderrors 11:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Where, precisely?--HereToHelp 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * At roughly 6200-6250px. ~ trialsanderrors 00:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Oh well. Debivort 03:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)