![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 5 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Lenna image. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Copyvios are always a concern, but I think the quoted portions here are fine, since they include a legitimate cite. I trimmed them a bit, too. - DavidWBrooks 18:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me (or better yet explain in the article) why the image is named Lenna while the model is named Lena? — Rory ☺ 02:46, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps interestingly, the specific issue of Playboy Lena is a centrefold of features in the film Sleeper by Woody Allen. In the film, Woody Allen plays a person who has been preserved in liquid nitrogen and awakes in the 22rd century. At some point in the film he finds a stash of "historical artifacts", among which is this issue of Playboy. Lena as the centrefold is shown fleetingly on screen. See "A Note on Lena", by David C. Munson, Jr. Editor-in-Chief, Emeritus, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing Vol. 5. No. 1. January 1996 , reprinted here -- Hut66au
The request to merge these two sounds reasonable, but when I went to check, the article on the girl is part of a series on Playboy playmates, so you don't want to turn it into a redirect to this article, ... and I think the Lenna article is sufficiently established in the geek world that this article is justified going into more detail than would be right on an article about the playmate herself. So I guess I would say no, don't merge them. - DavidWBrooks 16:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing the Merge tag. Nobody here nor on Lena Soderberg has supported it (not that it's drawn a huge amount of comment). - DavidWBrooks 20:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a personal preference, but I find the "cleanup" box and its variants, like the one just stuck on this article, incredibly annoying: They're a sign saying "I don't like this article, but I'm not going to do anything about it - you have to." If you think the intro needs altering, alter it! - DavidWBrooks 14:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's also worth mentioning that the colors in this photograph are by no means true (skewed heavily toward red). I can't help but wonder what the ramifications of that were; perhaps an explanation for the problems with red in the JPEG algorithm? Themadchopper 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm Swedish, and I for sure know our lastnames are never speller Soderberg, be it internationalization, her real name was with 90% chance Söderberg and not Soderberg.
I changed this, if anyone is going to hate me for it, revise it.
-- 213.89.141.235 03:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I restored some quotes, since they had been turned into statements that seemed to need sources. As quotes, the source is more clear. Retelling a second-hand story in our own words seems like a poor way to treat what is essentially a story, not a compendium of verifiable fact. Please discuss here if you see a better way for one or more of the quotes. Dicklyon 07:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
“ | Brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use. [...]
In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy |
” |
MaxSem 08:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
How could an article dated May 26, 2006 have been retrieved on January 14, 2006? In any case, the link is now a 404. Ppelleti 15:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
A banner was just placed on this page saying it belongs in the Pornography wiki-project - which strikes me as laughable. A picture of a woman's head and shoulder is porn? Remember, this article is about the image used as a standard test image, not about the original in playboy. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Concerning
these
two edits: I very much dispute that
this blog (which cites back to us),
this self-admitted selection of an amateur and
this personal webpage by "Chuck" are reliable sources.
One piece of information sourced by them, that the issue where this image was published was the best-selling one ever, is repeated further down on the page cited to the Playboy FAQ, and I certainly prefer the primary source here over the unreliable source.
The claims that the scan "became one of the most used images in computer history", that Lenna "came to be dubbed the 'First Lady of the Internet'", and that it is "one of the influential photographs that changed the course of history" is somewhere between remarkable and outrageous and
needs reliable sourcing. The current ones aren't.
Amalthea
16:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
As one of the very points of the article is that this specific standard test image must be exactly 512 x 512 px to illustrate what it does and how it is used, it now appears in the article at that size and in its own section entitled "The 512 x 512 pixel digital test image" to provide that context. To accurately illustrate what the article is about, its display at 512x512px is the smallest (and only) size at which this image that can be displayed to achieve that end. Centpacrr ( talk) 16:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
When one editor things that a tag is appropriate for an article and another editor thinks the tag is unnecessary, it accomplishes nothing to takes turns replacing the tag, removing it, replacing it, etc. Rather, the editors should make the edits they think are needed and thus end the debate.
Of course, that's easier for the second editor in this example, who only has to remove an unnecessary, distracting tag. The first editor will have to actually make the improvements that he/she/it thinks are needed, instead of wandering off. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 22:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
<br />
) added per
Template:Quote#Multiple paragraphs). Thanks. —
Quiddity (
talk)
19:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)The criticism section is really weak. All sorts of objections to the fact that it is of a woman, or from Playboy (I must be stupid, I don't understand why either is relevant for a technical 'standard'). I saw no criticism of the fact it is an image of a photograph, nor that almost certainly the model was heavily made up (air brushed) and almost as likely the photograph itself was air-brushed. It would be helpful if someone could explain how it is that a semi-cartoon image is a 'standard'. 72.172.1.152 ( talk) 08:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
This sentence in the lead "The spelling 'Lenna' comes from the anglicisation used in the original Playboy article." seems out of place. I suggest moving it elsewhere. 132.236.122.51 ( talk) 22:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Source inserted: [3]
First archived version of source that mentions the claim that Seideman is working with Playboy's archivist on this: [4] (it's actually in the very first version, so who knows when it was added to that page, or if it was in the original version, apparently posted April 29th, 2012)
I removed this source as it seems to simply paraphrase the 1997 mention in the other source by Lai-Man Po of Hongkong City U. It seems doubtful that Seideman has been badgering the archivist for one and a half decades to collaborate on a re-scan. Perhaps someone else can find more recent news on that project. Samsara 21:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
http://web.archive.org/web/20121019150128/http://www.computableminds.com/post/lena-soderberg-common-image-processing-test-images.html Ahazred8 ( talk) 23:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe "controversy" is the wrong term, but I came to this page to learn about the connection between sexism and SIGGRAPH papers and had to look in the "talk" page to gain any insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.85.50 ( talk) 17:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved per Amakuru. ( closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 05:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
– The subject of this article is unlikely to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Lenna", due to the relative obscurity of its place in computing. ONR (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Jenks24: I was just writing an oppose vote when you closed this. The above nomination and supports assert that this isn't the primary topic, but give no reason why, or indication as to which of the other topics might be primary. As far as I can see this test image is quite an important thing in history, and I can't see that any of the other entries come close per long term significance or even common usage. Also, it dominates the page views over all other topics, both when including a recent spike, [7] and also when not including it. [8] Please could you reopen the discussion? Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 10:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I came here because I wanted an alternative test image, and was a bit surprised to find that neither this page nor Standard test image are particularly helpful. This article notes: "In 2017 the Journal of Modern Optics published an editorial titled 'On alternatives to Lenna'[18] offering three images (Pirate, Cameraman and Peppers) that 'are reasonably close to Lenna in feature space'." Although those 3 are discussed in the editorial, it's sure hard to find that first Pirate test image. The editorial says,
We downloaded some alternative test images (Pirate, Mandril, Fishing Boat, Cameraman and Peppers) from the USC database and performed a comparative analysis between Lenna and these alternatives ... It appears that at least three of the alternatives (Pirate, Cameraman and Peppers) are reasonably close to Lenna in feature space, although to a varying degree.
But while the USC database ( http://sipi.usc.edu/database/) has several of these images, I can't seem to find the image known as "Pirate." Am I just blind?
Ultimately, I'm surprised not to have found a page offering a good comparison, with visuals, of the Lenna image with other test images. Although I don't claim this is necessarily Wikipedia's job (but I think it is within its ambit), I also haven't found one on the general Internet, although I haven't gone further than a few quick Google searches. But this makes me wonder how widespread these alternatives to the Lenna image really are, and what kind of traction they have gotten in academia and industry.
In any case, it's probably best not to characterize JMO as "offering" alternative images if it's not possible to even find the first image they are "offering." Maybe "suggesting" is better, but the fact that the first image (Pirate) is nowhere to be found gives me pause. Thoughts? jhawkinson ( talk) 13:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
This article has a criticism of Playboy Magazine, which is not present in the Playboy article, I would suggest either removing this one or adding something to the Playboy article because good lord is this an inconsistency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:448A:1082:7D8B:F8BE:109D:CBE2:6527 ( talk) 11:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the image itself from this article per the subject's wishes for the use of this image to cease, and reflecting the academic consensus against its continued use. Ddevault ( talk) 08:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 21:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Lenna → Lenna image – "Lenna" is the primary topic for the term Lenna. However commonly recognized name for "Lenna" is Lenna image. This is also happily WP:NATURAL disambiguation. Schierbecker ( talk) 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Requesting that this article be moved to Lena, with Lenna left as a redirect. The standard test image in the USC SIPI library is refered to as lena, with only one n. See SIPI database: "Please note that we no longer distribute the following images that were previously available in our database: 4.2.04 (lena)..." Is this article about the playboy centerpiece or about the test image? If it's about the test image, the image was named Lena by its creators. The playboy centerpiece is named Lenna, yes, but the test image is just Lena (or iguess "lena"). Guninvalid ( talk) 18:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 5 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Lenna image. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Copyvios are always a concern, but I think the quoted portions here are fine, since they include a legitimate cite. I trimmed them a bit, too. - DavidWBrooks 18:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me (or better yet explain in the article) why the image is named Lenna while the model is named Lena? — Rory ☺ 02:46, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps interestingly, the specific issue of Playboy Lena is a centrefold of features in the film Sleeper by Woody Allen. In the film, Woody Allen plays a person who has been preserved in liquid nitrogen and awakes in the 22rd century. At some point in the film he finds a stash of "historical artifacts", among which is this issue of Playboy. Lena as the centrefold is shown fleetingly on screen. See "A Note on Lena", by David C. Munson, Jr. Editor-in-Chief, Emeritus, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing Vol. 5. No. 1. January 1996 , reprinted here -- Hut66au
The request to merge these two sounds reasonable, but when I went to check, the article on the girl is part of a series on Playboy playmates, so you don't want to turn it into a redirect to this article, ... and I think the Lenna article is sufficiently established in the geek world that this article is justified going into more detail than would be right on an article about the playmate herself. So I guess I would say no, don't merge them. - DavidWBrooks 16:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing the Merge tag. Nobody here nor on Lena Soderberg has supported it (not that it's drawn a huge amount of comment). - DavidWBrooks 20:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a personal preference, but I find the "cleanup" box and its variants, like the one just stuck on this article, incredibly annoying: They're a sign saying "I don't like this article, but I'm not going to do anything about it - you have to." If you think the intro needs altering, alter it! - DavidWBrooks 14:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's also worth mentioning that the colors in this photograph are by no means true (skewed heavily toward red). I can't help but wonder what the ramifications of that were; perhaps an explanation for the problems with red in the JPEG algorithm? Themadchopper 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm Swedish, and I for sure know our lastnames are never speller Soderberg, be it internationalization, her real name was with 90% chance Söderberg and not Soderberg.
I changed this, if anyone is going to hate me for it, revise it.
-- 213.89.141.235 03:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I restored some quotes, since they had been turned into statements that seemed to need sources. As quotes, the source is more clear. Retelling a second-hand story in our own words seems like a poor way to treat what is essentially a story, not a compendium of verifiable fact. Please discuss here if you see a better way for one or more of the quotes. Dicklyon 07:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
“ | Brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use. [...]
In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy |
” |
MaxSem 08:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
How could an article dated May 26, 2006 have been retrieved on January 14, 2006? In any case, the link is now a 404. Ppelleti 15:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
A banner was just placed on this page saying it belongs in the Pornography wiki-project - which strikes me as laughable. A picture of a woman's head and shoulder is porn? Remember, this article is about the image used as a standard test image, not about the original in playboy. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Concerning
these
two edits: I very much dispute that
this blog (which cites back to us),
this self-admitted selection of an amateur and
this personal webpage by "Chuck" are reliable sources.
One piece of information sourced by them, that the issue where this image was published was the best-selling one ever, is repeated further down on the page cited to the Playboy FAQ, and I certainly prefer the primary source here over the unreliable source.
The claims that the scan "became one of the most used images in computer history", that Lenna "came to be dubbed the 'First Lady of the Internet'", and that it is "one of the influential photographs that changed the course of history" is somewhere between remarkable and outrageous and
needs reliable sourcing. The current ones aren't.
Amalthea
16:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
As one of the very points of the article is that this specific standard test image must be exactly 512 x 512 px to illustrate what it does and how it is used, it now appears in the article at that size and in its own section entitled "The 512 x 512 pixel digital test image" to provide that context. To accurately illustrate what the article is about, its display at 512x512px is the smallest (and only) size at which this image that can be displayed to achieve that end. Centpacrr ( talk) 16:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
When one editor things that a tag is appropriate for an article and another editor thinks the tag is unnecessary, it accomplishes nothing to takes turns replacing the tag, removing it, replacing it, etc. Rather, the editors should make the edits they think are needed and thus end the debate.
Of course, that's easier for the second editor in this example, who only has to remove an unnecessary, distracting tag. The first editor will have to actually make the improvements that he/she/it thinks are needed, instead of wandering off. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 22:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
<br />
) added per
Template:Quote#Multiple paragraphs). Thanks. —
Quiddity (
talk)
19:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)The criticism section is really weak. All sorts of objections to the fact that it is of a woman, or from Playboy (I must be stupid, I don't understand why either is relevant for a technical 'standard'). I saw no criticism of the fact it is an image of a photograph, nor that almost certainly the model was heavily made up (air brushed) and almost as likely the photograph itself was air-brushed. It would be helpful if someone could explain how it is that a semi-cartoon image is a 'standard'. 72.172.1.152 ( talk) 08:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
This sentence in the lead "The spelling 'Lenna' comes from the anglicisation used in the original Playboy article." seems out of place. I suggest moving it elsewhere. 132.236.122.51 ( talk) 22:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Source inserted: [3]
First archived version of source that mentions the claim that Seideman is working with Playboy's archivist on this: [4] (it's actually in the very first version, so who knows when it was added to that page, or if it was in the original version, apparently posted April 29th, 2012)
I removed this source as it seems to simply paraphrase the 1997 mention in the other source by Lai-Man Po of Hongkong City U. It seems doubtful that Seideman has been badgering the archivist for one and a half decades to collaborate on a re-scan. Perhaps someone else can find more recent news on that project. Samsara 21:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
http://web.archive.org/web/20121019150128/http://www.computableminds.com/post/lena-soderberg-common-image-processing-test-images.html Ahazred8 ( talk) 23:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe "controversy" is the wrong term, but I came to this page to learn about the connection between sexism and SIGGRAPH papers and had to look in the "talk" page to gain any insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.85.50 ( talk) 17:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved per Amakuru. ( closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 05:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
– The subject of this article is unlikely to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Lenna", due to the relative obscurity of its place in computing. ONR (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Jenks24: I was just writing an oppose vote when you closed this. The above nomination and supports assert that this isn't the primary topic, but give no reason why, or indication as to which of the other topics might be primary. As far as I can see this test image is quite an important thing in history, and I can't see that any of the other entries come close per long term significance or even common usage. Also, it dominates the page views over all other topics, both when including a recent spike, [7] and also when not including it. [8] Please could you reopen the discussion? Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 10:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I came here because I wanted an alternative test image, and was a bit surprised to find that neither this page nor Standard test image are particularly helpful. This article notes: "In 2017 the Journal of Modern Optics published an editorial titled 'On alternatives to Lenna'[18] offering three images (Pirate, Cameraman and Peppers) that 'are reasonably close to Lenna in feature space'." Although those 3 are discussed in the editorial, it's sure hard to find that first Pirate test image. The editorial says,
We downloaded some alternative test images (Pirate, Mandril, Fishing Boat, Cameraman and Peppers) from the USC database and performed a comparative analysis between Lenna and these alternatives ... It appears that at least three of the alternatives (Pirate, Cameraman and Peppers) are reasonably close to Lenna in feature space, although to a varying degree.
But while the USC database ( http://sipi.usc.edu/database/) has several of these images, I can't seem to find the image known as "Pirate." Am I just blind?
Ultimately, I'm surprised not to have found a page offering a good comparison, with visuals, of the Lenna image with other test images. Although I don't claim this is necessarily Wikipedia's job (but I think it is within its ambit), I also haven't found one on the general Internet, although I haven't gone further than a few quick Google searches. But this makes me wonder how widespread these alternatives to the Lenna image really are, and what kind of traction they have gotten in academia and industry.
In any case, it's probably best not to characterize JMO as "offering" alternative images if it's not possible to even find the first image they are "offering." Maybe "suggesting" is better, but the fact that the first image (Pirate) is nowhere to be found gives me pause. Thoughts? jhawkinson ( talk) 13:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
This article has a criticism of Playboy Magazine, which is not present in the Playboy article, I would suggest either removing this one or adding something to the Playboy article because good lord is this an inconsistency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:448A:1082:7D8B:F8BE:109D:CBE2:6527 ( talk) 11:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the image itself from this article per the subject's wishes for the use of this image to cease, and reflecting the academic consensus against its continued use. Ddevault ( talk) 08:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 21:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Lenna → Lenna image – "Lenna" is the primary topic for the term Lenna. However commonly recognized name for "Lenna" is Lenna image. This is also happily WP:NATURAL disambiguation. Schierbecker ( talk) 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Requesting that this article be moved to Lena, with Lenna left as a redirect. The standard test image in the USC SIPI library is refered to as lena, with only one n. See SIPI database: "Please note that we no longer distribute the following images that were previously available in our database: 4.2.04 (lena)..." Is this article about the playboy centerpiece or about the test image? If it's about the test image, the image was named Lena by its creators. The playboy centerpiece is named Lenna, yes, but the test image is just Lena (or iguess "lena"). Guninvalid ( talk) 18:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)