Weak Support Although there seems to be some jpeg artifacting, and I'd personally like it if it were at all possible to make all of the lines 100% clear, this is pretty encyclopedic and I like it very much.
Joe 01:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - Compression artifacts are minor and mitigated by the huge resolution. The vertical lines are supposed to be fuzzy: that is the width of the absorption line. —
Dgiestc 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
questions 1) is it a photo or an illustration? 2) for each row, is one end redder than the other, i.e. is is really just a one dimensional function of frequency, broken into several rows, or does the y-axis correspond to some measurement parameter?
Debivort 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
weak support - what makes the image interesting (the absorption lines) is not what makes the image attractive (the simple spectrum). Plus, I think the breaking of it into rows (while reasonable) will confuse people, as it is not obvious which way the spectrum goes - right to left or left to right. I agree it should be downsampled for a final version.
Debivort 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)reply
It is a synthesized image taken from observational data. Sunlight is fed into a glorified prism and that produces a very detailed rainbow, which is then arranged in 40 or sow rows to fit in a nice rectangle.
For each row, left-to right represents increasing frequency (and subtle color change). The Y-axis is used to stack what would otherwise be an absurdly wide and short image into a more reasonable size. Going from top to bottom gives rows of increasing frequency. Ideally, each individual row would show no top-bottom variation, but there are artifacts. —
Dgiestc 05:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Rad.--
ragesoss 06:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment This looks better when shrunk to my screen size than in actual size, where it looks like it's run through a motion blur. ~
trialsanderrors 07:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Attractive and scientific. Neato. --
Bridgecross 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. High enc, and eyecatching color, for some reason... Could be downsampled to 50%, even 30%. --
Janke |
Talk 17:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support per above. --
Andrew c 19:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. This is generated by a scan or photo of an analog phenomenon, don't expect clarity --
frothT 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support- high quality, amazing, aesthetically pleasing, eye-catching, encyclopedic. JorcogaYell! 13:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Everything Jorcoga said, really. It's a great picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Support Although there seems to be some jpeg artifacting, and I'd personally like it if it were at all possible to make all of the lines 100% clear, this is pretty encyclopedic and I like it very much.
Joe 01:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - Compression artifacts are minor and mitigated by the huge resolution. The vertical lines are supposed to be fuzzy: that is the width of the absorption line. —
Dgiestc 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
questions 1) is it a photo or an illustration? 2) for each row, is one end redder than the other, i.e. is is really just a one dimensional function of frequency, broken into several rows, or does the y-axis correspond to some measurement parameter?
Debivort 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
weak support - what makes the image interesting (the absorption lines) is not what makes the image attractive (the simple spectrum). Plus, I think the breaking of it into rows (while reasonable) will confuse people, as it is not obvious which way the spectrum goes - right to left or left to right. I agree it should be downsampled for a final version.
Debivort 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)reply
It is a synthesized image taken from observational data. Sunlight is fed into a glorified prism and that produces a very detailed rainbow, which is then arranged in 40 or sow rows to fit in a nice rectangle.
For each row, left-to right represents increasing frequency (and subtle color change). The Y-axis is used to stack what would otherwise be an absurdly wide and short image into a more reasonable size. Going from top to bottom gives rows of increasing frequency. Ideally, each individual row would show no top-bottom variation, but there are artifacts. —
Dgiestc 05:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Rad.--
ragesoss 06:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment This looks better when shrunk to my screen size than in actual size, where it looks like it's run through a motion blur. ~
trialsanderrors 07:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Attractive and scientific. Neato. --
Bridgecross 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. High enc, and eyecatching color, for some reason... Could be downsampled to 50%, even 30%. --
Janke |
Talk 17:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support per above. --
Andrew c 19:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. This is generated by a scan or photo of an analog phenomenon, don't expect clarity --
frothT 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support- high quality, amazing, aesthetically pleasing, eye-catching, encyclopedic. JorcogaYell! 13:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Everything Jorcoga said, really. It's a great picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)reply