Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pyramid of 35 Spheres

Pyramid of 35 Spheres

THIS IS NOT THE NOMINATED IMAGE. THIS IS A SMALLER VERSION. THE NOMINATED IMAGE IS THIS: Image:Pyramid of 35 spheres animation original.gif. DUE TO TECHNICAL REASONS MOST .GIF ANIMATIONS CAN NOT BE RESIZED.

This image is a very interesting and colorful depiction of a animated .GIF created by a software called POV-Ray and was converted using Adobe ImageReady. The POV-Ray script can be found on its description page. Blotwell uploaded it using his Wikimedia Commons account, which is also Blotwell last August. It isn't linked to any files, but a smaller version of it Image:Pyramid of 35 spheres animation.gif is linked to the article ~~Animation~~ Computer animation. (Another smaller version is Image:Pyramid of 35 spheres animation large.gif.) The only downside is that it is 1.97 MB and that it can't be made a thumb.

Nominate and Support Alvinrune ^TALK 20:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Despite the fact that this is a great picture and a good animation I find the light reflection off the spheres to be very distracting even though it makes it look more realistic. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What reflections? Perhaps you mean the flickering of the shadows. —Tamfang 07:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tip: always find a good home for the pic before posting here, because it's a criterion for FP that the images add significantly to an article, and you'll very likely get opposed if it doesn't. For this pic, I'd consider switching it for the low res dice in POV-Ray and maybe even swapping it for the lowish res header pic in Ray tracing ~ Veledan • Talk 22:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support TomStar81 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's not used in Animation. A much smaller version is in the sub-article Computer animation, but rendering details get lost in that size. Wish we had a really good example of computer animation on WP, something like this wmv example ;-) --Janke | Talk 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not that easy to make computer-generated animated .GIFs. I liked the .WMV link you gave. ;-) Alvinrune ^TALK 02:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It looks brilliant and shows of the best of Wikipedia. --Midnighttonight 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly had that "wow!" effect on me. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 04:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this picture is the best example of computer animation, nor is it an interesting illustration of what you can do with POV-Ray (see this [1]) Glaurung 10:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why don't you put that up on FPC? I'd support! --Janke | Talk 15:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- You mean Image:Glasses 800.png? Me too, though my vote for this one still stands too.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 01:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 01:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I stopped it on a random frame, and it didn't lose anything. What is the purpose of this animation? What is it specifically trying to illustrate? —Pengo 11:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The scaled version that we're using here is over 600KB... I presume that we'd use a simmlar size image in the article. ... I just don't see how the animation is 600KB of transfer time better than a still, even for a user on broadband. --Gmaxwell 04:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think it's a bit too flashy - it's trying to do too many things at once, and although it looks flash, it is not usable for any particular article. Shen 10:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: The effect of the refraction (although realistic) is a bit distracting. Can the same image be done such that the spheres are frosted? Sjschen 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dislkie the reflections --Fir0002 www 23:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The animation is rotating _way_ too fast... Freedom to share 20:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, rotating too fast, as well as the poor quality of the spheres. Looks wobbly, too, but that's probably just an illusion. Search 4 Lancer 04:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's well done, but for a truly superb and feature-worthy example of what you can do in POV-Ray (albeit unanimated), see the nomination above. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The top ball does not move at all, and looks weird (if that makes any sense). Makes this not quite FP-standard for me. Batmanand | Talk 10:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The top ball isn't supposed to move.... it's rotating Search 4 Lancer 22:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]