Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Peripheral drift illusion

Peripheral drift illusion

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2023 at 11:47:19 (UTC)

Original – A peripheral drift illusion

Reason: Despite being the majority coordinator for POTD, I don't often nominate FPCs and I'm not even really an image expert... but this one looks quite impressive to me - the illusion is very profound when the picture is expanded, it seems like it has solid EV as a good illustration of both Peripheral drift illusion and Illusory motion. As an expandable svg it is technically sound too, so I think most of WP:Featured picture criteria would be met. Interested what you guys think of this.
Articles in which this image appears: Peripheral drift illusion, Illusory motion, List of optical illusions
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Drawings
Creator: Paul Nasca; svg version by Cmglee

Support as nominator – — Amakuru (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as illustrator — Thanks, @Amakuru:

Illusion similar to Primrose Field by Kitaoka Akiyoshi
Comment — May I recommend this anomalous motion illusion instead, which works even at small sizes, and curiously stops working when the device it is on is rotated 45°? File:Sunburst_peripheral_drift_illusion_fixed.svg has also an interesting effect, but may be too painful for some. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Meh. – Sca (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Leaning to support, but I have a question. The original by Paul Nasca [1] displays as a 27 x 20 cell matrix (with a corresponding vector field here [2]). The nom SVX displays as a 20 x 15 cell matrix. Does that affect anything regarding the perception or illusion? I can't tell with my eyes. Second, personally I like to see Paul Nasca's name mentioned in some way in the file page of the SVG. Bammesk (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Nasca's name added as requested.

I'm no expert in this field and Google couldn't find analysis on its effect. My original-research opinion is that one needs a minimum number to work (2×2 likely won't) but not so many that detail is lost due to limited display or eye resolution e.g. in a thumbnail. The amount of field of view it spans seems far more important.

Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Interesting subject. Some images in the article work better than others, as far as my eyes are concerned ! Bammesk (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to support, but I'd like answers to the above questions. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 15:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: Please see above. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 18:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Anomalous motion illusion1.svg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]