This is a good depiction of a horse in full trot, but the shape, figure, and details of the horse are of the quality of a Scooby Doo cartoon at best (especially the head). Poor depiction and quality. This should never have been on FP.
I'm not sure if the italics are meant to indicate sarcasm; if so, (a) please
be civil and (b) because the animation is
rotoscoped from
Muybridge's famous photos of a galloping horse, it is entirely relevant that it's galloping; any editors unaware of the fact may not have grasped the point of the animation. If the italics were merely for emphasis, I apologise, but the online medium makes misunderstandings very easy.
TSP23:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - from talk pages & contribution histories, I see no evidence of the image contributors being notified of these many recent delist proposals.
Glaurung recently highlighted the instructions in this section, but apparently to no avail. Not informing the contributors is impolite, and in some cases below, where the main complaints are "too small / jpeg artifacts", the person may very well have a better copy available. --
Davepape22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep It is a very good animation, and since it illustrates cartoon, that makes it more suitable for FP. The illustrators who created Scooby Doo get paid a good amount, and the fact that we have someone who created this commercial quality animation (as Scooby is extremely succesful commerically) for free illustrates Wikipedia's best work perfectly. --
liquidGhoul02:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)reply
As the creator of this cartoon (yes, I make my living as an
animator), I recuse myself from the voting, but I want to thank LiquidGhould for those thoughtful comments. Making an animated cartoon - even as short and simple as this one - takes many hours of work. Of course, to illustrate
animated cartoon, you do need something goofy looking! Due to copyright constraints, you cannot illustrate any animation article with commercial characters. Please also note that all articles about animation were totally devoid of moving examples before I uploaded this (oh, except for a bouncing ball... ;-) Greetings, --
Janke |
Talk04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. This image was already nominated for delisting recently. You can't just keep nominating it for delisting until you get your way. It illustrates the subject well, and is user-created, which we encourage. —
BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 20:20
Keep. I'm drawn to the motion of the horse's legs, which was the whole point, after all. Any chance a slow-motion version could be made available? --
moondigger02:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. This one has been done to death. Regardless of what anyone else might wish, this image is staying featured, check it's track-record. Also, I think we need to institute some sort of policy on how often a given image can be nominated for delisting. I would suggest a maximum of once every 6 months. Someone care to take point on making a policy? I suggest we take it to a talk page somewhere... --
Dante Alighieri |
Talk19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't think there's a need for policy. It's common sense. Feel free to quash any obviously early renominations. —
BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 20:55
Comment. Is this photo a cultural icon that I dont know about? and I dont mean that sarcastically. The outcry to keep the animation is very astonishing. --
AJ2419:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
TSP explained why it's significant near the top of this subpage. The animation was
rotoscoped from
Edward Muybridge's galloping horse photos. Those photos were significant in the history of photography and the study of movement; there was disagreement in those days about whether all four of a horse's hooves were ever off the ground at the same time while galloping. His photos relied on what was then cutting-edge photographic technology and solved the mystery. I think this animation would catch less flack if only the horse weren't smiling. I know it works fine as a cartoon to have the horse smiling, but I believe the animation would be taken more seriously if it had a more realistic head/face. --
Moondigger20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
You explained its significance, but due to the smile and large protruding eyes, is it really the best representation of Muybridge's work, or was it only accepted because it is the closest representation to his work? Thanks. --
AJ2422:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
It is accepted because it is an illustration of cartoon. Even though a cartoon can look
goofy, it is still very accurate in movement so as to have a resemblence to whatever it is representing. --
liquidGhoul23:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
AJ24 - have you looked at the
Eadweard Muybridge article at all? There, you'll see the original photos in motion. This isn't about that at all, it's about
animated cartoons and
rotoscoping, a method of making animated characters - yes, even goofy ones - using real photos/films as a reference... --
Janke |
Talk17:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)reply
This is a good depiction of a horse in full trot, but the shape, figure, and details of the horse are of the quality of a Scooby Doo cartoon at best (especially the head). Poor depiction and quality. This should never have been on FP.
I'm not sure if the italics are meant to indicate sarcasm; if so, (a) please
be civil and (b) because the animation is
rotoscoped from
Muybridge's famous photos of a galloping horse, it is entirely relevant that it's galloping; any editors unaware of the fact may not have grasped the point of the animation. If the italics were merely for emphasis, I apologise, but the online medium makes misunderstandings very easy.
TSP23:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - from talk pages & contribution histories, I see no evidence of the image contributors being notified of these many recent delist proposals.
Glaurung recently highlighted the instructions in this section, but apparently to no avail. Not informing the contributors is impolite, and in some cases below, where the main complaints are "too small / jpeg artifacts", the person may very well have a better copy available. --
Davepape22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep It is a very good animation, and since it illustrates cartoon, that makes it more suitable for FP. The illustrators who created Scooby Doo get paid a good amount, and the fact that we have someone who created this commercial quality animation (as Scooby is extremely succesful commerically) for free illustrates Wikipedia's best work perfectly. --
liquidGhoul02:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)reply
As the creator of this cartoon (yes, I make my living as an
animator), I recuse myself from the voting, but I want to thank LiquidGhould for those thoughtful comments. Making an animated cartoon - even as short and simple as this one - takes many hours of work. Of course, to illustrate
animated cartoon, you do need something goofy looking! Due to copyright constraints, you cannot illustrate any animation article with commercial characters. Please also note that all articles about animation were totally devoid of moving examples before I uploaded this (oh, except for a bouncing ball... ;-) Greetings, --
Janke |
Talk04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. This image was already nominated for delisting recently. You can't just keep nominating it for delisting until you get your way. It illustrates the subject well, and is user-created, which we encourage. —
BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 20:20
Keep. I'm drawn to the motion of the horse's legs, which was the whole point, after all. Any chance a slow-motion version could be made available? --
moondigger02:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. This one has been done to death. Regardless of what anyone else might wish, this image is staying featured, check it's track-record. Also, I think we need to institute some sort of policy on how often a given image can be nominated for delisting. I would suggest a maximum of once every 6 months. Someone care to take point on making a policy? I suggest we take it to a talk page somewhere... --
Dante Alighieri |
Talk19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't think there's a need for policy. It's common sense. Feel free to quash any obviously early renominations. —
BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 20:55
Comment. Is this photo a cultural icon that I dont know about? and I dont mean that sarcastically. The outcry to keep the animation is very astonishing. --
AJ2419:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
TSP explained why it's significant near the top of this subpage. The animation was
rotoscoped from
Edward Muybridge's galloping horse photos. Those photos were significant in the history of photography and the study of movement; there was disagreement in those days about whether all four of a horse's hooves were ever off the ground at the same time while galloping. His photos relied on what was then cutting-edge photographic technology and solved the mystery. I think this animation would catch less flack if only the horse weren't smiling. I know it works fine as a cartoon to have the horse smiling, but I believe the animation would be taken more seriously if it had a more realistic head/face. --
Moondigger20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
You explained its significance, but due to the smile and large protruding eyes, is it really the best representation of Muybridge's work, or was it only accepted because it is the closest representation to his work? Thanks. --
AJ2422:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
It is accepted because it is an illustration of cartoon. Even though a cartoon can look
goofy, it is still very accurate in movement so as to have a resemblence to whatever it is representing. --
liquidGhoul23:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
AJ24 - have you looked at the
Eadweard Muybridge article at all? There, you'll see the original photos in motion. This isn't about that at all, it's about
animated cartoons and
rotoscoping, a method of making animated characters - yes, even goofy ones - using real photos/films as a reference... --
Janke |
Talk17:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)reply