Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Triton Mosaic

Triton Mosaic

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2011 at 00:34:16 (UTC)

Reason: Good description, excellent photo, high resolution.
Articles in which this image appears: Triton (moon), Neptune, Moons of Neptune, List of natural satellites, Exploration of Neptune.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator --Dusty777 (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: This may be a stupid question, but I'm confused as to where the upper part of the moon is. Why does it suddenly end in blackness? Spencer^T♦C 03:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably it's simply the vantage point that Voyager had as it passed and took this image/s, the dark being a consequence of the phase of Triton that was observed (but I'm just hypothesising). --jjron (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I kinda thought that, but it's just the abruptness of the difference between the moon and the black that is surprising. Spencer^T♦C 13:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does look like a bad edit (performed at a different resolution to this image), but on closer inspection, the image appears to be composed of several strips of different resolution (which also don't match the resolution of the JPG), much like a Google Earth composite. In other words, it's not exactly a still photo, rather, a composite image constructed by a telescope which scans the scene as required. Maybe the hard black edge is simply the way the telescope was scanned at the shadow's edge? This would explain going from image-to-black in one pixel, rather than having a more gradual fade as one would expect... plus, there are curious little black pixels near the shadow's edge walkabout12 (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I generally agree, however I also suspect that the satellite got photos that extended into the dark sections of the moon (as well as the background of space on the lower edge) and because the photos didn't extend far enough to fill the final (as shown here) frame, they digitally removed all black content, making it a harsh edge. I personally think they could have done this better. The step pattern at the black edges really isn't necessary. I'd call more ... economical with respect to the time put into working on it. But it could have been better (and could still if the original photos were available). upstate NYer 18:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would guess that since taking and sending detailed imagery from a couple of billion miles away is not the easiest thing in the world to do, the probe only gathered image data from those sections which were bright enough to yield anything significant for study or analysis. I think trying to make a pretty picture that would pass muster with the chattering classes was a little further down on their to-do list. JBarta (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tend to agree with Upstate's comment. Yes, I'd expect the penumbral region to be small at that distance from the sun, but you wouldn't get the jaggies present on the top left hand if some manipulation hadn't occured. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep in mind these are photographs made by Voyager 2, which was 1970's technology. It also appears to be BY FAR the best image we have of the object. That combined with that we're probably not going back to neptune anytime soon, means we can't expect to get anything better, at least not yet. The jaggies can be probably fixed, then again it shouldn't be such an abrupt line from light to dark, see this image which I think was taken the day before, at a much longer range. — raeky t 12:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The alt version i added does not have the best dimensions, but the black specks are greatly reduced if that helps. Dusty777 (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support (original) -- As I go through the Featured Picture criteria, this image hits on every single point. JBarta (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I took the liberty of overwriting the original image. Upon closer inspection, what had been uploaded was a rather highly compressed JPG. (someone probably grabbed the JPG offered by NASA) High resolution, yes, but also highly compressed resulting in quite visible JPG artifacts in zoom. So, I grabbed the TIFF original and saved it as a minimally compressed JPG. The result is essentially the same image... only much higher quality. I also noticed that one uploader played with the colors. As NASA has already colored this image, I think it best to just leave the colors alone and present it as an unadulterated NASA image. I did however, expand the canvas to include the entire sphere. JBarta (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too many technical problems with this for it to pass as featured for me. That harsh pixellated edge looks horrific. JFitch (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "harsh pixelated edge" is simply a feature of the method used to create the image. It's not like someone stepped back and took a picture of that moon. That image is made up of thousands of little images taken by a space probe all combined to give a composite image of the whole. All things considered, it's a remarkable image of a little moon somewhere around two and a half BILLION miles away. JBarta (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a fade over the jaggies... I am undecided as to whether this reduces the integrity of the image, or whether it simply corrects an artifact. Plus I've reduced the image size such that the resolution is slightly more consistent throughout the image. walkabout12 (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It reduces the integrity of the image and doesn't correct anything. It's like removing those pesky stripes on a zebra because we think it looks better that way. Or smoothing out the image of the Arecibo message so it doesn't look so much like an 80's video game. JBarta (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the same thing... IMO, smoothing the fade simply adjusts for a (as many editors have remarked, very unattractive) feature of this particular method of image capture. The features of the moon haven't changed. Perhaps a better analogy would be removing a lens flare from a zebra's face, or smoothing out a bad shadow on a portrait. But, does the EV of this article relate more to the moon, or the method of image capture? If it is the latter, then yes, the edits absolutely reduce the integrity. However, it seems to me that the former is more likely... the articles which feature this image make no mention of how it was created. walkabout12 (talk)18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, that the 2nd Alt is very impressive. It doesn't really reduce the integrity of the picture as it gives it a more, realistic appearance as our own Moon appears when waxing or waning. Very good edit Dusty777 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - I agree with the concerns raised about editing the photo is such a way. It's innaccurate. I certainly don't think it should be done simply for aesthetic value. The picture is as it is. We not here to try and see if we can ecit the picture in order to become an FP. We just judge if we feel we could support it. Sometimes small issus are corrected yes but your essentially adding a showdow that is very misrepresentative. JFitch (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your edit adds a lot of gradients to what was originally a plain black background. But even if those artifacts are removed, I agree with JFitch and Jbarta that the fade is deceptive and compromises a unique image. Fallingmasonry (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original As Raeky said, this is the best picture of Triton we will get for a long time. The rarity and high EV more than offset the quality issues. I would even argue that the pixelation contains EV about the Voyager 2 camera and the method by which the picture was created. The alternate edits remove this EV while adding nothing to the image. Fallingmasonry (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]