Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hypervelocity Impact Demonstration.jpg

Hypervelocity impact edit

A simulation of space debris hitting an orbital craft

Edited by Vanderdecken.

File:Hypervelocity impact mk2.jpg

2nd edit by Spaully

An incredible NASA photograph from the space debris article. Brilliant and adds significantly to the article.

Nominate and support. - CapeCodEph 00:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. -Ravedave 05:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ An incredibly dirty scan, dust, smudges, etc. Check it in full-size before voting! Needs a major photosoup job to be a FP. (Looks like somebody already tried and botched it, see the black "brush marks" in the upper & lower right corners.) --Janke | Talk 08:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It almost seems like those brush marks are hiding logos/symbols/atribution information. --vaeiou 15:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adds significantly to the article. However, I also agree with Janke that quality should be improved. Yet it is a very rare shot and a good illustration that is helping to grasp the destructiveness of a hypervelocity impact. Mikeo 09:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try a cleanup on it, but don't expect a sudden transformation. I agree the mark in the bottom right corner is awful, that doesn't even look like a cleanup - somebody scribbling there for fun. I'll try smartening up the NASA original, although I can't see any difference visually. And the scribble isn't a botched Wikipedia job, it's on the NASA one too. There's also no way it needs to be that kind of resolution - about 3/4 of that'll do, probably. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 15:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit added. Not too good if I do say so myself, but as good as I could do in a pinch. Looks great at thumbnail and image page, but even I notice imperfections when you download the full version. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 17:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for 1st edit. Heavy cloning stamp artifacts in upper right corner. --Janke | Talk 18:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Second edit added - not meaning to insult Vanderdecken as that edit seems good, I had made this when there was only one copy but had been unable to upload it. It's not perfect, and I left some of the flecks in as I think they are reflections of the flash but they could be removed. Open to the vote, |→ Spaully°τ 14:53, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  - Oppose 2nd edit - too heavy filtering smudges details. --Janke | Talk 15:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, not doing this just because I have a rival edit, but I do also believe that too much detail is lost with the blurring - one of the reasons I just selectively blurred the walls of the tunnel etc. And I see what you mean by those clone stamp marks, I'll have another bash tomorrow. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 15:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair points, I'm not that hot with pic editing so was a bit of a learning process. If you have another go though there are still a few scan errors in your edit that might bear cloning and some more cloning marks in the bottom left corner where the curve of the tunnel becomes straight. Otherwise I agree that yours preserves more of the detail. |→ Spaully°τ 17:14, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
Support which ever one wins. Or has the most votes. Which ever happens first. TomStar81 07:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hypervelocity support - This is awesome! It's like straight out of science fiction!

--Cyde Weys 07:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Awesome photo. L e idi ot 03:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Hypervelocity Impact Demonstration.jpg This nomination was well liked. However, the first one had some visual flaws. The third image seemed to have some slight opposition by Janke and Spaully, so that leaves the 2nd image. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]