Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Storm.ogg

Storm Time Lapse
Time lapse movie off a storm. Filmed using a Sony NP-F330 on TDK HS film in long play. Speed is shown at 10,000% or 100x original speed If you can't view this movie download real player here and the correct codec here Contributes quite well to the article and is quite interesting.


 * Self Nom Fir0002 11:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose washed out bland colors, unsharp. I really do not get why you do not use your 20D to create the timelapse movies (as mentioned before on commons FPC). That would give you cinema quality. --Dschwen 15:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well what is stopping you using your G3? I don't use my 20D for several reasons - a) I'm not prepared to stand around for an hour and a half taking photos at 4 second intervals; b) I'm reluctant to waste the shutter taking those photos (the shutter of a DSLR is probably the first part to wear out), and c) I don't have the software to convert the jpegs into a movie properly. I have jasc animation shop but that is pretty ordinary. So a movie camera is the best option for me.--Fir0002 06:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Limited time, but I'll give it a shot. I'm not too concerned about the wear on my G3, and you can remotecontrol it using a computer. I understand your reasons. As for conversion, there are plenty of free tools around. --Dschwen 09:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fir002 is right, they are the first things to go. I killed my 10D through excessive shutter releases. :) But as for not having the proper software convert jpgs to video, Videomach is a good one. It allows you to select the format and codec, so I generally use avi and xvid codec, but I guess that doesn't pass the scrutiny of wiki? I certainly wouldn't recommend real player either. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Not bad, but I'm not sure the quality is good enough. As a side-note, I would NEVER suggest that ANYONE download Realplayer, as it is BUGGY software and borders on SPYWARE. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What would you suggets as an alternative? --Fir0002 06:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * video lan client, crossplatform, open, slim, and plays almost anything. --Dschwen 08:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Real Alternative --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Does it play ogm? The page states it is only an alternative for the proprietary real formats. --Dschwen 09:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant that Real Alternative makes ANY video player a substitute for RealPlayer in that it will play RealMedia. As far as Ogg format, there are many free players that support it out of box, such as the Video lan client mentioned above or the excellent Media Player Classic. Also, on re-reading my comment, I realize that it could come across as a condemnation of Fir0002 for having recommended RealPlayer. That was not my intent at ALL, I was just voicing an opposition to the suggestion. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I use a plugin for Windows Media Player. Because it's DirectShow based, the plugin will extend to anything else that uses DirectShow, like Winamp. enochlau (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Support. Enochlau has convinved me that the quality is "good enough" given that it's a movie. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Reluctant Oppose Nicely captured Fir. I really did enjoy watching this but it just whet my appetite for a better version!  I appreciate there may be expense & more effort required to make a higher quality version but that doesn't mean we should settle for less for FP. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 *  Weak support. The quality is a little on the low quality side, but seeing as these videos are quite rare on Wikipedia, I think our lofty standards for photos shouldn't apply to videos. It was great fun to watch, and from an educational point of view, it did illustrate different types of clouds and weather effects, including rain and lightning. enochlau (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. (Changed back from Neutral.) See comment below, Feb. 9th. I wouldn't want to download a special plugin. --Janke | Talk 07:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a nonsense reason for opposing an FPC. Fir0002 has put it into Ogg format, which is the recommended format for videos on Wikipedia. enochlau (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, tell me what to download to watch it on Firefox/Mac OS X 10.3.9. and I might reconsider. --Janke | Talk 08:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are having problems viewing Ogg format videos with your particular browser/OS combination (I doubt that this is truly an insurmountable problem, but I have very little experience with Macs) then that is lamentable, but not the fault of Fir0002 and ought to have no bearing on this video's suitability as a Featured "picture". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Video lan client - see above for link. enochlau (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Video lan download stalled Firefox, couldn't get it. Finally found the RP Mac download page, hidden about 5 or 6 clicks deep from the link given above. Requires registering with e-mail address. So, reading Dante Alighieri's comment about RP further above, I stand by my I wouldn't want to download a special plugin. But, I agree, that is not a reason to oppose (was a bit hasty there), so I changed my vote to neutral. --Janke | Talk 07:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose This movie requires the newest release of Real Player, which is not supported on most older machines. Accessibility is very important, especially if a picture is to be deemed Featured. D e nni &#9775;  00:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't require RealPlayer. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-02-8 00:16
 * Read the stuff written underneath Janke's original oppose. enochlau (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A remarkably small number of votes here, no? Clearly because few people have bothered to actually watch it. I tend to think that a featured image should be accessible, and this one clearly isn't - that is, people aren't accessing it. On the one hand, you can't exactly hold that against the image in question; on the other hand, it's merely a nice but unspectacular movie file. Support because Wikipedia has few of these types of images and needs more... But it's a support analogous to the supports of FP's promoted in 2004 - it's the best we have, but who can say it's the best possible? Zafiroblue05 06:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed my vote back to oppose (my original vote) above. I spent half an hour looking for and trying to upload a plugin that did not need e-mail registration, w/o success. Sorry, Fir, this doesn't mean I oppose your image, here I oppose the "the recommended format for videos on Wikipedia". It should not be this difficult to watch it! --Janke | Talk 14:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess your half an hour didn't include checking Media help? :) Fir's only error was that he didn't just link there.--Gmaxwell 10:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Explanation: Ogg Theora, the codec used for this video, is not just the recommended video codec for Wikimedia, but in fact the only one in which files can currently be uploaded. The reason for this is that Theora is the only high quality video codec (Wikimedia is aware of) that is not encumbered by software patents. Software patents on codecs like MPEG-4 require those who want to implement players and encoders to pay royalties in countries where these patents are enforcable (including the United States). This, in turn, makes it impossible to write free software without violating patents. Imagine trying to build an offline repository of Wikipedia content for an African school using only free software -- if we did not provide the Theora content, you could only do so in violation of existing patents. This is not a remote scenario, as there are several individuals working in  Africa to use Wikipedia content in schools (e.g. User:Wikiwizzy in South Africa).  There is documentation on how to use Ogg Theora at Media help (Ogg). Since it is currently Wikimedia policy not to allow any other video or audio codecs besides Ogg Theora and Ogg Vorbis because of the patent situation, it seems unfair to deny any video or audio file featured status because of its format. Theora suffers from bad usability because it is still alpha code and hence not yet widely used, but also because (for bizarre ideological reasons) the people behind Ogg have decided to use the same file extension (.ogg) and MIME type (application/ogg) for both audio and video files, making it next to impossible to set up different software packages for Ogg audio and video files loaded from the Internet.  Personally, I would support changing the policy to allow MPEG codecs to be used alongside Theora, as long as a Theora copy is also provided, but this should be brought up on wikitech-l or foundation-l. HTH HAND,--Eloquence* 05:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific about the usability problems on the playback side that you've mentioned? --Gmaxwell 10:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support pretty cool. It's always good to see more good work done by Wikipedians. --Gmaxwell 04:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - and not because I can't find media help. There are some out of order frames (step through at around the 8.6 second mark to see what I mean) that make the video juddery, there's a black border top at the top that should be cropped, the right edge of the video is prone to chroma shift, and - the big reason - low contrast greys are hard on codecs, the video is a blocky mess. A downscale or just more bitrate might help that, but you still get rain on your lens at the end... --zippedmartin 17:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 05:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

