Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nosferatu

Nosferatu shadow edit

Larger

Iconic still from Nosferatu. Low resolution, blurry, vignetted, monochromatic, and way too small. But in terms of film, this screenshot is the defining moment of the horror movie genre. Exactly why it was chosen for the {{HorrorWikiProject}} talkpage template.

Nominate and support. - - Jack (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ironically per nom, it's a very historic shot but it does not a featured picture make so to speak. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support a defining shot indeed. -Ravedave 06:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose very defining, but the image is too small. --Thelb ⁴ 07:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per above --Vircabutar 08:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support Ericd 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment asking for high-resolution screenshots is, um, misguided. Stevage 13:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in this case. The film is PD. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I like the idea... but I'm not sure about the implementation. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you mean? - Jack (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure if that's the "perfect" frame to use. Also, as much as I like the idea of using a screenshot of Nosferatu, the quality issues do irk me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support iconic shot. Agree with Stevage re: rez ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support this incredible still that captures the essence of a truly outstanding film. – Morganfitzp 00:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support resolution should not be the only criterion – JanSuchy 22:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is an iconic shot, but it's a film - a featureable pic should be scanned from a good film print, not grabbed from video (which I'm assuming from the size and the term "screenshot"). License tag should also be corrected - Nosferatu wasn't "first published in the U.S."; 70 years p.m.a. may be more accurate. --Davepape 05:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Per Davepape; maybe this is just because I'm unfamiliar with this image's significance, but I think the quality should be better. I suppose if this really is "the defining moment of the horror movie genre" and it's impossible to get a better scan (likely, because the film is very old), then I support it under Wikipedia's exception of historical significance. --Tewy 07:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a great image, and the quality is quite good enough.--ragesoss 15:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Davepaper. If it were from a better print (higher resolution without crude bicubic resizing) I'd probably support. As it is it is both too small and has what looks like JPEG artifacts on its edges (which may be just a side-effect of being from an old film, but without a higher res version it is impossible to tell). Also, the copyright information is wrong. It was, as the Nosferatu page says, first published in the US only in 1929. For things published outside the US the date is 1909, anyway. It is, however, 70 years after the deaths of the relevant authors (the director and the actor—yes, actors get copyright claims to scenes under US copyright law, amazingly enough) to be PD. Note that a restored edition may have created its own copyright, though, depending on what is meant by "restored" (if it is use cleaning, probably not, but if they have "enhanced" it in any way the enhancements are probably copyrighted). --Fastfission 20:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]