Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ The "New" Blue Marble

The "New" Blue Marble[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 01:14:22 (UTC)

Reason: Excellent quality! Not many pictures of the western hemisphere of this type, high EV, Great picture.
Articles in which this image appears: The Blue Marble, Suomi NPP
FP category for this image: Featured pictures/Space/Looking back
Creator: National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA)

Support as nominator --Dusty777 (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of wrong proportions of the continents, as already mentioned on Commons (though I can't find trace of it). Something wrong with mapping/stitching process. - Blieusong (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A lower simulated orbit is what I understood. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blieusong, clarify this for me. You are opposing because of wrong proportions of the continents, yet you don't see this problem in the picture? (That doesn't make sense.) The Featured Picture Criteria doesn't say anywhere that you can judge your vote just because of something someone else says about the picture. I don't see what the guys over at Commons are referring to. I have never gone to space so I wouldn't know how the continents are proportioned. Dusty777 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been to space (unlikely to ever happen) but I've already looked at globes and America doesn't look like this wherever I look at them from. I don't follow other judgements recklessly, my reference to Commons was only for information. I also just opened a google earth and tried to find a point of view which would mimick the candidate. I haven't been successful so far, but would be happy to see a proof of the contrary. ~~Note that I assumed this is view simulating what one would see from space (which I guess is what most would do, and not take it as a result of specific projection)~~. - Blieusong (talk)

Just realizing this is only a low orbit view (as mentioned) but with a very large field of view squeezed into small frame, hence that strange (to me) effect. - Blieusong (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- There is nothing wrong with mapping, as already explained in Commons (see here: [1]). The cause for the apparent distortion is the small altitude of the camera, making the horizon closer and the field of view shorter. That is why I find this picture interesting and deserving the FP status. But not before an explanation is given both in the picture file and in the caption. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be much more clear that this ~~isn't a view of the planet but the result of some projection~~ is a result of a close view of earth with a very large FOV. As it, it's very misleading. - Blieusong (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Large FOV? To simulate the distance the Suomi NPP satellite is from earth, hold a ball that is 10 inches (25 centimeters) in diameter about 5/8ths (1 1/2 centimeters) from your face. That is how far Suomi NPP is away from the earth, and that should give a good example how large the FOV that the VIIRS instrument (the instrument that took the picture(s)) has (Link for verification). According to NASA, the pictures that compose the main picture, were taken over 6 orbits of the satellite going around the earth. There is no "very large FOV" due to the fact that the whole picture wasn't taken at once, but is actually composed of many pictures. Dusty777 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ ~~Neutral~~ ~~Support Both~~ Support Only original per Blieusong and Dusty 777. Took me a little to see what you were talking about, but you'r right, it does make it look like North America takes up over half the earth. Clegs (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:::Look this over again later, but for now the explanation is enough for me to change to Neutral. Clegs (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC) ~~::::Now that I am actually educated on what's going on, both of them would make good FPs.~~ Clegs (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After examining the alt closer, the white streaks bug me. I really need to stop doing this in bits and snatches in the middle of the night. Makes for very disjointed logic. Clegs (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, but could you please not use my comments as a reason to oppose this particular nomination? Don't want to confuse people since i am the nominator =D. Dusty777 (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re: Perspective. This image is totally accurate in its representation of the size of North America, and you can test it at home:

Find a globe, shut one eye, and hold it about 6 inches from your face while looking at North America.

Open Google Earth, zoom in so the globe completely fills the window, spin it to find North America.

This is the view you would see of the Earth if you were ~7000km up and looking at the planet with the naked eye or a typical normal-zoom camera. - Zephyris _Talk 14:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info The perspective is explained quite clearly on the description page (perhaps some of this information should be included in the caption?): This view results from a height of the satellite which is about 826 km above the surface of the Earth. Because of such a low orbit not whole hemisphere is visible, and horizon is in a distance of only about 3300 km while the radius of our planet is 6371 km. The diameter of horizon seen from such a height is about 125 deg. Fallingmasonry (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Image appears to meet all the FP criteria. —Eustress ^talk 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The notion that the proportions are wrong appear to have been dispelled. The closer view may be a tad Americentric, but I don't believe that disqualifies it from FP status. God Emperor^Talk 13:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The view is explained well enough... the photographic analogy of a mercator projection. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see the EV. This image isn't even mentioned in the article. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The entire article is about Blue Marbles and this is one of them and arguably the best. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's mostly about the original Blue Marble. There are also mentions of images released in 2002 and 2005, but other than the caption, there's no mention of Blue Marble 2012. What does this particular Blue Marble add to the article? Maybe something, but I don't think it adds enough for FP. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The lead mentions it clearly and explains it in some detail later on. As to FP... this is the latest in the series. Article could use a gallery of each new image though.Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per my comments above. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new section in Blue Marble to provide additional info about the picture, and to increase the EV. Dusty777 (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Weak Oppose because the picture is at least mentioned in the article now. I still think it lacks exceptional EV, though. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think this particular perspective (from low orbit in combination with wide field of view) is confusing and is of lower EV than any more distant view which represents the relative proportions of continents in a more accurate and comprehensible way (i.e. more similar to the usual projections used in mapping. --ELEKHH^T 21:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain in more detail as to why the picture being composed of pictures from a low orbit lessens the EV? Also, how is this picture confusing? Dusty777 (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It lessens the EV because the chosen peculiar perspective provides a less good overall representation, while there is no significant gain in any detail added as result of the low orbit. With the example you give above, there is no point looking at a ball from 10cm/inch, if you can look at it from 1m/3ft, as it does not provide us a better view. That is confusing should be obvious from the comments above. With a normal field of view not all the planet would be visible, but something like File:View of Earth from MESSENGER.jpg. The peculiar effect of the composed image is that viewers perceive it as if it was taken from a greater distance, and than are confused by the unexpected proportions of the landmass. Again, I see no advantage in an image which is unnecessary confusing. Hope now is clearer what I meant. --ELEKHH^T 00:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Feeling less enthusiastic about this image as a picture of the Earth in itself than I was previously, due to reasons reiterated many times above, but I think it might have more value in an article such as Satellite imagery, say, if the technique were fully described in the article. Failing to see why alt 1 has been added to this nomination as it is essentially a different picture. It has more EV as a picture of the earth, but not as a demonstration of the low-earth orbit mapping technique, the component pictures being take from over 15 times further away, thus giving the more familiar (but neither better or worse) perspective. God Emperor^Talk 21:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination is by no way a "demonstration of the low-earth orbit mapping technique". It would be so if for instance the individual frames would be indicated, or a regular mesh/grid showing the peculiar distortion would be overlayed. Also is unclear what would be the purpose of the "technique", as it doesn't appear to be a good base for the production of useful maps. --ELEKHH^T 21:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support high EV in The Blue Marble. Tomer T (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the Alt much better as is taken from 12,000 km (as opposed to the original nom taken from 826 km), thus providing a much better overview. It is also interesting to compare it with the 1972 image File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg showing a similar perspective (although taken from 29,000 km). Therefore if replaced in the article I would support. --ELEKHH^T 21:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer that version, please go ahead and give you're vote, and the closer will let us know which version gets promoted (If either). If your preference gets promoted, I will personally switch out the pictures. Does that sound good to you? Dusty777 (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, conditional Support Alt-1 if placed in the article. --ELEKHH^T 22:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Any time you have to go to so much effort to explain the perspective, it's probably not worth featuring IMO. Preventing this kind of perspective issue is why we try to use long lenses on architectural subjects. I particularly dislike the white streaks on the alt, so strong oppose on that (I understand how they came to be there, but that does not make them good). --99of9 (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3.5 opposes, 5 general supports, 1 support original, 1 support alt 1 (we generally assume placement of the winner, btw). Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]