Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kxjb tv mast pano.jpg

KXJB TV mast vertical hi resolution pano edit

Original - KXJB TV mast, Blanchard, ND - the second tallest manmade structure in the world. A high resolution pano.

Reason: Full size image really allows viewer/reader to experience both height and construction of these masts up close.
Articles this image appears in: KXJB-TV_mast
Creator: User:Mfield

Support as nominator Mfield (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Umm, wow. It's not very sharp, but provides excellent illustration, and is obviously one of the more encyclopedic pictures I've seen nominated in a while. Good luck.-DMCer ™ 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Photographers note - getting far enough away from this mast to get such an image involves a fair amount of distance and a long lens. Atmospheric distortion becomes a significant factor. Plus adding a 1.4x TC to a 300m lens to get the detail. Sure it could be downsampled to 'sharpen' it but all that achieves is a less detailed image that appears sharper which doesn't gain you anything. (The original image is even larger than this). If I could go back on the right day at the right time I am sure I could get a sharper image but I don't often venture this far into ND on a whim when I live in LA :-) Mfield (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - technical quality is too low: unfocused.--Svetovid (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wouldn't downsampling help? Also, the stabilizing cables are of course cut off. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per svetoid. I recommend uploading a downsampled version. Clegs (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the fascination with downsampling? The point of this kind of image surely is to be able to view it or print it as large as possible should the viewer CHOSE to do so. It's never going to be viewed at full size in an article obviously, its going to be embedded smaller and then it has been downsampled anyway. Why throw away detail? This image is already downsized from the original to a point where I felt that any smaller was losing detail on the thinnest cables and beams. Mfield (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fascination with downsampling is because the tower is somewhat blurry in most places. Downsampling would correct that. Clegs (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Downsampling never corrects anything; it just throws away detail. At best, a downsampled version will equal the quality of an original, but never will it be better. The only time downsampling is appropriate is if the number of pixels outresolves the actual resolution/detail of the picture. So downsampling is harmful unless no detail is lost. Of course, looking at the picture, it would seem a downsampled version would be appropriate. thegreen J Are you green? 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly - there seems to be a mentality that downsampling adds sharpness - all it does is sharpen things in the same way that sitting further from the image you are viewing does. In the era of sitting right in front of a monitor, viewing at 100%, that can lead to throwing away information that is useful to have when making a 300dpi print or sharpening for a different output. Hence why images should be left at their maximum resolution unless you have only one specific use in mind. Mfield (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Heh... I'd like to see a 300dpi print of this... thegreen J Are you green? 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's too encyclopedic to simply oppose for reasons that would befall a normal FP. It perfectly illustrates the tower, whether or not one is viewing the photo at full size shouldn't matter in this case.-DMCer™ 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Normal FP? The criteria apply to all FP and nominated images.--Svetovid (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course they do, but every picture isn't 100% perfect in every single category. Just at a glance, I've seen images nominated for photo of the year that I could pick at forever, yet they passed for one reason or another. This was a technical shot, and I think the image is perfect for what it is, which is why I supported it. People suggest "downsampling" much too frequently as a fix-all, which it isn't.—DMCer™ 11:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "100% perfect" is a tricky condition. However, there are exceptions when the image quality can be lower than normally - images with historic value and hard-to-reproduce ones (e.g. ). This image belongs to neither of those categories.--Svetovid (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Guess we agree to disagree then.—DMCer ™ 20:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shape of the image is intriguing, even though "slightly impractical". Would support if the image quality was perfect, which it isn't - too blurred in some places. Can be re-shot. --Janke | Talk 08:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now I've heard it all - the shape of the image! Let me see - ah yes the tower is that shape. What shape should it be instead? Can be reshot - yes it could be as I said, but I'm the first person to ever bother driving out there to this tower, shooting 17 images from such a distance as to include it all and keep it perfectly straight, stitch them up and upload them. I don't see anybody else ever having bothered and that makes it fairly unique. I'll won't hold my breath for someone else to either. I am sorry I submitted this now - I did so because I think it fully fulfills the FP criteria at the top of the page "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria." and NOWHERE do I see a mention of critical sharpness as a criteria. Maybe if it was a boring but razor sharp image of a daisy or a squirrel it would sail through, but that would really illustrate an article about a big tall thin radio mast very well would it? Mfield (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a good picture and encyclopaedic one, but not FP quality IMO.--Svetovid (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly.When I commented on "the shape of the image" I said it is "intriguing" - how can you construe that as negative criticism? My objection is the lack of sharpness in certain places - at the men in the tower + the extreme top and bottom, for instance. --Janke | Talk 20:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please make sure you have read Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. This details the criteria - what is at the top of the page is just an overview. Sharpness is part of Criteria 1 on high technical standards. --jjron (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed - (switched from support on closer examination - sorry). How would this fit on the Main Page? :-) On closer examination, the quality seems to vary between the stitched together images. I'm also concerned that the supporting cables are cut off by the choice to take the image this way - those supporting cables are part of the structure. I also see five people in the tower. Are these five separate people or the same people photographed at different points as they climb the tower? To be honest, I would prefer one single shot from a distance, and a couple of close-ups showing details. This one, different though it is, falls inbetween these two extremes and satisfies no-one (or rather, doesn't satisfy me). Carcharoth (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd love to know where you see five people in the tower? I don't see any! How could one person be in 5 places of a 2000ft tower in under a minute? You don't climb these towers anyway, it has to be ascended by elevator. To take an image of this resolution and include the supporting wires, would result in an image of about 2000megapixels including an immense amount of sky. This shot is taken from a mile or so from the tower remember. I have a three frame stitch of about the whole tower and wires from closer in [1] and it captures no real detail at all and suffers from perspective distortion due to the scale of this structure. That's the point. Mfield (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are your "people"... Now you can understand why some think that the sharpness isn't good enough... If these shapes aren't peolpe, what are they? Fuzzy, bright red orangutans? ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly certain those "people" are actually lights. Tomdobb (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, blame the lack of sharpness on why you managed to mistake a big red dome shaped light for a human being 5 times! Mfield (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I blame it on your comment about the picture allowing the viewer to experience the "construction" of the tower. I thought you meant the tower was still being built, and these were construction workers. I didn't know whether you had taken seconds or minutes to take the picture. And it does look like there is a ladder running up the inside of the tower - I thought it was normal to climb up objects like this. If the ladder is actually the elevator guiderail, I apologise. Still not enough detail though. Janke also commented about "men in the tower" - so others will make the same mistake. Need to have 5 or 6 separate close-up pics of the struts, the framework, the "lights", the guide wires. Then, as a group, the pictures would work. Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify what I wrote above, there are many interesting features on this tower, but I can't zoom in and examine them properly. Satellite dishes, radio antenna, lights (one right at the top) and so on. More detail needed. I'd seriously like to see that 2GB picture. Similar things have been done for the whole Earth and the Milky Way galaxy, and yes, if you print them out they are massive, but no, they are not intended to be printed out. Carcharoth (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an astounding photograph that greatly enhances the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sharpness is great! It's not out of focus. Any fuzziness is atmospheric haze. Considering it's over a mile away, this accurately portrays the distance. This helps give it a sense of scale. Beyond that, I'm not sure what detail anyone thinks is missing. Maybe details of the construction? You want to know how many bolts in each joint? Even though it's strongly side-lit, it's not completely silhouetted - you can still make out colors. -Freekee (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]