Wikipedia talk:How to improve image quality

Add topic
Active discussions
Wikipedia Help Project (Rated NA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
NA This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

CommentsEdit

Hi, this may not be the right place to ask, but can somebody recommend a free software for Windows which is able to create animated gif's? I wanna make a little animation for an article. Thanks Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gif creation software:Edit

You may find freeware/GNL/OPEN source software here

http://download.cnet.com/windows/animation-software/1950-2186_4-0.html?filter=licenseName%3D%22Free%22%7C&filterName=licenseName%3DFree%7C&tag=ltcol;narrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidzoni (talkcontribs) 13:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Downsampling image filesEdit

I started a discussion on the issue of whether image downsampling should be encouraged as a means of improving image quality. Please share your thoughts. Gidip (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Should downsampling of image files be encouraged, as the project page currently suggests? A parallel page in Wikimedia Commons actually mentions downsampling as a common problem that should be avoided by file uploaders. A related question is how to evaluate image files - should it be always done according to the 100% view (full resolution), or not necessarily? I think it is important to try to reach a consensus on these issues. At the present state it seems that the matter has never beem seriously discussed in Wikipedia. I started a similar discussion in Commons. Gidip (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is a non-free image file, then we are required to try to use the smallest resolution that captures the image in detail to be of use to th readers, per WP:NFCC#3a. A screengrab from a 1080p television show does not need to be uploaded at that resolution but can be halved in both length and width (eg reduced to 25%) without likely harming the elements. If there are specific details that need to be seen as described in the text, then a larger resolution can be acceptable. We don't have any exactly numbers, though we often state that the bulk of non-free images can be reduced to between 0.1 and 0.16 megapixels and be considered appropriate.
For free images, we shouldn't touch them at all unless we're using the images to make a large composite work (with proper attribution) and don't want a massively mega-byte file at the end of the day. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The page to which you linked is for Quality and Feature Images, projects similar to Wikipedia's featured pictures program and the now-historical valued pictures project.
"Downsampling is a common that should be avoided by file uploaders"
That applies to free images only as the Quality and Featured Images programs feature free media of good or superb technical quality and is irrelevant to the images to which you refer to as these are ALL non-free images, free images need not be lowered in resolution. Lowering resolution and cropping are necessary when copyright is involved, particularly fair use law, as Masem has stated, the purpose of the image is to illustrate the text and convey context appropriately, massive resolutions are not required.
Reducing resolution is necessary for Wikipedia to comply with international copyright law and thus 'cannot' be changed unless copyright law changes. —James (TalkContribs) • 7:29pm 09:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Getting off subject a bit I think. The subject isn't about low resolution image size in relation to Wikipedia policy on Fair Use, I believe it is about whether or not the page should be suggesting down sampling as a form of improving image quality to clean up JPEG compression artifacts. My guess is simply that the editor may feel we should be making the same suggestions Commons makes, which is not to downsample. However, the needs here differ from Commons in that the goal of all images uploaded to Wikipedia are for use on the encyclopedia. Wikipedia does allow uploading of images that are free use-public domain, as well as released by the copyright owner. So we are not discussing fair use resolution, but quality control for use on an article. Wikimedia Commons images are not uploaded exclusively to be used here. Many are, but only becuase it is very easy, as they are a sister project of Wikimedia Foundation. Their main purpose (Commons) is a repository of images for any reason within the license itself. This means that members there are encouraged to upload images in the highest quality and size possible for viewing on multiple types of devices beyond just a VGA computer monitor as viewed through a Wikipedia article and for any future device or mechanism of viewing that may come along. In short, we still attempt to improve images for use as default sizing on articles for those reading the encyclopedia on an older computer and not concerned that the main image be in it's full unsampled size. Down sampling is still something that can be done easily by most users and seems to be the current best choice for the compression problems from what I know.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)