Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black hole - Messier 87.jpg
File:Black hole - Messier 87.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2019 at 13:47:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
- Info created by Event Horizon Telescope - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Theklan (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- On hold 1) needs a proper source (complete scientific citation): which figure from which of the papers at the given source was this taken from? 2) The license template is incorrect, the papers are CD-BY 3.0 (not sure if that applies to the images as well, please double-check). 3) needs a proper description, not just some buzzwords. --El Grafo (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I can't change the page, as it was protected. -Theklan (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Theklan, that is usually what happens when an image is in the ITN space; it gets protected. This means that it will probably be out of reach for us mere mortals for weeks. In the meantime, will you please add all the info you were supposed to add to the picture per El Grafo's list, here on the nomination. Hopefully an admin will be kind enough to transfer the data to the file page. Or you/we can add it as soon as the protection is lifted. --Cart (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- We are doing it now at the talk page. -Theklan (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Great! --Cart (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- We are doing it now at the talk page. -Theklan (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – it’s little more than a test of their array. Perhaps a valued image, but nowhere near a featured one, with all due respect. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- And, last but not least, 4000 × 2330 pixels and 844 KiB of data? The meagre content isn’t worth even a 1024 × 768 picture occupying some 1/10 of its present data size. Please, don’t upload pictures with an excessive pixel size. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also, subject is centered, and there are underexposed areas. Where is the wow factor, I say! Rama (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- And, last but not least, 4000 × 2330 pixels and 844 KiB of data? The meagre content isn’t worth even a 1024 × 768 picture occupying some 1/10 of its present data size. Please, don’t upload pictures with an excessive pixel size. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support From the guidelines: "[...]a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important [...]". Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ok, we may be blase and jaded here at FPC, but I'm not so far gone that I will frown on the first real image of a black hole. This is not something I thought I'd ever see. It is probably the next historical milestone photo after The Blue Marble and Pale Blue Dot. The next one of this magnitude might be the first photo of alien life. I don't care if the telescope array will produce better images of this later, this is the first photo and we can always "delist and replace" it when that day comes. Although I wonder if it is physically possible to get a photo of a black hole that will satisfy pixel peepers. --Cart (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- "The next one of this magnitude might be the first photo of alien life." Like when we finally see the Dyson web around Tabby's star. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support as per Cart. --Yann (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support I disagree with Incnis Mrsi. This holds historical value, I'm sure no other 1024 x 768 picture is one of a black hole. --BoothSift 16:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - C'Mon Man it's a black hole, what image quality do you expect in 2019 ? -- EATCHA (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support for historical and scientific importance. Cmao20 (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support We didn't know how a black hole looks before this image, so there's no valid ground to judge its quality. Yes, it seems unsharp to our knowledge of other objects but no-one knows if it really is. This is the first of its kind and the time will show what we've learnt.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Of course we did. We just did not have observed it directly. Rama (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I meant how it looks from a direct observation. This is definitely not the same as it was previously supposed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Of course we did. We just did not have observed it directly. Rama (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per above. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support as per Cart and Cmao20. --Haros (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Now all we need is an audio feed, so we can hear the screams of tormented souls hurtling towards oblivion. -- Colin (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
-
- You've been watching too many newsfeeds about Brexit. ;-) --Cart (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- ROFL. The quote of the day. Yann (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Front page of London's The Times today. Charles (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I can't imagine, per the above comments, that someone wasn't sorely tempted to make a Brexit joke in the caption (Actually, they left that to social media). Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Historic image. Hanooz 07:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support clearly --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment someone cropped and overwrote the image during this nomination process. I restored the original upload. Multichill (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Joalpe (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support --L ke (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Incnis. Wouter (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Soon this will be considered a photographic icon and its one that's freely licensed! Wagers for POTY 2019 anyone? It has my vote! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Gnosis (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Why the heck not? :D ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 00:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Historic and freely licensed too. Abzeronow (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support A singular image Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- (Groan...) --Cart (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cart. I never thought a photo of a black hole would even be possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Although it will immediately be replaced when there's a higher resolution version available on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support obviously, VIGNERON (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The copyright status seems to be very dubious. See File talk:Black hole - Messier 87.jpg --Discasto talk 10:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)- Support !!! --XRay talk 10:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support As per Peulle --Vauxford (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I uploaded the original image from the source. Just the same, but larger. In addition, there is full EXIF data with a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yann In that exif the terms are "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License" while it is 3.0 on the file page. You might want to fix that if it's correct. You could also copy the info from the exif "Image title" and add it to the description since not all users know to look in the exif. --Cart (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I updated the license. I wonder if we need a license review now. I thought about copying the description, but then it would become very long, especially if translated in several languages. Should we have a separate section at the bottom? Any other idea? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Since the photo is no longer used in ITN, the protection is removed. I used the {{Photograph}} to add the text in form of a note at the bottom of the info. Please revert if someone has a better idea. --Cart (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Question - What is ITN? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:In the news, the top right section on the main page of en-WP. Any article or photo that gets a place there gets a gazillon views but also a lot of vandalism. It's sort of the hottest place on WP. You think FPC is tough... it's like a kiddie pool next to the shark tank that is ITN/C. --Cart (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support 山口山--Roy17 (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Now that everything has been sorted out (thanks!): how could we not feature this? --El Grafo (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Wow (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- KTC (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 14:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose current and past versions uploaded since 14:06, 12 April 2019 on a technical basis. Old versions are scaled down, current has terrible dithering applied from Adobe Photoshop compared to the original File:Central black hole of M87.tif. See File:Black hole - Messier 87 crop max res.jpg for more desirable JPG compression output.--BevinKacon (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- @BevinKacon and Yann: I have uploaded a new JPG taken from the "Original" tiff (https://www.eso.org/public/archives/images/original/eso1907a.tif) and saved with maximum level 12 quality. The one uploaded by Yann has approx level 10 quality with some block artefacts visible at high magnification. The source TIF image has some random noise which is likely inherent in the production and requires minimal compression to reproduce faithfully in JPG. The first version uploaded was likely smoothed. BevinKacon, you might prefer the smoothed version but I think what you are seeing is noise in the image, not dithering. Since this is 53 million light years away, I think we can forgive them some noise. -- Colin (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- @BevinKacon: The File:Central black hole of M87.tif that you used for your "more desirable" image is not the same as the source it claims. The upload user User:FallK38 has only made this single contribution to Commons. I will upload a new file with the correct tif. -- Colin (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Black hole confusion -- Colin (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I preffer wait for a version on focus --Wilfredor (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Difficult to decide about this one -- it's a unique picture so far, but that is not what COM:FPC is about. --A.Savin 13:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment After some research and discussion with ESO, the ESO have republished a 16-bit tif on their website, which has been uploaded to File:Central black hole of M87.tif from which a new version of this JPG has been derived and uploaded here. Since an 8-bit file cannot reproduce the same gradual tonal graduations as an 16-bit file, some people may see a little banding if you look closely. I used the Photoshop Colour Setting that uses dithering when reducing from 16 to 8-bit. This is much more subtle dithering than the noisy grainy image we first had. Anyone wanting to manipulate the file in Photoshop is best to use the 16-bit tiff. I won't ping everyone but @BevinKacon and Yann: who were involved in some prior/alternative versions or discussion. -- Colin (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 36 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy