Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Yellow mite

Yellow mite


A striking, very high resolution, high detail scanning electron microscope image of a yellow mite, magnified about 850x.


 * Nominate and support. -  BRIAN  0918 15:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. —Keenan Pepper 17:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Ch ild zy ( Talk 17:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is actually in the public domain. Oftentimes, the original image would be, but the colorization would not be. Confirmation that this specific image is PD is needed before I could support. zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone please clarify this. Can the colorization of an image be copyrighted while the image isn't?Nnfolz 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's PD. I've explained on the image page. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-16 20:58
 * Support I will change my vote if it's found that the image doesn't meet the copyright criteria.Nnfolz 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Weak support  Besides the copyright question Zarifoblue05 mentioned, it's unnecessarily large to no benefit.  I support high-resolutions and large file sizes when it's merited, but this appears to have been an 1800 pixel-wide original upsampled to 3500 pixels, maybe to make it easier to provide the false yellow color.  Once that was done it should have been downsampled back to 1800 pixels.  I would support a downsampled version that comes in under 1 MB... if done correctly no detail would be lost and it would make for an easier download for those with slow connections.  I will provide a downsampled version myself if the copyright concerns are addressed. -- moondigger 20:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And you are wrong. The original is a 73mb file, about 5000x5000 in size, that came from here. And of course it is public domain, as are the numerous other featured pictures from the exact same group within ARS-USDA. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-16 20:50
 * The full-resolution image (as well as this crop) display a certain softness that looks a lot like it was produced by upsampling/interpolation. I pulled the image into Photoshop, and one of my image analysis tools indicated it had been upsampled from an 1800 pixel-wide original.  When I downsampled the image to 1800 pixels, it looked a lot better, no longer displaying that softness but without losing anything I could detect in the way of detail.  The link you provided shows three versions of the mite, all already colored.  How do you know they weren't upsampled from smaller originals prior to being colored and posted?  I never said you did the upsampling.
 * You are wrong. I downloaded the 73mb file today. I resized it from 5000x5000 (or whatever the enormous resolution was), down to the current, final result. The reason it looks soft is because it's a high magnification SEM image; they all look like that to some degree; the higher the magnification, the softer the image. I don't know or care what you think you've found in your "image analysis tools", because it's wrong. The coloring was done by someone at the USDA (Chris Pooley), not someone on Wikipedia. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-17 00:03
 * Let's try again. How do you know it wasn't upsampled prior to being posted on the site you got it from?  -- moondigger 00:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because that would make no sense. The site I got it from is run by the USDA. Are you suggesting that they took an 1800 pixel image, and resized it to 5000 pixels, increasing the file size and necessary bandwidth by almost 100 times, and for what purpose? If they say that the ftp server hosts the high-res versions of their pictures, I'll trust that they're telling the truth, mostly because nothing else makes sense. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-17 00:19
 * I suggested a reason for upsampling in my first post: because it makes applying false color easier. Again, if that's how it came out of the SEM, then fine.  The analysis tool I used is designed for satellite imagery.  It might well be wrong.  I still think the lack of single-pixel detail justifies the bandwidth savings that would be seen with a downsampled image. -- moondigger 00:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless, even if it came out of the SEM that way, the softness/lack of single-pixel detail is still there. I'd suggest downsampling it to reduce download times... there really isn't any loss of detail that I can see.  Glad to see the copyright concerns have been alleviated.  Based on that, I've changed to weak support.  I'd fully support a downsampled version.-- moondigger 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather keep it at high resolution, so that the image would be more usable for a future print version of Wikipedia. That is, after all, the main reason that we are requiring higher and higher resolution images on FPC and elsewhere. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-17 00:08
 * That's like saying "expensive food tastes better, so I'd rather pay $30 for this hamburger". If there's no extra detail in the extra resolution, there's no point keeping it big. But it's no major harm either. Stevage 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see anything wrong with it, unless the copyright issue is a problem. Cab02 20:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My complaint is only that it's unnecessarily large, and artificially so. A downsampled version could provide the same level of detail without the expense of long download times.  I like the image overall, and will support a downsampled version if copyright questions are resolved. -- moondigger 20:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See above. You are incorrect about it being artificially enlarged. It was downsampled from an even larger version, as I explained above. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-16 20:51
 * See my reply above. -- moondigger 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Vircabutar 00:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support That's insane level of detail! -- Abdominator 01:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Definitely bound for FP status. -- AJ24 13:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support scary --Nebular110 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It's absolutely hideous!! (how many FPCs could you say that about in a "support" vote?!) -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  00:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about this one? :) Raven4x4x 00:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * hahahahahahahah! -- AJ24 00:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support very nice image and definitely FP material. Pegasus1138 Talk 06:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Either, with preference for Edit 1. --Fir0002 06:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1.-- moondigger 14:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Either version is fine, as long as it isn't 70MB to download, yeesh. -- Marumari 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- Samir   धर्म  03:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Fir's version, very nice. -- Cyde↔Weys  17:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I usually hate the excessive editing that goes on around here to alter really minor points about an image, but this edit improved the focus a lot and the image itself is striking and illustrative. Major support from me. - Mgm|(talk) 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Daĉjo почта 14:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - I haven't seen such a valid nomination in a long time.  Viva La  V  i  e   Boheme  14:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * User has 8 edits outside user page. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-20 14:59
 * Brian, just so you ought to know, I have been editing Wikipedia for a LONG time. You cannot judge from my edits. I did a lot of work under just my IP, and I had a user name a long time ago, however, I forgot the password. I recently picked up three years later, and I just recently created an account. So stop judging me! 10 edits or 10000 edits, my opinion is valid. I also had two successful FP's on the old account.  Viva La  V  i  e   Boheme  21:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is common practice here, on RFA, on AFD, etc, to alert users when a brand new account is placing a lot of votes. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-21 02:50
 * Support, either image.--ragesoss 16:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, Wonderful, I like both images. HighInBC 16:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 05:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)