Original - A thermal image compiled of two images taken by the Landsat 7 satellite of NASA. This image is of the Death Valley National Park's vegetation. As seen in the picture represented by the green coloring, the amount of vegetation increases as the altitude rises.
I just discovered that the image has already been uploaded. The one that i uploaded has a better description and all that, but should I change this nom to that image or the one I uploaded? --Meldshal 14:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the image files really are completely the same, I'd nominate the one that was first uploaded, change the description to include the information that is unique to your uploaded version, and then nominate the more recent one for deletion as a duplicate. If they're not the same, follow the same steps, but list your new upload as an alternative on the old image's page. Also make sure that all articles have the same version of the image. Makes things easier later on. Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and fixed. --Meldshal 15:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us what the intense red things are? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is what the "rust-colored" things are indicated in the key created by howcheng. --Meldshal 21:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to say which channels are on each gun, along with a link to an explanation of what colours are caused by high and low values in each gun (should be a 2x2x2 matrix aka table). That way, we can figure out what the intense red things are as well (or the intense green etc.). Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. It doesn't seem that we can reconstruct exactly which wavelengths were used to compile this image, or, for that matter, which guns they go on. The cursory description in terms of resulting colours is somewhat informative, but it would be much less valuable on GIS-related articles, so I'd like to place an embargo on placing it on such articles until the full information becomes available. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Excellent resolution, but hard for a non-expert to read. Ideal solution would be to add an unprocessed photograph with the same orientation and crop to the image hosting page. DurovaCharge! 17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose -- this is a very confusing image, even with the legend -- and I used to use these things pretty regularly for work (they were confusing then, too).
Comment: the articles used need the legend, too. Even then, I'm not sure how much EV is really added. Maybe do an article on false-color imaging? --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, that would be a bad idea because this image lacks information about the allocation of wavelengths to display colours. False-color already has two images, a real colour and a false colour one, and the false colour seems to be an NRG (suggested, but not explicitly stated by [1]). Nominated image may or may not have the same channel assignment. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
