Strong Oppose; it does not match up to the regulation size of 1000 pixels as stated in the criteria for a featured picture. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 07:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Individual images used to create this are 512 x 512 pixels - so why is the composite so minuscule? And why have the original jpgs been used to make a png? This may stand a chance if it was redone to a decent size. --jjron (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have notified the creator and asked if a larger version is available (suggestion: min. 2000 px wide). If there is, I'll gladly support - very high enc in this candidate! Furthermore, I'd suggest dropping 4 intermediate images, to get a regular array of 30 images. --Janke | Talk 08:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Creator has uploaded a new, large (3639 px wide) version. If someone (or I, if no-one else in a day or two) removes the "all rights released" text, I'll support. --Janke | Talk 12:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Already a FP, but created with MRI instead of CT Kind of redundant of featured animation. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we already had an FP animated version of this... — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-31 14:14Z
Well, the animated gif is nice, but you don't have time to study the individual frames. Aso, it's only 213x231 px, while the current candidate's images are a lot larger, and show more detail (check the eyes in the three frames top right). So' I'd say the enc is much higher for the new candidate... --Janke | Talk 14:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as redundant with existing FP. DurovaCharge! 23:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The FP animation is created from MRI frames, which is a different technique than CT. Apart from that, I do have data to create a slightly higher quality MRI animation than the currently featured anim... --Dschwen 16:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Animation of a stack of vertical MRI sections of a normal adult human brain
Comment. The old version was promoted in Sept 2004 when standards were considerably lower. I'm almost inclined to put the existing version up for delist - it's very small and poor quality. Quality here is superior and it's more usable, though I wish the uploader would remove those 'copyright free' notes from all images, composite and individual, as that really deters me from supporting. --jjron (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the current candidate is better than the old one. Second what Jjron suggested. Clegs (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MRT!=CT. Why is this animation even mentioned in this nomination? --Dschwen 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was the opposers that brought it up, so why question us? --jjron (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I misunderstood the reference to the old candidate. --Dschwen 14:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've uplodaded a new version, without the 'copyright free' notes, both in the compound and in the individual ones. Regarding the size, I've also added links to a larger and a smaller one, if any other size fits better. So, if it's better than the existing FP, then I see no other reason against at present. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image size of each individual brain is far too small. Posters with small pixel size shouldn't be FPs, in my opinion . Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My vote has been changed to Oppose new version as per Rudy's comment. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 06:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note re. the two opposes above. A larger version has been uploaded, see below. --Janke | Talk 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support new large version without copyright free notes (especially as it's not duplicating an existing image). And for opposers, why is it OK to stick a bunch of small images together into an animated gif or some other movie and say size doesn't matter, but not OK to put them into a sequenced composite image like this? --jjron (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So, the problem seems to be that each individual image in the composite still is too small. However, what about this large version of the image:
