Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:M101 hires STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:M101 hires STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2015 at 04:28:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info created by European Space Agency & NASA - uploaded by Tryphon - nominated by Pine -- Pine✉ 04:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Pine✉ 04:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support yes, spectacular space image, the universe is an amazing place, compared to the alternative. --Abd (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose some parts are blurry(strange) at full resolution especially upper left, lower left, lower right. --Laitche (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)- strong oppose There are a number of thick lines of blur through the picture. I guess they are seams from a stitching process but they mean the image is really a long way from FP class space photo. -- Colin (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment This is not "a photo," it is a composite of at least 51. Those images were of differing resolutions. A lower-resolution area of the image (such can be seen near the edges), will appear blurry, viewed at high resolution. However, to eliminate that variation, it would be necessary to reduce the resolution of the stunningly high-resolution regions, which are much of the appeal of the full image, which was a "Hubble Heritage Release."[1]. Some level of "blurring" might also be natural nebulosity in some places. However, I looked carefully and could not see "lines of blur."
- This image is spectacular because M101 is spectacular, and it required years of work to create this, the best of M101 extant, by far. I doubt it could be improved without a new space telescope. Single images from the Hubble won't have the "defects" pointed to here, but won't show what this composite shows. I searched through Category:Pinwheel Galaxy and Category:Hubble images of spiral galaxies and found nothing comparable to this image in overall appeal and beauty. --Abd (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Abd I don't think you've looked hard enough if you can't see the "lines of blur". They are about 10px thick and quite obvious. Use the non-flash zoom browser to look around. We have plenty NASA/Hubble photos, most of which are composites, that are perfect, so a long way from "finest". -- Colin (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- I looked at every related photo in the categories I have, and all seemed inferior to this image. No superior image has been proposed. The standard being applied will be unimportant to most viewers. "Perfection" is only one of many criteria, in my view. --Abd (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Abd I don't think you've looked hard enough if you can't see the "lines of blur". They are about 10px thick and quite obvious. Use the non-flash zoom browser to look around. We have plenty NASA/Hubble photos, most of which are composites, that are perfect, so a long way from "finest". -- Colin (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
