Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Roundhay Garden Scene: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:25, 26 June 2024

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2024 at 02:54:12 (UTC)

Roundhay Garden Scene (1888)

Proposed replacement

Reason: Roundhay Garden Scene is often known as the oldest surviving film. The currently featured version is very low resolution and has compression artifacts so prominent that the people's features get distorted. It's been superseded by an HD version from a documentary about the creator. The new version is losslessly encoded to preserve as much detail as possible in each of the 20 images.
Articles this image appears in: Roundhay Garden Scene, Louis Le Prince, 1888 in film, History of film technology, Cinematography
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Roundhay Garden Scene.ogg
Nominator: hinnk (talk)

Replace — hinnk (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D&R – The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Unfortunately, the replacement suffers from excessive contrast, highlights all blown out (e.g. man's face lost details). A better replacement should be found. --Janke | Talk 06:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Details from the man's face in the original (top) versus the proposed replacement (bottom)

Strongly disagree that there are details in the original lost in the replacement (see comparison). The features are far more legible and you can see two separate eyes instead of a horizontal bar.

The top and bottom rows here are actually offset from each other by 2. It turns out the original is missing 2 of the 20 images from Roundhay Garden Scene, which is a huge problem for its EV. hinnk (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The proposed replacement has better resolution but I agree with Janke that the contrast is excessive. Moonreach (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist & Replace – because it is a step in the right direction. The existing FP has pixelization (which shows as fake details). When a better copy becomes available, we can do another D&R. Bammesk (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, struck my keep. I don't like the contrast, though, the door also has blown highlights. --Janke | Talk 12:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist & Replace; per Bammesk. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 *'''Comment''' - The proposed replacement has better resolution but I agree with Janke that the contrast is excessive. [[User:Moonreach|Moonreach]] ([[User talk:Moonreach|talk]]) 17:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * '''Delist & Replace''' – because it is a step in the right direction. The existing FP has [[pixelization]] (which shows as fake details). When a better copy becomes available, we can do another D&R. [[User:Bammesk|Bammesk]] ([[User talk:Bammesk|talk]]) 01:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
-:* I agree with that, struck my keep. --[[User:Janke|Janke]] | [[User talk:Janke|Talk]] 12:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+:* I agree with that, struck my keep. I don't like the contrast, though, the door also has blown highlights. --[[User:Janke|Janke]] | [[User talk:Janke|Talk]] 12:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * '''Delist & Replace'''; per Bammesk. – [[User:Hamid Hassani|Hamid Hassani]] ([[User talk:Hamid Hassani|talk]]) 03:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)