Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bitmap VS SVG

Bitmap VS SVG.svg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 May 2012 at 18:55:14 (UTC)

Original – This image illustrates the difference between bitmap and vector images. The bitmap image is composed of a fixed set of dots, while the vector image is composed of a fixed set of shapes. In the picture, scaling the bitmap reveals the dots while scaling the vector image preserves the shapes.

Reason: An excellent demonstration of how SVGs work; it meets all the FPC - and, fittingly, it's an SVG itself!
Articles in which this image appears: Scalable Vector Graphics
FP category for this image: Engineering and Technology
Creator: Yug; improved by Cfaerber, Tene, Artem Karimov, and Mktyscn

Support as nominator --Inter change able 18:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now because when clicking on the image sizes like 1000px the image displays on a black background. Pine^(talk) 21:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Support simple but effective image, the problem appears to be with the browser. Pine^(talk) 03:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks right for me? Sure this isn't your browser/computer? — raeky t 22:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's from the recent Firefox editions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~v 12 fixes that, or at least for me it did. It was annoying to have transparent images on that black background~~ Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 01:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oops, no it doesn't. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 01:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Striking my oppose because this appears to be a browser problem. Pine^(talk) 03:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great illustration. Pine, I suggest you take back that oppose because the black background is a natural feature of how ~~MediaWiki~~ displays transparent backgrounds. If you transclude it at an image size like 1000px, there is no such problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or Firefox. I stand corrected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Somewhat simple, sure. Educational? Definitely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A good concept, but the realisation here is flawed on several fronts. With terminology, why would you choose to say "outline" rather than "vector"? It's not widely used and doesn't even gel with the image caption here or, more importantly, in the article. I'd also be inclined to say "raster" rather than "bitmap". In fact I can't help but wonder that this wasn't originally conceived as a comparison of computer fonts rather than graphics, or was somewhat incorrectly modified from a source that did so, as it uses the imagery of enlarging fonts and the 'outline' term is more commonly used with fonts. I'm also not particularly thrilled with the bitmap image examples given in the diagram. Yes, jpg, gif, and png are modified forms of bitmapping, but aren't true literal bitmap image formats as they involve various types of compression coding; no true bitmap examples are stated. I also think the image could be easily improved to make it easier on the eye. The two boxes are different widths - why? Why is there only one enlargement for the bitmap but two for the outline/vector? It's inconsistent. I'd also say the starting figures (the small 'S's in this case) should be identical sizes instead of the outline one being bigger (and the bitmapped one should probably be less obviously jaggy to start with), and the finished figures should have the same size and placement (as shown the bitmap just shuffles to the side while the vector soars up the screen, with no logical reasoning). Additionally, just on a layout point, the descriptive words (bitmap and outline) should probably be the same width as the boxes instead of overlapping either end, and I'd really question the non-standard use of all-caps, which is in contravention of MOS:CAPS guidelines. --jjron (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are minor issues that won't really affect a reader's comprehension of the image. Inter change able 18:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But are serious concerns to being recognized as a FP, I agree with jjron here and will have to Oppose as his views are similar to my own objections but alot more comprehensive.. lol. — raeky t 19:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed most of the problems in a new version. Inter change able 21:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a big improvement in the new version, well done. While I'm not sure it's got enough for me to support, and still has some niggles to me, I am reconsidering my oppose. Incidentally, given the major changes, it should really have been uploaded as an alternative image, rather than just overwritten the original, as technically the votes preceding mine relate to the previous version not this new one (not that I imagine anyone would object to the changes). --jjron (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support new version, an excellent illustration of the difference between raster and vector images. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 18:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the image is understandable when you already know the difference. If you just imagine you have no idea what a vector image is, I think you'd still be confused after. It's a hard thing to put into an image – the concrete suggestion I can make is that the shaded area between "zoomed out" and "zoomed in" areas isn't clear that that is what they are. The vector "S" also seems to change colour. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point of the caption. I'll fix the vector S in a short time. Inter change able 01:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, is it really necessary to list the file types? I think we could get by just fine if the smaller captions read "Fixed dots" and "Fixed Shapes" or something similar. Inter change able 15:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well one of my original objections was about the file types. Hmm, not that I can see saying 'fixed dots', etc would help, I don't think that's standard or particularly clarifying terminology. Personally I'd just omit that stuff completely. Image page description and captions would need to be updated to match new image. --jjron (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about fonts or images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.206 (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images. We could do this with something other than an s, but that's a lot of work. Inter change able 15:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this image

is used in the actual vector graphics article. While I don't think it's quite FP standard, it's arguably a better illustration for images than the nominated version, which does seem more font based. --jjron (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the nominated image is used in the article Scalable Vector Graphics. Inter change able 20:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Late) Oppose I've explained SVG to enough people to know that this isn't a particularly useful image. In my experience, it doesn't help explain what an SVG is or how SVG differs from bitmap. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Dusty777 17:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]