Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fear and Desire
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2016 at 02:24:17 (UTC)
- Reason
- Notable work by a very notable director.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Fear and Desire, Stanley Kubrick
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
- Creator
- Stanley Kubrick
- Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Question - Great EV, but I'm wondering if this is the highest quality available digital version of the film? It appears to be 480p, which is quite low. Mattximus (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- The source is at 720p wide, but my conversion program (source downloads as FLV; we only support webm and another rare open format) doesn't have a 720p output at the proper ratio. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Downloading the 720p version from source and converting to webM should be fairly easy for me. Uploading such a large file might be tricky though (wikipedia upload limitations mainly). The actual highest quality available digital version would be sourced from the 1080p blu-ray release though. As I said in this nomination, I do think it's a shame that moving images are seemingly not held to the same standards regarding digitisation when it comes to FPC that still images are. - Wolftick (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Using the upload wizard and uploading a new file, or installing the script I used and uploading with that, will allow a maximum upload size of 1gb.
- As for the quality concerns: you're not going to have the same standards for a long time. One, getting video is still relatively uncommon, and hence why there has been no standardization even among video files themselves. Then there's the fact that we are limited to a maximum upload size of 1gb: you can't upload a film of an hour's length at 4k with such limitations, for instance, but a 4k still image is a cakewalk. Furthermore, nobody on-wiki seems to actually restore films; we have a plethora of skilled still image editors, and thus the bar is set quite high for those, but nobody does films that I know of. For historic videos like these, that can be troublesome, but standards won't increase until we have an increase in the average quality of video nominated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- My concerns are not with general video quality standards or standardisation. They are specifically with videos nominated for FP that have clear technical deficiencies (visible compression, low resolution) where a substantially higher quality version is relatively easily and freely available. They may be of high EV but I feel they should probably fail on WP:WIAFP .1 and .2 if the criteria is applied in a similar way it is to still images. - Wolftick (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I know your concerns are with FP videos. I already explains three reasons for such issues: 1) our required format (the AVI I got was nice and sharp, but we're not allowed to have AVI), 2) the upload cap, and 3) the fact that nobody is restoring historical video. Bars cannot be set higher until the current bars are being crossed regularly; videos are so rarely nominated here that that doesn't happen for them. There's a reason it's so much harder to successfully nominate an image of a bird then an image of, say, a 1950s athlete. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Can't we get around the upload cap by simply uploading "part 1" and "part 2"? If the standards or upload size for wikipedia changes in the future we can just stitch them back together? Mattximus (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'd worry that that has less functional value, as it forces readers to open two different files to view the film. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- My concerns are not with general video quality standards or standardisation. They are specifically with videos nominated for FP that have clear technical deficiencies (visible compression, low resolution) where a substantially higher quality version is relatively easily and freely available. They may be of high EV but I feel they should probably fail on WP:WIAFP .1 and .2 if the criteria is applied in a similar way it is to still images. - Wolftick (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Downloading the 720p version from source and converting to webM should be fairly easy for me. Uploading such a large file might be tricky though (wikipedia upload limitations mainly). The actual highest quality available digital version would be sourced from the 1080p blu-ray release though. As I said in this nomination, I do think it's a shame that moving images are seemingly not held to the same standards regarding digitisation when it comes to FPC that still images are. - Wolftick (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- The source is at 720p wide, but my conversion program (source downloads as FLV; we only support webm and another rare open format) doesn't have a 720p output at the proper ratio. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral because of the low resolution. Does anybody have a program that will output 720p webm? WiiWillieWiki 00:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I do and would do so and upload, however I am a little concerned regarding the copyright status of the restored release in the UK. Happy to describe the free (as in beer) software required and process for downloading and transcoding to anyone though. - Wolftick (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I can upload a high resolution version, but seeing the size, it will take some time (769 MB in MP4 in 720p): File:Fear and Desire (1953).webm. Yann (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)