Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Launch of Apollo 11

Launch of Apollo 11 edit

Original - The launch of Apollo 11.

Reason: a super cool pic. it should be on the main page :)
Articles this image appears in: Apollo 11, Saturn V, Prandtl-Glauert singularity, Technological and industrial history of the United States, Max Q
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator Σαι ( Talk) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the same reasons as the last time this image was nominated and did not pass. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm does resolution really matter? Σαι ( Talk) 16:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just replaced it with the full size version as suggested in the original nomination discussion (yeah, go figure), so if anyone wants to work on denoising it again... Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC) PS: It's a huge file, so people will probably appreciate if the denoised re-upload is at a higher compression (obviously, the denoising will also help with removing excess detail from the image...) Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great historic importance, really needs denoising. I've got a couple of backlogged restorations of my own right now so would someone else help out? Durova^Charge! 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Made a start. Maybe someone else can take it from here. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What software must i use to remove the noise? i dont quite know.. Σαι ( Talk) 07:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people use GIMP or Photoshop. GIMP works fine, but Photoshop has a few more advanced features, e.g. ironing out jpeg compression, and addressing chromatic noise specifically. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Spike. Despite historical significance of the event, it's unencyclopaedic (rocket itself is too small to see any detail) and horrifically noisy. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 17:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality is horrible, this is one of the noisiest pictures I have ever seen. Clegs (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Galileo01 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hopelessly grainy - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Insanely noisy. Doesn't even look good as a thumb. Also appears to be scanned; several surface scratches are visible at full view. --Extr3me (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise is too bad. I don't much like the composition either--Trounce (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]