Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:3D sonogram of fetal spine.tif

File:3D sonogram of fetal spine.tif, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2011 at 14:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is a refreshing topic and type of image, which I think we should be open for. I think that the metadata, which are shown in the screen dump would be better captured in the file page. That is, I would crop the image, such that we only see the image from the scan and the remaining data are transferred to the file page. Yes, I know this will tecnically decrease the resolution of the image, but I trust (hope) the reviewers can see that it does not change the informational value of the image. One could add a scale to the cropped image such that the proportions are directly available. Also to present it in a form where the information is more broadly understood. For instance I see a length scale of 6.7 cm mentioned. But which proportion of the image does that correspond to (length or height)? Quite some other numbers and data are mentioned but their interpretation is not self-explanatory. Moreover, to increase the value of the image I think it would be worthwhile to describe on the file page in greater detail what kind of equipment has been used, if any kind of special processing has been applied to generate the image. Last but not least, the nominated image is closely related to another image, and it is my feeling that in combination, they can be used to provide a three-dimensional view of the fetal spine. However, it is not clear for me how that works, and I think there should be some kind of guidance for the viewer. I showed the image to my wife, who has a medical background and some experience with ultrasound, and she tells me it is a very good image, especially how well the individual spine taps(?) are resolved in the fetus. --Slaunger (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will support iff better technical information is provided on the file page, essentially per Slaugner. --Claritas (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

InfoThe image has been cropped and technical information is now provided on the description of the image --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The description states "Focal Zone position at 6,7 cm." 6.7 cm from what ? --Claritas (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is from the array of cristals --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thus from the ultrasonography machine ? --Claritas (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the distance from the probe surface - maternal skin interface and the focal region--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per above discussion. Very educational and unusual picture. --Claritas (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have you upsampled it to make it reach the 2 Mpixel guideline? Please do not. Upsampling does not add any information. Regarding crop, my personal preference would be to remove all of the black frame only keep the actual image frame. Yes, I know this means fewer pixels, but the information is the same. --Slaunger (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as stated in the retouching template. This has been requested in a former discussion about this image on the size of the image by some reviewers. I was not very happy to do it as I know that FP is not strict about the 2 MP rule as is QI. To tell you the truth I do feel that there is not much understanding from the reviewers for medical images. I think IMHO reviewers should judge the images for their visual impact and for the information value they provide to an encyclopaedia.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that. Where has that been discussed for this image?? If someone has really asked you to upsample the image, it is something I strongly disagree with. I think you are right that we reviewers do not (yet) have much understanding of medical images. Please do not give up, and give the community some time to understand the domain. Do you know COM:VIC? That is a forum focusing on the value of an image and less on the resolution. I think you should have kept the cropped revision by Wetenschatje. -Slaunger (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very interesting, new, unusual and with a very high encyclopedic and educational value. We must never forget to keep our minds open. The original size should not be a problem in this specific case ("mitigating circumstances" or something like that...). In my humble opinion, the better version is the very first one, which shows the image as it comes out from the "tool", because that's part of the whole picture and of the "subject" (a medical image), and it gives special informations, not only technical, but visual too "So looks a picture made by an ultrasonography machine" (encyclopedic informations), regarding this specific point I disagree with Slaunger. After that, the uploader is free (and encouraged) to give explanations and other informations/translations in the file description page. Anyway, I really hope a promotion for this one, which is really -at least- different. --Jebulon (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]