Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image formation from pixels.jpg

Image formation from pixels[edit]

Self nomination. Inspired by the FPC below. ~~Pic shows how an image gets progressively distorted as an observer gets closer to the screen. Used in LCD and pixel articles.~~ Picture shows difference between the image we view and the image actually displayed. The top and bottom images are not the same size, its actually been magnified several times to make the pixels visible and then scaled to match the original.

Nominate and support. - ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why the confusing enlargement numbers? 64x is the same size of the original image as 1x... The first two don't even show the LCD pixels at all. --Janke | Talk 12:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ oppose ~~Nice idea, but 1x = 64x and 8x = 512x.~~ per unclear subject. I think a picture should be understandable without the caption. HighInBC 14:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reworded the caption to make it less confusing, also added arrows to the image --^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 17:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- I removed it from the pixel article, put it into the talk, and asked for clarification and got none. It's probably better to nominate pictures that are at least tolerable in an article. Dicklyon 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC) -- and now I reverted it from Liquid-crystal display, too.[reply]
Oppose, bottom right picture quality is poor, not FP standard.--Andeh 03:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't get that 1x = 64x and 8x = 512x. The images are clearly at the same magnification... This is rather confusing -Glaurung 05:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Neutral I get it now. Second image and second caption are much clearer. Glaurung 06:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what's happening is that in the bottom image, the graphic was actually zoomed out, then a photo taken with a big zoom in. It's weird, but look at the concentric circles in the 1x image - clearly, the circle is very round, and at least 100 pixels wide. The image below it is of a much "smaller" circle - around 25-30 pixels wide. Other that that, I really have no idea what the image is trying to show. Stevage 09:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Author comment I agree, the magnification factors were confusing (although they were accurate) so i have removed it. The purpose of the image is to show the differece in the pixels that store color information in an image and the pixels of a screen which displays the the image. Hopefully this will make it easier to understand. Please take a look at the image again and reconsider your vote --^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 11:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still very unclear what the relationship is between the image pixels and screen pixels, which seem to be at unrelated sizes; and the image of the screen is still not sharp. And why are the colors so different? And your image is not yet accepted in any article, is it?

The top image is a screen shot while the bottom one is a photograph of the screen, so it really is not possible to match the colors. There doesnt have to be a relationship between the two, it just illustrates the role of pixels to store and diplay color information (which is why i removed the misleading zoom factors). --^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: this is obviously an LCD screen, it's probably worth mentioning that in the image description/caption etc. A CRT screen would look completely different. Stevage 09:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The "dot" on the 'i' is composed of only 9 pixels in the blown up image, but far more than that in the "large" image. What gives? This is not a valid comparison if the resolution of the image is different left to right. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]