Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Display standards comparison

Display standards comparison edit

Display standards comparison

This image compares the most common display resolutions at real size. Note how all the resolutions with the same ratios have the same color. And those resolutions that have a standard are captioned with the name of it. Resolutions like 1280x960 which don't have a standard name—but are popular—are simply left with the resolution numbers only. I believe it meets all the criteria. Originally made by Pdurland and modified several times by TheMattrix. Available under the GNU license.

Nominate and support. - Enano275 05:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak opposeWhilst its a brilliant idea and highly resolvable, I do not believe it is very clear to understand (yet). A few things that will probably help: aligning the ratios in a horizontal fashion so its clear what the diagonal lines are for, at the moment they seem, randomly positioned. I think it would be easier to read if the lines showing the screen sizes didn't have shadowing on them. The other small thing is 1280 by 960 doesn't have a code like the others, to an uninformed reader like myself I'm left asking why? can the diagram be adjusted to answer that question by adding a description like 'Popular Size'? With those few changes I'd happily support it. Nice work on the whole, great idea by the person who created it originally. IMHO. --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 05:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with you in some point. I think that the ratios tags could be better aligned, but I don't see that preventing the image from being featured. I don't know what else could be placed in the 1280x960 oval, because there doesn't seem to be a standard for it, but it is quite a common resolution. As for the shadows, I don't find them obstructive, but let's see what others say, remember that I'm not the author, but if the image fails from minor things like these, I could make a request list for TheMattrix to change.--Enano275 06:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. Excellent, amazing and clear. Illustrates all the common screen sizes well, including aspct ratios (very important), to scale. I'll be saving this image on my PC - always needed one of these. It's come a long way since its first incarnation and I believe it's thoroughly great. And informative and well thought out picture. Includes some of the less popular resolutions as well, from the very small videos (320x240), up to 1080i and beyond. Shadows are not a problem - they enhance it my making it look as if the resolutions are shown as different sized pieces of card (or flat screens) overlaid on each other. This is the first diagram I have voted on, and I'm giving it my all. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice idea but I find it a confusing mess of colors. The main problem is that the labels are much brighter and more prominent than the grid lines, when it should be the other way around. I actually think the first incarnation is superior (albeit not FP quality either, but it's at least readable). Redquark 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why isn't this a SVG? If its an SVG then it can be very easily updated when new standards emerge. Also the chart is missing the WXGA on the HD720 tag, it is one of the most popular laptop sizes. -Ravedave 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it SVG because its 1:1 scale with the resolutions it represents. Its a unique diagramitcal situation with regards to format. Having a scalable version of this would eliminate it being to scale and thus hinder the purpose of the diagram. I agree with Redquark in saying the original incarnation was in many regards superior. --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 19:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About WXGA, I think that the image only includes the "display resolutions" category, and according to the template in WXGA, that resolution would fall in the "widescreen variants" category, that's why it isn't included. Never mind, other widescreen resolution are included. As WikipedianProlific pointed out, a SVG would break the whole idea of it being "real-size". --Enano275 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, however I beleive the SVG source for the PNG should be available (as a seperate image linked form this one). -Ravedave 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikipedianProlific, you're wrong. Have any of you actually worked with SVGs? When you create an SVG, you must specify some sort of dimensions... you can specify them in pixels if you like. Just because you can resize the image without losing quality doesn't mean that you can't make the original the proper scale. ~MDD 46 96 14:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets for a moment analyse what you said. 'WikipedianProlific your wrong' well thats a pretty opinionated and personally aimed comment. How about "WikipedianProlific I disagree for the following reasons..." Please read WP:FAITH. Now, that aside, when someone goes to full view an SVG they have to download it from WP. The benefit of this format is they don't have to download it. They can nativley view it in Internet Explorer or any other such browser at the appropriate size. Until IE supports SVG its generally accepted to avoid putting things like this into that format for obvious reasons. --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 15:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not opinionated: you were wrong; that's fact. And yes, it was personally aimed, but so was your effort. Jono (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 1st time I have heard mention of SVG being avoided. Do you know of anyone else that shares your opinion? The user can still get the 800x600 larger view. -Ravedave 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't want to create the impression thats official policy. SVG is officially still the prefered format for block colour diagramatic pictures. But there are several of us users (graphic artists, illustrators and designers) who feel that until internet exporler nativley supports SVG without the need for a plugin that SVG formats should be avoided on diagrams like this which is being kept 'to scale'. It is my hope that the Vista release of net explorer will come with native support for SVG formats and that there will be very little place for raster diagrams in the future. --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 18:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It is a fairly useful illustration, but come on, one of wikipedias best? I don't think so. It's just a few rectangles, how can that in any way compare with an illustration like the wasp below? --Dschwen 22:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support, it's elegant and usefull. It tells the viewer an entire article's worth in a single glance. The only thing I could imagine adding would be the years the standards were created (so we can see the progress). SVG isn't important because it is already huge. Well done. 00:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrokenSegue (talk • contribs)

Just a tiny remark. A picture being huge does not nullify the need for SVG in general. SVG resolution is infinite and it allows for easy translations.

Thanks for fixing that for me and yes I understand the other advantages of svg. In reality, though, there isn't any translation needed for this image (I assume the standards have the same acronyms elsewhere) and I can't see someone wanting the image much bigger than it is already. Broken Segue 02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New screen sizes come out every year. Having an SVG would make it easy to add them, that is the main reason I wanted it. -Ravedave 02:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I find it amazing that a user created it, but I also agree with Redquark's statements. -- AJ24 01:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good diagram, but just not quite as good as some other diagrams. --Fir0002 09:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Would it be possible to add the year that each standard came out?
- I find the whole image a little bit artificial, as no one ever uses any of the terms XSGA, WSXGA, QXGA etc etc. Also, for example, CGA has two resolutions: 320x200 (pictured) and 640x200 (monochrome, bizarre, not pictured). Also, where is EGA (640x350 from memory)
- There's also something distracting in the lines being used both to show the screen size and to connect the labels. For example it looks at first glance like SVGA and HD 720 are pointing to the 1280x720 position. It's not good that all the 4:3 labels have to cross the 5:4 line. Is it actually necessary to show the rectangle corresponding to each resolution? Perhaps you could just show the corner, like a backwards L shape? That would reduce the crossing problem.
- Also, is there a reason why the purple lines (16:9) don't always have shadows?
- I'm not sure what to make of the fact that the image is 1:1 to what it's describing (ie, it's 2560 pixels wide to describe "QXSGA"). Is that desirable? What would that be useful for? Probably an SVG (hence, not 1:1) would actually be more useful?
- Definitely don't like the colours of the rectangles - it's just arbitrary which colour is used when they overlap. The rectangles (and their interior fill colours) should all be the same, or coloured some other way. Stevage 11:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bought a laptop lately? Resolution terms are almost always used to describe laptop screens. -Ravedave 13:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the set of comments, I will give these to the author so maybe the images is resubmitted.--Enano275 17:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Tells me everything I need to know in one concise diagram. I greatly appreciate the ratio lines, these are very useful. I wouldn't change a thing. Given that I see Wikipedia first and foremost as an informational tool, I support this graphic as a featured picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.188.92 (talk • contribs)
Support Very useful to the article. --Pedit 03:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great picture. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a great diagram, but in smaller views (i.e., in the article), it is decidely unstriking. Even full size, it's informative but not aesthetically exceptional. Also, I would echo the calls for an SVG version to be provided in addition to the PNG.--ragesoss 14:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The request to have this in SVG format is strange at best--it seems to me to reflect a lack of understanding of the nature of the image. I see no problems with the diagram's readability; the data it presents is exceptionally clear, organized, and easily understood. Honestly, when I saw the the thumbnail, I wasn't particularly impressed; but upon viewing it in full it was obvious to me that this image is particularly well done. --Wickerprints 19:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very nice. --Golbez 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Informative, easy to interpret, and overall very well done. --Doctorcherokee 06:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unless there is an update to fix the above mentioned issues. Of course if the illustration was a SVG it would be fixed by now... -Ravedave 16:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very useful. Aren't we all confused by these display resolution jargon that these merchants throw at us? --Chochopk 08:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes it's very informative and was made by a wikipedian, but it isn't that special or "featured" worthy--Vircabutar 07:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{-}cyberhacker665 cool image