Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Orion Nebula mosaic

Orion Nebula mosaic


A Hubble Space Telescope composite picture of the Orion Nebula, the closest region of star formation to Earth. NASA's press release describes the nebula as "one of astronomy's most dramatic and photogenic celestial objects"; this image includes more than 3,000 stars of various sizes. The image, called "one of the most detailed astronomical images ever produced", was created from 520 original Hubble images, with some ground-based photos to fill in details as needed. The full size image is an 18000x18000, 385 megabyte TIFF; I've uploaded the 6000x6000 JPEG version


 * Nominate and support. - Davepape 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - A beautiful picture InvictaHOG 07:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Wow!Nnfolz 07:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per Nnfolz. --KFP 10:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per everyone else. Evocative image, looks almost 3D. --Bridgecross 13:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Very impressive. SteveHopson 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support 18000x18000, 385 megabyte TIFF? Hahaha. Cool. Arad 17:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Quite impressive. Mikeo 17:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Either original or edit. The 18000 version is a little over the top, if you ask me. Nauticashades 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. One might quibble with the somewhat aggressive color saturation the Hubble team chose, but the results are spectacular nonetheless. -- Moondigger 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support large version I am downloading the full quality tif and I am going to make a larger one close to the 20meg file size limit. HighInBC 01:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have encoded from the tif and uploaded the 18000x18000 version which has 9x as many pixels. HighInBC 04:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My computer has considerable difficulties displaying this version. --KFP 14:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Browsers are not designed for such large images. It needs to be loaded in a proper image handling program. I use photoshop, but GIMP is a good free alternative. Another solution is to go to the sandbox and use the image markup to render a smaller version of it. eg: [[Image:Orion Nebula - Hubble 2006 mosaic.jpg|6000px]] HighInBC 15:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * GIMP nearly froze when I tried to load this photo (my computer is not exactly state of the art). It might be a good idea to link to the 6000x6000 version from the image description page. --KFP 15:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The command [[Image:Orion Nebula - Hubble 2006 mosaic.jpg|6000px]] does not seem to work for sizes >= 6000... --Bernard 20:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it is my browser (Mozilla) that blocks images above 6000 pixels wide, when they are included in html. --Bernard 00:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a note about the huge size and a link to the gallery of different sizes of this image at NASA. HighInBC 17:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --KFP 18:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not reasonable to have a 18000x18000 image on Wikipedia, imo. People will click on it (even with warnings), and since it needs almost 1GB in memory... With 512MB RAM, my computer froze for a long time. The link to NASA should be sufficient for those who want the large size. At least download under a different name and keep the 6000x6000 image. --Bernard 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else agree that it is not reasonable to have such a large image here? It is simply a file that not everyone can load, you can still right click and save as. If you want to move things around, I won't mind, but I think the wikimedia software is designed for such large file. If people don't read the warning at the top, I can't really help them much further. HighInBC 20:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * When you said you were going to post a full-resolution version, I assumed you meant as a separate upload, with an "other versions" tag on the 6000x6000 image page pointing to the 18,000x18,000 version. I would suggest reverting to Davepape's original upload and making the 18,000 pixel version a separate file. -- Moondigger 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the 6Kx6K and 18Kx18K should probably be saved separately. In addition to the problems stated above, the original 6Kx6K JPEG will be better than one that wikimedia downsamples from another JPEG.  And saving both on wikimedia is handy, in case hubblesite gets rearranged in the future and the links break. --Davepape 21:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree about downsampling from the smaller jpeg. The 18000x18000 version was made by a lossless tiff so no double encoding happened. The extra pixels lets imagemagick(the program that wikipedia uses to resize) have more sampling points. If you have a good monitor you will see the thumbnail of the larger image has more range of color. Also, wikipedia caches downsampled images, so only the first time an image is called in a new size will it cause an increased load. HighInBC 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your 18000x18000 version does have more range of colors, but downsampling or compression is not the cause. Among the many versions available from NASA, most of them look like the 6000x6000 version, but the files web_print.jpg and xlarge_web.jpg look more like your 18000x18000 version. Strange, isn't it? As for the two tiff files, when I tried opening them and downsampling them, the result was similar to the 6000x6000 version. It seems that your software didn't process them the same way as mine (I tried with gimp and tifftopnm, under Linux). Tiff being a complicated format with many options, some of them poorly supported by software, something could have gone wrong... --Bernard 01:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I used photoshop, and was able to preserve the color profile from the tiff into the jpg. HighInBC 02:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It could be the other way! How do you know you got the correct colors? --Bernard 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I imported the color profile from the tif, then saved the same profile into the jpg. No way to know what the correct colors are, as it has been filtered an color corrected by NASA. With my eyes, it seems that my encode almost identical in coloring to the tiff. HighInBC 04:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, moving the large image to another page and linking them. HighInBC 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done! HighInBC 22:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. WOW many times over! --Janke | Talk 07:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Any version. Brilliant image. --Fir0002 11:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original, would support edit 1 if resized to orignal nominated image size or less. Some users may (foolishly when dealing with NASA images) have there settings to it shows the fullsize rather then a scaled down image. Oppose the huge 18,000x18,000 image. PPGMD 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the image that compares the two versions? There is only 1/9th(~.11x) the detail in the smaller one, and the smaller one has more washed out colors. Is your opposition based on the image, or the current average capacity of computers? HighInBC 22:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The smaller versions look fine on my computer, even with the Wikipedia auto resizing, as computers become better the image can be updated with larger versions, the Featured Image should be the smaller one IMO, and made larger as standards and computers get better. PPGMD 23:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting a maximum size criteria for featured pictures? This seems to go against the Wikipedia's best criteria. Which size should we limit the pictures to? HighInBC 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that if we can help it, our best shouldn't lockup or even crash computers who selected show full size pictures in thier preferences. PPGMD 02:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The warning at the top of the image seems to be enough, the best car can be more dangerous to drive, but some people can still use it. The smaller one has only 11% the information of the larger one, and some star clusters simple cannot be seen in it, this one of the most detailed images of space ever constructed. I know people may ignore or not read the warning, but you cannot save everyone. HighInBC 02:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is borderline insulting. When I open an image in full size, I often don't read any text before. Compare the amount of warning here and at the NASA site. --Bernard 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that is even borderline insulting, if such an image is available for download, and you put a warning and it is downloaded anyways then I don't see how to save them. This is not a judgement of the person, and certainly not of you. I have started a discussion about this in the appropriate section Wikipedia talk:What is a featured picture?. HighInBC 15:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * People regularly ignore warnings, the image still looks great 6,000px or less, sure you maynot be able to get as detailed when you zoom in, but thats what the 18,000px version is for. And as quality standards improve it's rather easy to simply upload a larger version in place. PPGMD 15:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the current criteria does not have limitations on size, and existing policy(Image_use_policy point 5) says larger is better, this would be better discussed on Wikipedia talk:What is a featured picture? than on the voting page for this image. HighInBC 15:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the policy was written to expect an 18,000px image nominated when the normal picture put out my cameras is 2-5k pxs. I can vote how I want, I support the original, and would support the Fir edit if sized down to the orginal size. PPGMD 19:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody has made any sort of response the me bringing this topic up at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured picture?. Perhaps the matter has been dropped? HighInBC 13:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Also a FPC on Commons when I last checked, and is gathering support there. I can only see the 6000x6000 image, which is striking enough, but I think the full-size one should be featured (with links to the scaled one displayed on the description page). --ais523 11:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the 6000x6000 image, with a link to the 18000x18000 image downloaded separately. It would be better to have color consistency between the two versions, and the colors of the 6000x6000 version seem closer to what NASA wanted, based on the count of their versions that look similar. --Bernard 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Which version were you comparing the colors to? I used the master tif that all the other images were created from for my comparison and they looked pretty much identical to me. Some of the smaller websized one's(including the 6000x6000 one here) provided by NASA do have different coloring, notably a greyish background instead of a black one, but this is in contrast with their own master image. HighInBC 18:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of the 16 versions that can be found here and here, all of them, except web_print.jpg and xlarge_web.jpg, but including the tiffs, look like the 6000x6000 image on my computer. I would like to understand, but I agree with any color version after all. --Bernard 21:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

commentther's a zilion Nebulas and astronomical photos.I don't now how many are alredy fetured in wikipedia.But we shouldn't feature all the nice ones,or we will be overwhelmed.--Pixel ;-) 00:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too reddy, I would prefer this in green or blue, mabye a different shape. NegativeNed 16:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume this is a joke? HighInBC 16:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. Look at his comments for Ulysses S Grant and White Tigers above.  Snore.  Are votes counted if the member uses Tor services for anonymity?  Also, does somebody check opposition votes for relevance before counting? --Bridgecross 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving notes on each of the pages so the vote will be checked. -- Tewy  23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * When I close nominations I do take the comments into account. Most of this user's comments seem to be jokes, and I probably would not tally them. -- Moondigger 05:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Bkkeim2000 Excellent picture. Super resolution and should be on wikipedia.  Also as an easter egg, zoom in on the almost exact center, it looks as though there is something there like a black hole or asteroid.
 * Support 6000x6000 version Rtcpenguin 17:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I really hope that the featured picture does not have less than 12% of the detail than one that is available. Not one person has responsed to my attempt to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured picture?, yet people still see too large as some sort of bad thing. The preference for a less detailed image does not seem to fit into existing criteria, nor does anyone seem to be trying to make it a criteria. HighInBC 19:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:Whole_world_-_land_and_oceans_12000.jpg is FP, Image:Whole world - land and oceans.jpg is not. HighInBC 19:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the original image - Marmoulak 00:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC).