Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cub polar bear is nursing

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Cub polar bear is nursing

edit
Original - Mother polar bears nurse their cubs for as long as 30 months. The milk of Polar Bears mothers is very fat-rich. As a cub grows older the frequency of nursing decreases.
Edit 2 - Stabilised wobble, now a slight 'jitter'. Adjusted brightness and contrast. Cropped to subject, removed bear in bottom right. Smoothed out chroma artifacts in background. Dhatfield (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason
The only video at wikipedia which shows process of nursing of a wild polar bear. The mother licks her cub to encourage him to nurse and during the nursing to comfort him. All the time she keeps watchful eye at her surroundings.
Articles this image appears in
Polar Bear;Bear;Breast feeding
Creator
Mbz1
  • Support as nominator original and edit --Mbz1 (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this a new record for length of time before someone posted any kind of reply to a nom? I think this is a great video, but I'm hesitant to vote on it (and I suspect others are too, given the silence) because I really don't know where the bar is for videos on WP. As far as EV, I'm sure this has it; besides the fact that it's obviously a video of nursing, it also clearly shows that older cubs still return to mom for a snack, as mentioned in the caption. My problem is with the technical side. It seems a little small, at least in comparison to the videos you see on YouTube or MetaCafe, etc., but I don't know if it's a valid criticism. It looks pretty clear. Ah, hell, put me down for a Support, though you may want to trim out the last second or so, which switches scenes and is a little distracting. Matt Deres (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with agreement with Matt about trimming the last second or so. Encyclopedic and valuable. It'd be nice if the camera sway could be stabilized, but I don't know whether this is possible. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Highly encyclopedic. Could use some video editing to correct for camera motion. Could make FP with a little more attention. Not quie there yet. DurovaCharge! 02:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you all for comments and for votes. My special thank you to Matt Deres. It was great to get your comment and your support after few days of complete silence. I am afraid I have no programs, and I am not sure how to edit videos. it took a long tome to learn how to convert videos to Ogg Theora (the only format Wikipedia takes). I've nominated the video because IMO it is quite interesting and it is the only video of wild mother and cub polar bears at Wikipedia. If you believe the problems with the video is too big to make it an FP, so it be.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now Educational but IMO the wobbling camera kills it. Mangostar (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the word "kills" is the right one to describe the video. The video is used in three articles and I hope Wikipedia readers enjoy it.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Striking the oppose now that the wobble is fixed. I'm not sure I love it enough to support though. Mangostar (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done first pass edit. I resisted the temptation to do a temporal smooth (to reduce jitter and colour artifacts) and sharpen to avoid overprocessing. I'll upload a version with more post-processing for comparison and selection. Dhatfield (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uploaded new version over old version, but I can't get a link to the older one and the thumbnail is still not rendering - sorry, I am at a loss. There is still quite a lot of 'wobble' in the image (looks similar to heat haze), but now it is terms of colour variations and zoom / aspect ratio. I suspect that these are imperfections in or on the lens - or maybe it's breath. I'll go to sub-pixel accuracy on the registration (de-wobble) algorithm, but the (possible) improvement will not dramatically change the outcome of a vote. Dhatfield (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The newer version was a hash. Reverting manually. Any further improvement will not dramatically change the outcome of a vote. Dhatfield (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please comment on the new version so we can get a consensus on whether this is worth taking further. Dhatfield (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose original; Oppose edit 1; Support Edit 2. I think we have an odd situation with which video got promoted. Second edit is a further significant improvement over the first. Sharper, fewer artifacts, better colour. I weakly oppose the original and my first edit. Fantastic content (hence all the hard work) but wobbly (original), too many artifacts, poor contrast and colour. I think Edit 2 is good enough. Not NaGeo, but good enough. Dhatfield (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit 1 withdrawn - Edit 2 is better.

Promoted Image:Cub polar bear is nursing.wmv.OGG --Cat-five - talk 09:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cub polar bear is nursing 2.OGG, see WT:FPC#clashes between promotion guidelines 5 and 6. Promotion is pending bug 14524. MER-C 07:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnail bug fixed, thanks to the developers. Dhatfield (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Cub_polar_bear_is_nursing&oldid=1079087815"