Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/STS-132 Liftoff Space Shuttle Atlantis

STS-132 Liftoff Space Shuttle Atlantis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 08:44:43 (UTC)

Original - Space shuttle Atlantis begins the STS-132 mission as it carries the six-member crew toward the International Space Station. (512×288 in size, length 2:37. 297,000 bits per second)

720p - 1,280×720 in size. 2.543 million bits per second. 640-wide (half-size) thumb here.

23.8 MB (medium size) file, 427 thumb, 854-width full size - Actual size of this thumb is 427 pixels (half-size) and will be viewed at that size by hitting the “play” button. If the user clicks the image, they go to the full-size original at 847 pixels across (probably at an actual viewing size of 800 pixels). They will experience a modest download speed and watch at 1.213 million bits per second.

NOTE: If you are A) a registered editor, and B) set your user preferences (My preferences>Appearances>Files>Image size limit), to something other than the default value, then when you go to the file pages of these images to see the full-size versions, you may not see what I.P. users see.

1080p - 1,920×1,080 in size. 4.7 million bits per second. Largest available video size from NASA. 88.11 MB file.

Reason: remarkable event (last liftoff of the space shuttle Atlantis), narrator explains the procedure, good quality
Articles in which this image appears: Space Shuttle Atlantis, ~~STS-132~~ (a longer version with no HD options is used instead there.)
FP category for this image: Space
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator --Kozuch (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very impressive. A transcript of the audio, for the hearing impaired, would be a nice addition to this video. —P. S. Burton (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This isn't used in any articles? We can't feature media that is not used in any articles... We can only judge its EV in context. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for size) and Speedy Close (not in use). NASA offers 1080i HD video for download, with such higher quality sources available video of this size just shouldn't be considered. Plus it has to be used in an article somewhere.. — raeky T 12:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded the HD versions of this video, if it was linked into an article I'd change to Support. — raeky T 13:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ive put the low bandwidth version into Space Shuttle Atlantis - not everyone has fiber at home, low bandwidth versions are kind of preffered within articles here, I guess.--Kozuch (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to this (
      boldly add myself. Also why isn't this on STS-132, I'll start a talk page discussion there about it. — raeky T 13:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Comment It made no sense to me to show the thumbnails here at the same size. Also, the file names (“480” and “720” did not match their actual, full-size proportions [as viewed on their file pages Greg L (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)]. The sizes shown here are the actual files. I suggest we consider download speed vs. quality. Greg L (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it does, the videos I uploaded are 1,280×720 and 854×480 pixels respectively in size? — raeky T 14:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I go to the full-size original and measure the actual pixel width on the screen with a pixel-counting frame grabber, I get 640 for both. The only way I can see the 720 as 720 is to download it and play it using VLC. I’m only showing them here as viewers will view them on Wikipedia when they go to the file page. Don’t you think that’s what 99% of our I.P.s will do? Greg L (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thats because that's just the size of the player box the website makes, just as when you click on an image it displays a scaled down image instead of the full size on the page, you have to download the whole file to see the full size, no difference here. As browsers display in-line video better they SHOULD have "full screen" buttons and there would be a big difference maxing these to full screen between the 480 and 720p videos... — raeky T 14:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and suggestion Might I suggest someone put it in Space Shuttle Atlantis? --I'ḏ♥One 14:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe but STS-132 would be the most relevant article. — raeky T 14:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whichever car gets us to town fastest, both could probably work. --I'ḏ ♥One 04:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion I would suggest that whatever size we nominate be highly usable in its placed size in articles and on the Main Page. A horizontal size of 400 pixels is the maximum practical size. Accordingly, I’ve also placed a duplicate version here of the “480” file (actually 640 pixels across and 1.213 Mbps) as a 400-pixel thumb. It is viewable and enjoyable as a thumb. And if they click the image (instead of the play button), they will go to a 640 pixel, full-size version that loads in a reasonable time. Greg L (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are you getting 640 across? The video sizes are 512×288, 854×480 and 1,280×720? — raeky T 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my 14:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC) post. This may be due to the fact that I’m using a Mac. Do you actually measure 720 on the file page? We might also check and see if your user settings are influencing this. I.P.'s don't have preferences and get only a default. Greg L (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Below the video it says the details including the actual size, what you see there is scaled down, just like with image pages, with Chrome I can right click the video and go to "display in new tab" and there it's displayed at actual size. Since this whole HTML5 video thing is new browsers are still beta testing it. Once they get more robust in-browser controls all browsers will have the ability to make these full screen and such, which Chrome lacks at the moment. But 640px what your quoting is just the preview scaled down size the website does. — raeky T 14:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It’s our user preferences, which I.P. users don’t have. I had mine at 640 pixels, so when I went to the file pages, they all max'd out at that size. I logged out and tried it but got odd results. What do you get when you log out? Greg L (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Of course, when I download the files and play them in my SLV player, they played in their native sizes. Less than 1% of our I.P.s will do this. I suggest we examine this from their point of view. Greg L (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Mines at 800x600 for both here and commons, logging out I can't tell that it changed... but like I said, in a few more browser iterations HTML5 video will have robust controls for all browsers which will have things like full-screen buttons I suspect, right now it's fairly limiting at least in Chrome which I'm using. — raeky T 15:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what I saw. When I logged out, they max out at around 800 (Mac using Safari). Try setting your user pref to 640. I’ll bet the higher-quality two max out at 640 wide. Greg L (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Third one down (medium-size file with 427 thumb). Our I.P. users will likely only see 800 pixel widths when they go to the file page, so there is no point using the largest file since the only way to see it at 1280 x 720 is to download it. Few I.P.s will do that. Greg L (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same reasoning could be used for any of our large images... Personally I think the largest should be the FP, with clear links to the others. It's use in the article space should also have direct links to the smaller version's in it's caption for people with reduced bandwidth, same for the POTD caption... — raeky T 15:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regular, static images are treated differently from Theora videos. If I.P.s click on a jpeg to go to the file page, once there, they can zoom to the max. Animations at limited to 800 pixels width for our I.P.s when they go to the file page so there isn’t much point having a native size much larger than that. The only way 720p animations (1280 pixels across) can be viewed at their full-size image is to download it to their hard drive and hope they have a player for Theora videos. Very, very few I.P.s will do that, so I don’t see the value of the 48 MB file. Some 99.9% of our readership will never see it larger than 800 pixels. Greg L (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The big one. There is no reason not to - its resized for those that view it in browser.
talk) 07:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Support large version - I agree with P S Burton though that this would benefit from having the words subtitled onto the video for clarity of what is being said... Not just for the hearing impared but also the technically unaware who may not know what they are talking about - would be easier to find if they had the spelling of the word on screen! Gazhiley (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have a methodology for adding subtitles, and the FLASH version on NASA's site has subtitles, but I can not find anywhere to download those subtitles to upload here. So unless someone can get NASA to release those in proper time index format then we'll have to accept we won't have subtitles. — raeky T 14:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey I'm happy as it is, just if it is poss that would be a nice extra! :-) TBH I'm just happy to be here... hehe Gazhiley (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:STS-132 Liftoff Space Shuttle Atlantis 1080i.ogv --Jujutacular ^talk 15:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I will be using the template Raeky proposed at
Wikipedia talk:FPC#New Template Idea
. The small version will be displayed in the article, with the full res (featured} version linked.