Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mars North Pole MRO

MRO image of Mars North Pole

This is an aesthetically pleasing image of a very awe inspiring subject - an ice canyon on another planet. It illustrates the layering of the ice cap and shows evidence for the presence of liquid water in a way that text alone could hardly match. It is very high resolution, and free from artifacts. In fact, I downsampled it from an original 4000 x 10000px because the upload seemed unable to handle a 21MB file. It appears in Planum Boreum. Created by NASA so no copyright.

Nominate and support. - Debivort 06:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per everything above, although it would be good if there was a key of some sort. Leon 11:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A key to what? I think I've put in all the technical info that comes strictly with the image, but as a HiRISE image it was probably made in visible frequencies, and has sub-meter resolution! Debivort 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to copy and paste the caption here. MER-C 03:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support very nice. --Bridgecross 14:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wouldn't say it is free from artifacts. I noticed a vertical red line about 1/4 of the way across the image. It seems to stretch across the entire image from top to bottom but is more noticable in some places more than others. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I'll try an edit later tonight. Debivort 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems like some of the CCD elements are variably sensitive, leading to darker or lighter red streaks during the orbital scanning. I guess there won't be much servicing of the instrument, sadly. I did some adjustments to the red channel, and reduced the streakiness, especially in the dark regions. Debivort 02:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose, it's a very confusing image and gives me no sense of what I'm looking at. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Even with the caption? Debivort 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, the caption makes it worse. How can I pull anything informative out of that wall of text? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Three sentences together is too much to handle? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-21 17:04Z
  - When I posted that, the caption was a paragraph long. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Per nom. This picture is incredible. Sharkface217 01:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, preferably edit 1. MER-C 03:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Man, we can create a separate article for that caption. Twice as long as the pic? I had to scroll down two screens to read it all ;-). Sometimes less is more. --Dschwen 08:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or just make the pictures wider... --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that's too easy ;-) --Dschwen 10:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was to put the HiROC description on the image page itself. MER-C 12:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, just do something with the caption. - Advanced 20:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Those games where they show you a close up of a picture and you have to figure out what it is your looking at makes me mad because I can never get them.--¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The area depicted is actually about 1km x 3km. So, it's hardly a closeup. Debivort 19:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose — sorry for the late comment, 1st: wasn't it more metadata in the original image? 2nd: where can we get the original image; 3rd: why this small image? wouldn't it be better to have a more "normal" format? i.e. does this kind of image need this formaT? 4th: what "in laymens" word do we look at? _→AzaToth 00:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm not sure what a lot of this comment means. I mean, is 4k x 10k small? and what is abnormal about it? and #4 totally confuses me. But also, is it kosher to add either an oppose or a support after the week of nomination? I don't think it will make a difference here - 6 supports 2 opposes 1 weak oppose, but it is close. Properly, the nomination should already be closed right? Debivort 00:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:MRO image of Mars North Pole.jpg Raven4x4x 01:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]