Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Shotgun Shot Sequence

Shotgun Shot Sequence

Original - Shows sabot separation of a shotgun round

Reason: Graphically demonstrates the sabot separation of the projectiles.
Articles this image appears in: Shotgun, Sabot
Creator: Andrew Davidhazy

Support as nominator --Ratsbew (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Definitely informative, but the resolution is far too poor unfortunately. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - wonderful event to show, but way too small to show it properly. Since this is the same size as the original from the external source, someone else needs to repeat the experiment. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 19:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And it appears that the image hasn't actually been released by the author under the license specified. Certainly no evidence of it on the image page, nor on the page where it was taken from. That page says "all images copyrighted but commercial reproduction rights or individual prints may be obtained from the author". Perhaps the author might provide a higher resolution image, or tell us to take it down immediately. Could go either way. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I received email permission from the author. Ratsbew (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should really provide some proof of this on the image page then, including evidence that he released it under the CC-BY 3.0 license, and not just 'for Wikipedia's use'. We can't just take your word for it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should forward proof of this to permissions-commons

wikimedia.org. MER-C 11:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use one of the Email templates. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is higher resolution actually practical? You'd be talking ISO 12800 with F1.8 under bright sunlight to get that sort of exposure. I wonder if the sensor used actually has that much resolution. Camera flashes can get down to 1/10000th or so on very low power settings, but this is still a long way from 1/1000000. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't know exactly how practical it is, but assuming you can capture it with a fast enough flash (and it looks like he has), you should be able to get significantly higher resolution than this - any modern DSLR could handle it. The flash and the trigger should be the only complicated bits... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It should be larger, and with more details. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{__Ξ_} . -- 15:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support if license issues are resolved. The image just meets the resolution requirements (>=1000px) and has very high EV, so given how difficult it is to shoot I'll support. Time3000 (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1000px minimum really applies to landscape/square formatted images. Realistically the standard is a minimum of around 1000px on both dimensions, not just one. IMO. it's not as clearly defined as it should be. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I realised that just as I was writing it, but what extra information are you going to get from a higher resolution version? It's not like landscapes where there's a lot of detail and you could carry on increasing resolution until you could see individual blades of grass, becoming more informative with each increase; nor is it like macro shots of (say) insects where there's a lot of detail in the eyes, wings etc. If the resolution was higher here it would only show more turbulence in the smoke (not relevent unless it's in an article on fluid mechanics) and possibly some more detail of how the cartridge case deforms. I would certainly prefer a higher resolution, but I don't think it loses anything except noise by being this small. Time3000 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copy vio - Looks like a copy right violation - http://www.kurzzeit.com/kameras.htm - Ravedave (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what on that page suggests that this image is a copyright violation though. The shotgun sequence on the page doesn't seem to be the same at all... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Though if that is the camera that was used I'd be right about the resolution. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but it looks like that camera is designed to take videos, not stills... Maybe this image hasn't been captured by a device fit for purpose? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it meets the size requirement, the picture really isn't big enough to have good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted I checked and didn't see evidence of copyvio, but still no promoted. --wadester 16 19:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]