Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Keplers supernova.jpg

Reason

Originally nom'ed in 2004 (then, weirdly, renom'ed in 2006). Low quality for what we expect out of NASA these days, and considerably under the 1000px×1000 size requirement. Suggest delisting of this image.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/October-2004#Kepler.27s Supernova (2004) and then Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Supernova (2006)

Nominator

ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣

• Delist — ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 23:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Think we can do better (and bigger) for space images. Fletcher (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per Fletcher. This would be a pretty quick close against these days. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist: Too small. Maedin\^talk 18:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Durova^Charge! 22:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace. Durova^Charge! 23:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I'm going to call put up or shutup on the above argument about finding a replacement, I'm sure there are better space images out there however very few of them are FP's so I doubt that we're really to the point where having too many FP's of space images that are better than this is an issue. Cat-five - talk 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There is a bigger image on the Chandra website but it was upsampled significantly (no direct link though due to funky Javascript). MER-C 06:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no suggestion to find a replacement; this is a pure delist nom, so your "put up or shut up" demand bears little weight (nicely put, btw). If you care to spend the time finding one, more power to you (thanks to MER-C for the above link, but he's right, the upsampling is painfully obvious). And do you really think we're lacking in deep space FPs? Really? ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 07:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Cat-five. Striking, scientifically significant image, very widely used in WP, good candidate for grandfathering. Also see the interesting composite backstory at File:Ssc2004-15a.jpg. --Pete Tillman (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep SHallathome (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Original and historically accurate, beautiful and unique so I vote keep!
• Comment Nominator informed of delist nom. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

STOP THE PRESSES - I've uploaded a higher-res version over it. It should be more-or-less identical otherwise, save maybe a slightly different crop of the black space around it. It shows some graininess from some of the instruments used to investigate it (also visible in the old one), but I think it's fine, and well over size requirements now. (In other words, keep) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replacement image! Very cool astrophoto. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per Shoemaker's. — Jake Wartenberg 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Size issue fixed --Muhammad(talk) 21:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the replacement is one of the images I commented about earlier on. The funkiness in the red channel strongly suggests it is upsampled. Comments? MER-C 03:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My presumption - perhaps wrong - is that this is because the composite mixes several images from different sources, and, for whatever reason, the Spitzer Space telescope's image was lower resolution compared to the others. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A back of the envelope calculation based on telescope diameter and wavelength gives angular resolution as follows: red: 730 - 4400 milliarcseconds, yellow: 3 - 60 milliarcseconds, green ~0.3 milliarcseconds and blue: ~0.01 milliarcseconds. These probably aren't the real resolutions of the scopes. MER-C 05:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I honestly don't know, ut the graininess is isible in all versions of this image I can find - look at the upper left of te 700px version and it's clearly visible. Maybe the person who assembled the images messed up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've since found out that this image has a FOV of 300 arcseconds and (from an above nom) Chandra has a resolution of 0.5 arcseconds (this image represents the limit of the scope) and the various Spitzer resolutions are here. The reds are definitely upsampled by a factor of at least 4.5. MER-C 11:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that's the limit of the ability of this to be photographed at this time, and the better resolution of the other things justifies upscaling that in a composite, I think it's best to just accept this as the best currently possible image of this remnant at these wavelengths. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Very nice picture. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep original, revert to original size. There is no additional information in the new file, despite the number of pixels. Looks like a straight upsample. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The replacement looks upsampled and way too hi-res. The cited nasa page only has versions up to 750px. The 2000px version on the harvard site has about the same level of detail, and the one currently in use adds nothing but filesize. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist It's a beautiful picture; absolutely amazing. However, it's not quite featured picture material. The larger size, as Mvuijlst said, looks like it's just an upsample, and both versions are a little grainy. hmwithτ 13:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delist Beautiful image but not FP quality. -download | sign! 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Quality isn't great, and I'm not exactly thrilled with the upsample either. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 20:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist It may be a good picture, but not all space pictures have to be featured, especially one without the technical quality. Also could someone please get rid of the upsampled version. Reguiieee (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 08:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)