Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Inname van Godesberg - Capture and destruction of Godesburg in 1583 (Frans Hogenberg).jpg

===Frans Hogenberg's Destruction and Capture of Godesberg Fortress, 1583===







It also appeared in a DYK on November 9, 2009.
 * Reason:This historically significant engraving depicts the Siege of Godesberg 1583, the first major siege of the Cologne War. It is beautifully rendered, showing the Tercios, Fussvolk (foot folk, or infantry), and cavalry units. It is the primary (box) picture of the Featured Article Cologne War.
 * Articles this image appears in:Cologne War- Siege of Godesberg (1583) - Gebhard Truchsess von Waldburg - Agnes von Mansfeld-Eisleben - Ernst of Bavaria - Salentin IX of Isenburg-Grenzau - Godesburg - European wars of religion  - Sapping - List of Sieges
 * Creator:Frans Hogenberg, 16th century Dutch engraver, but alas not a wikipedia contributor


 * Support as nominator --Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either Edit or original (prefer Edit 2) It's a very nicely executed image which superbly illustrates an important and dramatic event of the Cologne War. -- JN 466  21:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nearly full support Mark in lower RH corner should be explained or perhaps cloned out; use of shearing tool could make the image more rectangular, but sharpness might suffer. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that is the accession mark from the museum. I'm not positive, but it would be characteristic of such pieces, thus part of the picture's provenance.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose original, Oppose upsampled edits. On the fence about this for a long time.  But really, our standards should be consistent.  I'd get annihilated if I nommed something at this quality.  Durova  371 22:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize it is not of the quality of current digital photography. It is, however, a very good engraving of an important siege in the "Sewer War" (Cologne War. That said, and knowing we won't get a different digital copy, can something be done with the one we have to improve it?  It could be downloaded again from here.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about what you wrote, Durova. You might disapprove of the quality of this image by 21st century digital standards.  This picture was drawn in 1585 or so, and is outstanding in its quality and detail.  Imagine the technical work that went into this project.  This was not accomplished with computers and lasers, but with every line, and every curve done by hand. Kupferstich was an incredibly difficult process, both in terms of its artistic process, its science, and its mechanics.  Mechanical print was barely a century old. I'm disturbed at your statement, you'd be annihilated if you nommed anything of this quality.  This piece of work is a miracle. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel pretty certain Durova was referring to the quality of the scan rather than the quality of the original artwork. I had misgivings about that as well. The resolution is not the highest, only barely above 1k. If you zoom in, the lines are not as sharp as one might wish. Balanced against that is, as you say, the exceptional quality of the orginal artwork, and its superb educational value in illustrating articles mentioning the event. If anything can be done in Photoshop to sharpen the image, Durova is probably the best-qualified person to do so, but it may just be impossible, and we may have to judge the image as it is, weighing educational value against scan quality. -- JN 466  11:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * that makes sense. I certainly have not seen better scans of 16th century engravings.  Perhaps one of the folks who has better picture-skills can improve this one in some way.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a go in Photoshop; see Edit 1 (upsampled to 2048, and noise-reduced). Is this a step in the right direction? -- JN 466  19:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit 2 is de-skewed as well. -- JN 466  01:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Compare to Featured picture candidates/London, 1616 and Featured picture candidates/Delaware Bay 1639. Both originals date from the seventeenth century and were well over 10MB; legibility issues in certain areas prevented one from getting promoted and in the other instance an editor made his support contingent upon translation of archaic Dutch.  I'm not sure it's right to uphold such standards for early modern graphic art, but since those standards are being applied it's rather hard to support an image that is not legible, not translated, and an order of magnitude smaller in filesize. And I categorically oppose upsampling.  Durova  371 17:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The German and the French are both translated. The translations are on the commons page.  Shall I copy them on to here (see below)?  I have no idea what upsampling is.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Inscriptions / Inscripties:
 * GODESBERG
 * 7.
 * Vor Godesberg, eim festen Schloß // Thet Hertzog Ernst gar manchen schos // Als sichs damit nit schricken ließ, // Mit sprengen ers angreiffen hieß, // Auch steigen vil vom fußvolck sein // Durch ein heimlich gemach hinein, // Als er nun sturmet drinn und drauß // Erobert er diß feste Hauß.
 * Godesbergh enuiron vne lieu de la ville de Bonn, vng chasteau fort, apres // que ceulx de la part de Truchseß, estoient dedens, se auoient braueme’t // deffenduz, a este des gens du nouueau Archeuecque, rompu en pieches par // moien de miner et force pouldres. Le 17. de Decembre L’an 1583.


 * English Translation of German inscription:
 * At the fortified castle of Godesberg // Duke Ernst fired many shots // When that did not frighten it // He had it attacked with explosives // In addition, many of his infantry // Entered through a secret chamber // So when he stormed it from inside and out // He conquered this fortified house.
 * English Translation of French inscription:
 * Godesberg, about a league from the city of Bonn, a fortified castle, after // those inside who were on the side of Truchseß had bravely // defended themselves, was broken to pieces by people of the new archbishop, // by means of tunnelling and gunpowder. The 17th of December in the year 1583.
 * Okay, returning to weak oppose for the non-upsampled version. Durova  371 17:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * great. Is that the edit #2?  Before the upsampling?  Is there any way we can increase the size, and not upsample?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've relabelled the edits for ease of reference. If there is interest, I can do another edit based on the original to deskew it, i.e. make the vertical edges straighter, as they are in Edit 2, without upsampling.
 * Personally, I find the upsampled and noise-reduced edit 2 more pleasing to view; somehow the depicted scene feels more alive that way. But I accept it is not everybody's cup of tea. I am new to FPC and not familiar with established conventions here, so please bear with me.
 * Upsampling is the same as increasing the size. When you tell Photoshop to double the image width and height, it divides each of the original pixels into four pixels, and tries to do so as cleverly as it can. -- JN  466  18:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added Edit 3. This retains the original resolution (no upsampling), but deskews the picture and reduces noise. (I've removed Edit 1 from consideration). Is this better for you, Durova? -- JN 466  22:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * --Caspian blue 03:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)