Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glass Molecular Model

3D Glass Molecular Model
Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2010 at 05:17:46 (UTC)
 * Reason:Encyclopedic value in demonstrating refraction, Fresnel reflections, caustics, and other effects achieved by ray-tracing and photon mapping. Technical quality is good.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Ray-tracing (graphics) (original 1); Depth of field (original 2); V-Ray (original 2); Molecular model (alternate).
 * FP category for this image: Featured pictures/Artwork/Others
 * Creator: Purpy Pupple

Some clarification, please. Assuming Purpy Pupple also supports the images individually, the Alternate has enough votes to pass. With multiple versions of an image, we replace also usages with the promoted file. In this case, I'm not sure if that's appropriate. Can someone clarify? Should the Alternate, which will be promoted, replace any of the others? Or should everything stay where it is currently? Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support set of 3 as nominator --Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Alternate -- Very crisp and clear showing great examples of multiple aspects of 3D modeling. I know you modeled this with Rhinoceros, but what did you render with? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rendered with V-Ray. Purpy Pupple (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What molecule is it? It looks pretty, but if the molecule cannot be identified then it is not clear to the viewer. Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the description of Original 1, I mentioned that: The molecules are, from foreground to background: cyclohexane, methane, ethane, and heptane. Purpy Pupple (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Alternate (the last one). Can you copy all the other details to hte caption directly, rather than just saying "same as". I think all the details give the EV. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Alternate Nice work! SMasters (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Original 1, it's close to what human eye sees, without DOF. Twilight chill  t   09:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, human eyes do see with DOF (try using one eye to look at a finger that is 4 inches from your eye. Does the background appear blurred? Try looking at the background. Does your finger appear blurred?) But usually the short focal length and the high f-number in human eyes prevents one from noticing DOF in everyday situations. In this case, however, Original 2 is used in the depth of field article to illustrate the ability of computer algorithms to simulate DOF, so there is some EV in that. Purpy Pupple (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * F-number is related for discussions sake. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually we don't stare at objects with 4-inch distance (and such gazing would ultimately trigger short-sightedness). Every sizeable model like this yields almost no DOF at normal distances and CGI gives an opportunity to avoid it. I think here DOF spoils the entire ray-tracing and photon mapping, affecting the encyclopedic value. Twilight chill  t   12:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Alternate: per above-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose while technically it shows DOF, and ray-tracing well, as a chemist I have a hard time identifying the molecules; for some reason, bunching them together makes the image look pretty, but impossible to understand what molecules it actually depicts. I think taking out one of the molecules or moving them around (while keeping everything else the same) would significantly improve the image. Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the purpose of this image is primarily to show the effects accomplished by ray-tracing. Obviously to observe the structure of the molecules, this picture, for example, is far clearer. Purpy Pupple (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but if the image is not clear on its composition then viewers won't understand what lies behind the fuzziness. Sometimes simpler is better. Nergaal (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support the images individually. I think that the usage of Original 2 can all be replaced by Alternate, but in my personal opinion the Original 1 is more apposite in theRay-tracing (graphics) page since it is easier to see the multiple refractions. Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)