Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mandelbrot set

Mandelbrot Set


Good high-resolution picture. Best picture of the Mandelbrot set on Wikipedia. Mathematics images are under-represented in WP:FPC


 * Nominate and support . - Ineffable3000 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original - new version will not load on pages. --Ineffable3000 01:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support . These images can go a LOT bigger, in theory, so I think someone who was willing to use that much computer time could make a better one. However, it is very sharp and attractive, and I think that makes up for the size. Those zoom links are fun... -- Tewy  22:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support larger version. Much better. This allows you to see the close up detail as well as the whole fractal. Now if the thumbnail issue can be fixed, I think we'll have ourselves a featured picture -- Tewy  01:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - 1280x960 is a very high resolution for Wikipedia. This is the best fractal image on Wikipedia so far. If a better one is created, we can always nominate that one. --Ineffable3000 23:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's a pretty typical resolution for FP. -- Tewy  02:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  Strong Support Bernard version These mathematical monsters are fascinating creatures. Let's promote one to FP (the father); more and more beautiful will come after. Alvesgaspar 23:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: We already have two Mandelbrot FPs: [[Image:Mandelpart2.jpg|50px]] and [[Image:Buddhabrot-deep.jpg|50px]].
 * Comment Yes, and beautiful they are. But this one is special, it is the whole Mandelbrot set. - Alvesgaspar 00:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - And in my opinion, this one has better coloring and better perspective than the other ones. --Ineffable3000 01:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I think the colormapping of the points just outside the boundary looks fantastic. I would love to see a higher-resolution version with the same colormapping.Spebudmak 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Brilliant image of the Mandelbrot set. Visual mathematical image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.146.51.15 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC).
 * Support, although I agree with Tewy that a higher resolution image would be better. Warriorness 19:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose This looks like the default settings on a fractal program. If you have never seen a fractal before then it is amazing, but if you have you will know that it is a very plain rendering(see ). Also a fractal can be limited in size only by the 20mb limit, I would want a much larger render. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 07:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support 10000x8000 version Assuming that the wikimedia software eventually resizes the image hehe, I support this version. While the rendering is plain, that is compatable with an encyclopedic goal, and the giant resolution gives details that one does not regularly see when looking at a screen sized version. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Great picture! --JustVisiting 13:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Larger Version. I actually prefer this simple version to the more complicated ones. However, i prefer the darker blue of the smaller one. Nautica Shad e  s  17:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * support better than the existing ones. Borisblue 17:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose Rather boring compared to existing ones --Fir0002 22:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The sequence starting with the image is particularly good, but for the first image we can do better. I have uploaded a picture that improves in several ways: size, framing less tight vertically, non cyclic colors, sharper boundary. Mmmmm the thumbnail doen't seem to show on screen, maybe 10000 pixel wide png is too much. I will downscale if needed. --Bernard 23:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel embarassed after having given my strong support to the first version. Of course this one is better, and if we care to produce a larger and more detailed version it would be even better! What to do with this kind of images? It looks like a contest, similar to finding the largest known prime number in the world ! Should we put a limit to size and resolution of fractals and evaluate only the aesthetical aspects? Alvesgaspar 19:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. The problem here is that a higher resolution version of some fractal not only shows a larger image but also reveals new and unexpected details, i.e., it can be considered as a new picture ! - Alvesgaspar 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The only real limit to picture size is the 20 MB limit. I think voters know enough to vote according to all of its aspects, not just the size. Though I do suppose that someone could create a version with different colors and attempt to pass it as FP. For now, I would say to pass this version, and only replace it with another version only if it is clearly superior, not just different or larger. -- Tewy  20:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would go with aesthetics rather than resolution. An encyclopedia viewer does not need to look at a 1 Gigabyte image. --Ineffable3000 20:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's best would be the one with more pixels. We do not have to choose between aesthetics and resolution, as the mediawiki software resizes large images for small displays. Any fractal can be redered to any size so why not 20mb? I say we use wikipedias best. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The current High Resolution image is not displayed on pages though. When it will be displayed on pages, I will Strongly Support it. And I want the new higher-resolution image to replace the old low-resolution image so that we do not have to relink all pages to the new image. --Ineffable3000 21:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries there, PNGs are slow to resize, so when you choose a new resolution to display it will be unavailable for about 20 minutes, a couple hours tops(you can place it on a talk page at a size and wait for it to render, then place it into an article to avoid the dead image in the duration). All you have to do is wait a while after a new size is chosen, subsequent uses of the image at the same size will be instant. In other words it is a temporary problem that fixes itself. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support High-Resolution Version - if a resolution thumb shows up on all pages and the new version is replaced with original version. --Ineffable3000 21:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment From what I see, there are still serious thumbnail problems with the 10000x8000 file. Wikipedia is actually serving the original full size image instead of a downscaled version (probably because it failed to create the thumbnail), and lets the users' browsers downscale the image themselves. I don't understand everything, but it looks very bad. I hope it can be fixed. For the moment, I've replaced the thumbnail with a 2500x2000 version (the 5000x4000 version has the same problems). We can't let the 10000x8000 thumbnail stay here, my browser slows down every time it tries to display it. --Bernard 02:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - 2500x2500 is fine. But I would recommend you get as high resolution as Wikipedia will display as thumbnail normally. --Ineffable3000 03:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Or just link to the larger version. -- Tewy  03:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I still think that 2500x2500 is enough to get the point across. It's not like something amazing occurs at the micro-level. It's just an iteration. --Ineffable3000 03:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does not iterate, it is different in every location, subtly different, but different. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've been doing fractals since, well, 20 years ago. Mandelbrot images are less than a dime a dozen. Yes, there should be *a* Mandelbrot featured picture. This isn't the one. Let's get something exceptional. Also, an image that showed the low numbers of orbits (1, 2...) more clearly would be more informative. Stevage 13:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support for version 2. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the 2500x2000 version. An image isn't encyclopedic if the reader can't see it because it's so big. --HereToHelp 21:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Ineffable3000 22:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nautica Shad e  s  10:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)