Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Morgan-Keenan spectral classification

Morgan-Keenan spectral classification

This POV-ray image shows the human-perceived colors and relative sizes of the different spectral types of stars in the Morgan-Keenan classification. It is high resolution, pretty, and helps visualize the classes in its article, Stellar classification. Created by User:Kieff and licensed under GFDL.

Addition For reference, here is the first direct (resolved) image of another star, in this case, a red giant: Image:Betelgeuse star (Hubble).jpg

Nominate and support. --Dgies 07:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - clean, illustrative. Would prefer a bit more bit depth, but it's great otherwise. Debivort 07:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why are they put on that reflective surface? That distracts and makes them look like light bulbs. Also, I'd prefer to have some surface detail instead of the - yes, you guessed - "blown out highlights". --Janke | Talk 07:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Surface detail is only visible on the sun when viewed through a filter which blocks out 99% of light, and in the process makes it look more like a swirly circle than a star. --Dgies 07:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The reflections look dodgy (many do not even start at the base of the sphere). Also the texture of the stars looks unconvincing and the image is somewhat low res considering it is a fairly simple diagram and can presumably be rendered in far greater detail. Is there a reason that the largest star has far less white area in comparison to the rest of the stars? --Fir0002 07:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, O-type stars primarily radiate in the ultraviolet, and so look bluer than cooler stars. I believe that is covered in the article. --Dgies 07:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't referring to the color, I was referring to the amount of burnt out area --Fir0002 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - See new comment below about dynamic range and saturation. --Dgies 15:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The reflection of s sphere doesn't start at the base (only If you view it from 0 degrees, in which case you cannot see the reflection). In the pic the we are looking on the spheres at a slight downward angle. --Dschwen 09:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like it, it's certainly eye catching. I hope it is a reasonably accurate representation, but it's a bit difficult to tell without having access to a reasonable telescope. I think the whole blown highlights thing is a bit silly when we're talking about stars from the human perspective, as this would seem to be what a human eye would perceive. Terri G 11:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why the color of blue stars changes from white to blue when moving from the center to the edge and the color of red stars changes from yellow to red? Should not it be the same color over the whole surface of the star? Olegivvit 12:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, it should. I think there are two reasons why the creator did not do that. First is that it would not be very pretty. Second is this: In reality the per-pixel brightness of these stars should vary by perhaps 1000-fold or more from smallest to largest, but an image which reflects this would not be viewable on conventional 8-bit-depth displays, so by varying the saturation and adding glow, we can provide some sense of the difference in brightness, despite the limitations. --Dgies 15:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reflections. ~ trialsanderrors 21:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Absolutely stunning. The reflections only add to the quality as they make the picture seem a size at which most people can comprehend the differences between the different stars. Although, you could have made them look like real stars and not lightbulbs, though. Otherwise, its great. Ilikefood 22:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I kind of like that they look like lightbulbs. wtfunkymonkey 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this could be counted as a serious vote, as looking like "lightbulbs" is surely a detrimental quality? --Fir0002 09:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's appropriate to suggest someones's vote shouldn't count because of a comment that could easily be facetious. Debivort 21:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unconvincing rendering of reflections. Pstuart84 Talk 00:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 06:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]