Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Blasting frankfurt.jpg

Blasting frankfurt

 * Reason:Explosions are cool? Good enc for related articles, lots of world of warcraft factor.
 * Articles this image appears in:Demolition, Building implosion
 * Creator:Heptagon


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose current version - first version has better colour but too much noise. However the noise reduction in the more recent ones is far too heavy - the colour is also far too brown. If we could have the original file, with no compression (some of the noise is worsened by JPG compression) we might be able to clean this up a bit. It's certainly an interesting subject and nicely presented, but at the moment the only improvement I can see between the first version and the last is the tighter crop on each frame. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first version has more asthetically pleasing colour, but is it realistic do you think? I'd kind of think with a demolition going on that there might be a bit of smoke/haze around. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. If this is a standalone demolition they typically have these areas cleared for many hours beforehand at least, so there's possibly no reason there should be smoke/haze around, at least in the pre-blast part of the sequence. And the haze doesn't really seem to increase in the later images. Unfortunately there's relatively little information on the image page to clarify matters. --jjron (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment GIF animation, anyone? ;-) --Janke | Talk 17:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. It would be smaller, but much more prefered.  Spencer T♦C 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Restricting it to 256 colours would surely impact too significantly on the quality? --jjron (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily - with an adaptive palette, the narrow color spectrum of this scene might actually work! --Janke | Talk 08:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose GIF animation would be better to present the demolition.--Caspian blue 02:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is too much noise in the image and the individual frames are not separated. (When I first glanced over the image I thought it was a row of palm trees. Better served in an animation. - Mgm|(talk) 12:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain until we can compare it to a GIF animation. We could see the collapse in real time!--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - personally, I think gif animations are lame, distracting, and usually look bad because of the 256 colour palette. It's much easier to fine detail in a big image like this, and you can compare frames as long as you want. Also, we've all seen a million movies of things being demolished, so this kind of side-by-side image is more unique. That said, in this image, I don't like the lack of separation between frames, and there's some weird ghosting around the tower - maybe too much JPEG compression? Stevage 04:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with you. This image is fascinating! Look at the nearly perfect parabolic nature of the hight decrease showing the top is essentially in free-fall from the first application of explosives. One can see when different charges are set off at different places. An animated gif would be horribly anesthetic in comparison. Not to mention jumpy and short. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 15:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, time lapsed photos side by side provides something GIFs don't and also won't suffer some of the compression problems that an image of this detail would have with GIF. gren グレン 00:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, big wow factor, and it's not like the person can go back and take the picture again. --AutoGyro (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I keep coming back to this, so for mine that sells it. Sure it's not perfect, but it's well enough done, quality meets criteria, and I prefer this to what a GIF animation would come out like. --jjron (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, especially over a clunky GIF. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting image. I would've like to have seen this as a GIF, but there's nothing here to make me oppose.  Spencer T♦C 01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 07:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)