Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Optical.greysquares.arp.jpg

Image:Optical.greysquares.arp.jpg

 * Reason:Tiny image, that really should be in svg (or at least png), rather than jpg.
 * Nominator: Jack · talk


 * Replace with PNG &mdash; Jack · talk · 00:39, Monday, 9 April 2007
 * Delist per nom. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * replace with PNG / very strong oppose SVG - how much larger does this really need to be? Debivort 01:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - SVG version has wonky geometry and the sharp shadow reduces the illusion. Debivort 04:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point — Jack · talk · 02:26, Monday, 9 April 2007
 * Replace with PNG, almost delist. It's not necessary for many diagram type images to be SVG or as large as they are for computer monintors.  But, it does allow them to be printed as posters or look better from projectors.  It's important to take into account non-monitor applications and some day I plan on pasting this on the side of the Empire State Building and an SVG would help. gren グレン 05:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Leave original – the PNG looks identical (the jpeg version has no noticeable artifacts), and takes up 5 times as much space (~70k vs. ~15k).  This type of image, with a blur, is not particularly suited to a png.  So there is no reason to change its format.  A larger sized jpeg (the jpeg could be 200% as big as now and still be of a smaller file size than the png) would be preferable.  Additionally, the jpeg uses better colors (more contrast) to illustrate the effect.  --jacobolus (t) 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When I found this image, the first thing I did (in understandable disbelief at its content) was to copy the image into paint and play with the colours. When I realised the JPG version made this very hard, I tracked down the source image, found it to be a PNG and uploaded that to supersede the original. The JPG is smaller because it's lower quality, and you shouldn't let worries about performance affect your decisions — Jack · talk · 17:59, Tuesday, 10 April 2007
 * Delist. I've decided that this image is really not interesting enough to be featured anyway.  But anyway, the jpeg is smaller because it is a better format for an image with such color gradients.  PNG has no advantage for an image like this.  It just takes up more space.  Also, as I said before, the jpg has higher contrast, which helps demonstrate the effect.  Incidentally, you would have little trouble playing with either format image if you were using a program more powerful than Paint.  If you want, put up a jpeg at 200% the size, and it will be of comparable or smaller file size to the png, and much higher quality.  --jacobolus (t) 08:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Replace with PNG, the gradient on the JPG is not as good, I notice artifact in it as well--at least more fuzziness. Viewing in thumbnail the difference is 4kB vs. 14kB and I think that is how many people will be viewing it, which minimizes any worry I had about the (startling) size difference. gren グレン 09:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Replace with PNG, the PNG is better quality than the jpg. Less fuzzy. Flubeca 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added an SVG version created by myself from scratch. Noclip 21:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nifty. There are some problems... the board doesn't look straight since something is wrong with the angles.  I also think some margins after the end of the board would be beneficial.  I'm not sure how to fix it, but the SVG would be better than the PNG if they were fixed. gren グレン 05:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we may have a second optical illusion on our hands! I can however, tolerate the SVG, and I'm voting anything but JPEG — Jack · talk · 16:53, Friday, 20 April 2007
 * Replace with SVG I have added borders around the whole image, per gren. -Andrew c 17:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the SVG file has worse colors than the jpeg, and wacky geometry to boot! I still say the jpeg is the best of the three images for illustrating the point (based on color and geometry), but reiterate my suggestion to delist this, as not worth being a featured image. --jacobolus (t) 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The SVG is an orthographic projection (no vanishing point). It's not "wacky geometry" it's just a different way of representing three dimensional objects. Noclip 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't understand why any of these is better than the real original image at which is plenty large!!  --jacobolus (t) 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * did the people commenting after me read this comment? ↑ (maybe if I make it red…) --jacobolus (t) 05:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Size is only one factor. The JPEG has artifacts due to lossy compression. Punctured Bicycle 01:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Replace with PNG - This is probably the best example of optical illusions on Wikipedia, and the PNG version does seem cleaner and is within the size requirements.  C e n t y   13:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Replace with PNG - The SVG version may be larger but the shadow doesn't look like a shadow should. - Mgm|(talk) 12:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Does SVG have technical limitations that prevent the original drawing from being reproduced satisfactorily? Or is it just that no one has been able to draw it correctly in that format? Punctured Bicycle 01:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Replaced with PNG version. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Replace with PNG per centy. Amphy 03:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)