Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability

Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability

 * Reason:Illustrates subject excellently and in an eye-catching manner
 * Articles in which this image appears:Kelvin-Helmholtz instability
 * FP category for this image:FP
 * Creator:User:Bdubb12


 * Support as nominator --Lucas Brown 02:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support High quality and very different than what most of what comes through FPC. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  02:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why is the animation not displaying on the article? J Milburn (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason why is the same reason we're pretty much officially not supposed to use animated gifs in articles anymore. The server can't create thumbnails of the animation, so anything less than the original is static frame of the first frame of the animation. Secondly this image is >5megs and the only way you see the animation is to insert the full size image into the article, and this is BAD NEWS for anyone not on a high-speed internet connection. We've delisted most of our large gif animation FP's already... although this is a great sciency thing, it really should be video and not gif animation which is a technology noone on the internet has used since like 1995. — raeky  T  14:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Very nice, but it looks like it is actually two copies of the same simulation side by side (ie. two identical square frames side by side) is there any reason for this? - Zephyris Talk 13:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it's not, it's just the effect is rather uniform. The edges of two of these together would never line up perfectly so you'd see a seam... — raeky  T  14:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They're the same, I ran it through GifSplitter and got a close up look. This was probably created by some kind of digital special effects simulator, which most likely could make infinite duplicates seamlessly. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  15:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In which case it should be half the width, and half the file size. - Zephyris Talk 16:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Eye-catching. Informative. Extolls the virtues of an electronic encyclopedia. Greg L (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Please point to a guideline or policy that states animated GIFs should NEVER be used on Wikipedia. I do see this piece of advise (ANIMATIONS) that gives some advise for thumbnails that won’t work (probably because they exceed 25 MP total height-width-frames). That thumbnail problem isn’t a problem for me because I make animations in the size I intend to place them in articles. Sometimes self-running animations are best; sometimes not. I’ve mixed both in some of my articles. If you don’t *like* self-running animations, that’s one thing (but an “IMHO” might be a nice suffix to append). To me, your all-cap “NEVER” statement seems like it authoritative policy that I’m not aware of. Greg L (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_74 May not state, ever, but there are serious issues when using animated gifs, specifically very large ones like this one. Converting that animation to Theora video reduced it from 5.3 to 1.4 megs, it also doesn't force a user to either not see the animation on the page because of broken thumbnailing (that likely won't ever be "fixed) or (b) download a 5 meg file to view the page (quite problematic for someone on a slow connection). Sure animated gifs do serve a purpose in this devoid of flash 1995 version of the internet we call Wikipedia, but it's a limited and poor technology that shouldn't be used in place of embedded video, and in this case video far more efficiently shows this animation then a gif. — raeky  T  19:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know all about that issue. I’m not going to belabor the technical issues because there are no problems if one simply specifies the thumbnail as the native size of the animation; which is to say, don’t make oversize animations. I create both types (Theora and self-running GIFs) and both have their place. The animation here at Solid modeling is just the sort of animation that works better as a GIF. And it is only 1.01 MB. There was a while where they changed the way thumbnails were handled to alleviate the burden and RAM requirements on browsers when people went to pages with hundreds of thumbnails. That temporarily broke every single animated GIF that was displayed in its non-native size. I was highly involved in the technical discussions about this issue. The provided link is just a bunch of old, archived discussion pertaining to dealing with the technical issues. If there are opinions there stating that animated GIFs are cause plague, makes crops wither, and midwives weep, it is just that: opinion. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with self-running animated GIFs; they are supported on Wikipedia, there is no admonition against their use (other than to make sure they work in the placed size), and they have their place along with click-to-watch Theora videos. If there is a problem with animated GIFs, it needs to state as much on Image use policy, which represents the current, consensus policy. Greg L (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The issues with animated gifs was also recently addressed in this delisting Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/File:CSA_states_evolution.gif. — raeky  T  20:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a comment, but that was removed less for it being a large animated gif and more because I, the creator, suggested it be, considering the accuracy issues which I did not have (and have not yet had) have time to fix, and the fact that those accuracy issues had removed it from the mainspace for nearly two years. --Golbez (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That discussion also has zero bearing on whether animated GIFs are OK to use on Wikipedia. As I mentioned above, there is one and only one policy page to which we refer on this issue: Image use policy. Content creators need not hunt around all over the entire cyber universe of Wikipedia to find discussions by confused editors. Greg L (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure there are some valid uses for animated gifs that if you make them carefully and the right sizes not to overburden the end-users with to much bandwidth, they make valuable additions to articles. But converting something that looks clearly to of been a video source into a gif, just to make it self-running loop isn't a good idea. Noone is going to display this animated gif at it's native size, like it is here, on an article, therefore it's going to be thumbnailed and not animated. The best solution for the end-user reading the article is to put a click-to-play Theora video of this video into the article that would be generally self-explanatory that it's a video they click to see, as opposed to the way it is now, a static image half black and half white that the end-user may have no clue they can click to see it play. I think in THIS instance, a Theora video is best for end-user presentation, and thats probably true for almost all the _large_ gif animations that can't be thumbnailed. — raeky  T  20:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we are getting into a debate about what technology might be best for this particular animation. That is not where I want to go here. I am addressing this statement in one of the above captions: [animated GIFs are] (old tech, we should NEVER be using). That should have had “IMHO” or “IMO” somewhere in there because that statement is A) not part of Image use policy, which is the only governing page on this issue, and B) self-running animations have their place on Wikipedia. M‘kay?? Greg L (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's currently in the realm of "IMO" territory, but personally I do feel animated gif's should never be used on 2010 internet. The tags of HTML5 and improved embedded video support and codecs that are starting to be introduced into browsers and formalized into standards will and SHOULD replace animated gifs, and for a larger extent proprietary applications like Adobe Flash. I fully suspect within another 1-2 years browsers, standards and codecs will be so widespread with html5 video that gif animations will be a think of the past, even for small animations. — raeky  T  20:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you are right about HTML5. I hope it has a facility for self-running animations that are compact. Wikipedia’s aversion for any technology that requires royalty payments be paid to someone results in open-source solutions and weird, way-ghetto programs ported over from Linux by this guy. And even then, just because it is “open source” doesn’t mean it is royalty-free. I think I read about Steve Jobs complaining about how Theora still snitched a bunch of patented algorithms and how—just because the *code* for the algorithms are open source—doesn’t mean it’s free for everyone to enjoy. P.S. I might add that I haven’t once clicked the above Theora video; the self-running GIF allows me to sit here and watch the turbulence over and over (rather than click the ‘play’ button over and over and over and over… ). Greg L (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but look at it in the article (Kelvin-Helmholtz instability), would a regular IP user click that image and see the pretty animation, or just be perplexed by the weird half-black-half-white image and move on. Also allowing Flash on Wikimedia isn't a royalty thing or money thing, to use flash on your site you don't have to pay Adobe, you just have to buy Flash to make the file, you can release your flash animation under compatible licenses for Wikipedia. There is some concerns I think for security, since you can put scripts in the flash animation that makes it do things hidden in the background, and I donno what the other reasons why we wouldn't use such a widespread standard. Also for HTML5 we need to support something other then Theora, we need to allow _all_ the HTML5 codecs to be uploaded here, VP8 and H.264, and all the valid containers that browsers will support. The resulting standard for HTML5 for video will not be limited to one codec and one container, just as we can use multiple image types. Personally I don't see any reason why we couldn't use flash, because flash would REALLY enrich some articles if done right. Plus the ability for flash video players to auto-scale up quality based on the end-users bandwidth, is something I don't think HTML5 will ever support. — raeky  T  21:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where in the world did you gather I support Flash? How did we get so off-topic?? Because I wrote that I hope you are right with regard to HTML5? No. I meant, “I hope you are right with regard to HTML5.” Really. I’m not advocating supporting Flash. Flash blows because it is a proprietary solution and the community receives inequitable bug fixes for the different platforms. I’m for *not* suggesting that animated GIFs should NEVER be used when official Wikipedia policy at Image use policy says no such thing. That’s all. Full stop. Animated GIFs; particularly those showing 360° flybys, have their place and that is why they are officially permitted and supported on Wikipedia. Not every animation works best by requiring the user to click a “play” button. I waaaaaant my self-running animations and you can’t take them away. ;-) OK? Greg L (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I assumed you was referring to Flash when you was talking about royalty payments, I'm not sure what you mean now by royalty payments? — raeky  T  21:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for giggles I converted File:Jack-in-cube solid model, light background.gif into an OGV, only to find someone else already did (File:Jack-in-cube solid model, light background.ogv) when I tried to upload it. Your animated GIF is 1.01 MB, the old conversion to OGV is 140 KB and I uploaded mine too (File:Jack-in-cube solid model, light background v2.ogv) and it's at 187 KB. So if the mechanic was there to make this auto-play and repeat it would be FAAAAR more efficient to use Theora then animated gifs. — raeky  T  21:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And that lead me to Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_75 about even more serious issues with animated gifs. — raeky  T  21:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I suggest you not make self-running GIF animations if you don’t like them. I’m thinking this is already the case. You seem like a programmer, who can get delight by shaving 300 milliseconds off someone’s download time. The present work-around to saving 300 milliseconds is to require readers click that play button. For some animations, that isn’t best. Someone needs to develop the self-running/looping ability for Theora videos and then I wouldn’t be digging in my feet on self-running GIFs. It’s not like I enjoy unnecessarily large files. In fact, I work mightily to reduce the file size of animated GIFs and use every trick in the book to do so. Like using 6-bit gray scale rather than 8 bits if I can’t really tell the difference. BTW, I fixed the problem here (easily) with the self-running animation displaying properly simply by specifying its thumbnail at the native size of the animation: 479 pixels. The default “100000x260px” specification bound to create problems for a big animated thumb. Whether GIF or Theora, whichever is most desirable for a given use is up to a given editor’s preference, IMO. Personally, I keep all animations (GIFs and Theora) at 400 pixels, which is one of the default standards for Theora videos. Anything larger starts getting bit too large, IMHO. I’m done here on this issue. I was not prepared to spend much of the day extolling the virtues and shortcomings of Theora, Flash, self-running animated GIFs, and other arcane technology. I was just pointing out that animated GIfs are officially approved for use on Wikipedia. They have their place. You don’t like them. That’s nice. Let’s save wear & tear on our keyboards for discussing the color of moss. Greg L (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Video or .gif? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the HTML video tag does support autorun and loop, I made a little demo: http://raeky.com/html5_loop_test.html — raeky  T  22:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can that be made to work on Wikipedia? Greg L (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, they'd have to change the base software to allow us to link videos that autoplay and loop but there is no reason why it WOULDN'T work, question is would they make the code changes to the live software? I'll create a Village Pump topic about the possibility of it.. — raeky  T  22:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't really want to create a village pump about it yet... and as for the codec WebM, it was by far the best, it converted this animation to 698k and no real quality loss. Once all the common browsers support WebM HTML5 video will be pretty nice imho. That was a 86% compression from GIF->WebM! — raeky  T  22:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Love it.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I think I might have had an assignment question related to this last year. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The image description is insufficient as it is. I'd like to know what technique/software was used and how the system was set up (density and velocity ratios). Is it is a slice through a 3d simulation, or a 2d simulation. There seem to be periodic boundary conditions in x direction, but not in y direction (what boundaries are there? Fixed velocity?). It would be nice if all those details could be supplied. This would also avoid the need for far fetched speculations like probably created by some kind of digital special effects simulator. --Dschwen 19:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, the source code is always a nice thing to have. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't clear already but I obviously think the video has more utility over the gif in-which thumbnailing is broken. — raeky  T  02:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer the video as well, for resizing capability. I also much prefer being able to choose to play it instead of it just constantly running on the article. Distracts from reading IMO.  Jujutacular  talk 02:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, click-to-play video is probably fine for this one. That’s a lot of swirling animation to have going on continuously when one is trying to read an article. Even though Java is required (my 88-year-old mother doesn’t have it installed on her computer), I assume that we can assume that a minimum configuration should be expected to have Java installed? Greg L (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just formatted and reinstalled base windows 7 yesterday, haven't installed java just using base web browser and I can play the video. I'd imagine any modern computer could play it without any issue, thats to say any made within the last probably 10 years (XP+). Although I can't qualify that with any data or evidence. ;-) — raeky  T  10:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: file does not yet have the FP tag. See this and feel free to solve the problem for me. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)