Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wikidec2005cani.gif

Lilac chaser

 * Reason:This is an image which is, while not great aesthetically, is such a cool optical illusion that I think it deserves to be featured.
 * Articles this image appears in:Lilac chaser
 * Creator:Jeremy Hinton, who developed the illusion
 * Nominator:  howcheng  {chat}


 * Support &mdash;  howcheng  {chat} 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support very interesting, I could stare at this all day! ~ Arjun  19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - To give this encyclopedic value, the caption should explain why this works... just a thought. tiZom(2¢)  19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well... that's what the article's for, innit? Seriously, putting that in is going to make the caption really long. :)  howcheng  {chat} 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support . I should have nominated this earlier... and I agree with tiZom. -- Tewy  20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. -- Tewy  19:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Personally I would prefer the image borders to be removed as well as the "instruction" to stare at the center.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. High quality. I agree with Arjun: it's incredibly hypnotic! -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Opppose Having the "stare at the centre" within the image itself is unnecessary, adds clutter and makes it look like a lift from another site. I'd prefer if it was just illustrative of the illusion itself, not the instructions for achieving it. Leon 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Weak Support Edit 1 Leon 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support This is a wonderful optical illusion.  -Midnight Rider 01:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Question. Could the words be cropped out? -- Tewy  02:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. I already took out a watermark. Taking out the instructions is just as easy.  howcheng  {chat} 02:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I also dislike the "stare at the centre" in the image. Aside from my jingoistic opposition to British spelling, a word-free image would be easier to use in other language wikipedias. Also, I don't like gif's telling me what to do. Are you trying to hypnotize me? --dm (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 -- Very enc for optical illusions. I like it. --TotoBaggins 05:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. (Withholding vote, see below.) We should get more optical illusions featured! --Janke | Talk 10:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Certainly interesting but I don't think there's really anything very good about the image itself to make it featured, it's just the effect on the eyes that makes it interesting. Also, whats with the diagonal lines all over the picture? Last time I saw this, it was plain grey  --⁪froth T  17:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did say it wasn't aesthetically exciting, but it's the image that creates the effect on the eyes -- the two are inextricably intertwined. By increasing the "prettiness" of the image itself, it would detract from the illusion by introducing more distracting elements.  howcheng  {chat} 17:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * btw, I don't see any diagonal lines. Debivort 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you view it in full resolution, you can see that the grey isn't a solid color, but is actually slightly textured. -- Tewy  23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it's ugly and doesn't work for me Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * are you perhaps color-blind?Debivort 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ... maybe only impatient? You need to really fix your gaze on the cross for 10, maybe 20 seconds. --Janke | Talk 09:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This must be included in the caption - "look at the cross, not the pink blobs"! I looked at the darn blobs for some five minutes - that's what the caption suggests - no greens! NVO 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've updated the caption. -- Tewy  21:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - While the illusion is not my favorite - it convolves two illusions - low contrast fading and color adaptation - the implementation is nice and will attract attention to the article.Debivort 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - I like these kinds of illusions. Good picture as well. &mdash; ♥ Tohru Honda13  ♥ 03:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment there's a distinctive artifact that flashes when the 1-o-clock dot disappears. Someone really needs to fix this if it goes featured --⁪froth T 23:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't see any - describe, please! (Is your display rate fast enough, or is there a pause when the animation repeats - that might be the explanation.) --Janke | Talk 07:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see it ... it's at an angle between the two and three o'clock dots (imagine a triangle consisting of the 2 and 3 dots and the "artifact" towards the center, midway between the two).  howcheng  {chat} 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, got it now. Didn't know what to look for at first. It appears to be an artifact due to the gif color conversion. Could we get a version without the "rasterization" of the gray? Should be easy to fix. Withholding vote for now. --Janke | Talk 20:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Force a reload to see the non-artifacted version.  howcheng  {chat} 20:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment can someone make a PD edit of the original? It seems really stupid someone to license the version with cropping... they can do it, but... gren グレン 04:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, yeah it's kind of dumb; the GDFL relicense doesn't make a lick of difference since the same exact content is in the public domain --⁪froth T 08:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 Fixes the problem of the original.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  20:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose So isn't anyone concerned that the supposed non-dot actually has a different color than the background? I guess people like to be deceived. ~ trialsanderrors 08:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha yeah, it's because of the stupid striped background --⁪froth T 23:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Pause the animation (by taking a screenshot or something) and look at the background. It's not green; that's just part of the illusion. I suppose there is a slight blue tinge, however, if that's what you meant. -- Tewy  01:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I opened it in Photoshop. The background is patterned (or striped). The "non-dot" has a single color, which doesn't match any of the background colors. This is why, when you follow the "non-dot", it appears as a blueish-grey dot on a redish-grey background. The green effect seems to be real, even though it might be original research and the validity of the article itself is questionable. But this is just an inferior version of the Flash original at michaelbach.de. ~ trialsanderrors 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Michael Bach's version is derived from this. Jeremy Hinton (creator of the image) is the one who devised the illusion in the first place.  howcheng  {chat} 21:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Main point stands. Also more of an argument that this is OR. ~ trialsanderrors 21:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1. Whoa! That's great! :-) Ilikefood 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support (Any edit that has the best support). This is a neat illusion. Having it featured on Wikipedia's main page one day would be great. Greg L 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)