Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/strand emitter

Strand Emitter[edit]

Reason

Criteria 1. It is of excellent quality with little noise and no distractions
Criteria 2. It does not meet criteria 2's limit of 1000px
Criteria 3. It has perfect lighting and is aesthetically pleasing.
Criteria 4. Is protected under the GNU Public license
Criteria 5. This picture is the best example of a particle emitter on Wikipedia.
Criteria 6. It is supported by the facts in the article
Criteria 7. The caption accurately conveys the subject in detail.
Criteria 8. It does not avoid digital manipulation (It is nothing but digital manipulation)

Articles this image appears in: Particle system
Creator: Unknown: User:Halixi72?

Support as nominator Anthony62490 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Criteria 2 is kind of an important one, and it doesn't even come close to being 1000px wide/high. Given that it is computer generated, theres absolutely no reason why it cannot be larger. Judging by this image though, the model would have to be a lot more detailed for it to be realistic looking. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Can be recreated any time with sufficient resolution. This size is completely unacceptable. --Dschwen`
Oppose Waaaay too small. --Janke | Talk 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per above. Pstuart84 Talk 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments It looks great at the thumb size but way below the minimum 1000px requirement. I do not think it should be speedily closed - Let's give it a day or so, so that that the nominator can know of the importance of the size in such a case. Muhammad(talk) 20:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close gives it a day anyway to allow for objections. Or are you suggesting it be left for the week? --jjron (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, not for the whole week, but I feared that if the nomination would have been closed very quickly, the nominator may not get the chance to view the comments. Muhammad(talk) 13:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The nominator should have this subpage on his/her watchlist. This is one of the advantages of using subpage inclusion. --Dschwen 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's too small. A larger version would be nice. Ilikefood (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the image looks fantastic, but it's tiny. I think that the author should render it at a much higher resolution (as big as is possible to upload to wikipedia - obviously this varies depending upon the content/compression in the image). The problem with this is that it may take a considerable amount of time to render, therefore I would recommend rendering it with the Big and Ugly Rendering Project (BURP). BURP is a non-commercial distributed computing project using the BOINC framework. It is currently under development to work as a publicly distributed system for the rendering of 3D graphics, and currently supports Blender, which the image was created in. Hope that helps. --Dave (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm no expert on 3D rendering, but by the looks of this image, the model just isn't detailed enough to stand up to high res scrutiny (if each face has 1000 strands, that makes it only 31 rows horizontally and vertically - how good will they look rendered at 3000x3000, for example?), so I'm not sure that merely re-rendering will make it a particularly photorealistic example. I know that isn't necessarily what it is trying to be, but as-is, the model just looks a bit dated and low-fi to me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator seems to have mistaken 1000px as a maximum, not a minimum. I suggest that we suspend the nom until a larger version can be rendered and uploaded, or else we can be sure that it isn't going to happen.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We could argue either way I guess, but to me saying "It does not meet criteria 2's limit of 1000px" means the nominator knows it doesn't meet this requirement. Either way it's pointless suspending - the suspected creator has been inactive since December and the nominator clearly has no 'inside line' to the creator. If a new version becomes available, it can be renominated. --jjron (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per size requirements. crassic!^[talk] 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although it only falls short on one of the FP criteria, it falls WAY short on it. 240x240 is simply too small. Spinach Dip 08:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]