Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Computer-generated kilogram

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Computer-generated kilogram[edit]

Shown above is a computer-generated image of the International Prototype Kilogram (“IPK”). The IPK is the kilogram. It sits next to an inch-based ruler for scale. The IPK is made of a platinum-iridium alloy and is stored in a vault at the BIPM in Sèvres, France. For other kilogram-related images, see Links to photographs, below.
Reason
I was recently looking up information on the metric system, which I've never used in real life, and found the Kilogram article to be very well written. The first thing that catches your eye when the article opens up in front of you is this amazing image of the International Prototype kilogram, which was created by our very own User:Greg L.
Proposed caption
A computer-generated image of the International Prototype kilogram, which is made from an alloy of 90% platinum and 10% iridium (by weight) and machined into a right-circular cylinder (height = diameter) of 39.17 mm. It sits next to an inch-based ruler for scale. The IPK is kept at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures) in Sèvres, on the outskirts of Paris. The geometry of this computer model was based on the actual specifications being used for experiments in new manufacturing techniques to produce new kilogram mass standards. (Struck as it caused confusion after the actual caption was added below the photograph.) Greg L (my talk) 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in
Kilogram
Creator
User:Greg L
  • I'm confused - why do we have a computer-generated image? Why don't we have a picture of the real thing? Raul654 01:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the image description page:
1. the IPK is stored in a vault nearly all the time,
2. there is no general public access to the BIPM (and certainly none to the vault),
3. and working copies of the IPK are used at the BIPM for routine calibrations for years on-end.
  • …and the basic reason underlying those three explanations is this one: Copyright restrictions. Pictures from the BIPM are copyrighted. Same with the NIST. It’s not like you can go take your own picture of the Leaning Tower of Pisa; you gotta use what these organizations provide. They're copyrighted and Wikipedia’s policy is not to use anything but free content. The really artful, attractive picture of K20 sitting on egg crate fluorescent light fixture panel is also copyrighted. It was briefly used on Wikipedia but was yanked. I would have expected that people could advance a good fair-use rational and use it anyway. I wasn't involved with the decision to yank the picture but assume the issue of fair-use had been raised. I was never quite satisfied with K20 picture anyway because—unless you’re damn familiar with fluorescent egg crate panels—you have little sense of scale. So I spent an evening and made an image of the IPK alogn with the much-needed ruler. Greg L (my talk) 02:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not very informative. A photograph would be nice, but a computer gen just doesn't tell me how much a kg is any more than a description. And - if computer generated it must be, jpeg probably isn't the best format. thegreen J Are you green? 02:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. It's an image of an International Prototype kilogram, which, as explained above, are not very common. I think showing it and explaining what it is is informative enough, and it's certainly more informative than Image:John Edwards Pittsburgh 2007.jpg, which was recently promoted to FP status. --Agüeybaná 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, photograph of John Edwards tells me more than a computer gen would. A subtleties that a photograph captures are what make it interesting. This doesn't show any of the subtleties that might distiguish the actual thing, just a grey cylinder. What information have I gained from this? Not more than telling me that it's the same as a litre of water. So, no, I don't find it more informative than Image:John Edwards Pittsburgh 2007.jpg. thegreen J Are you green? 20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "...doesn't show any of the subtleties that might distiguish the actual thing, just a grey cylinder". You do realize that the IPK is just a grey cylinder, right? The Mona Lisa has subtleties. The IPK doesn't :) Kaldari 22:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, the jump from this to a picture wouldn't make a terribly big difference, but there's just something extra knowining that I'm looking at the real thing. thegreen J Are you green? 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. If there are really no free photos of this thing, then very good idea to make a computer-generated image. Very valuable contribution to wikipedia, and I'd fight tooth and nail against someone who wanted to remove it from the article on the basis that it's only computer generated. But I just don't see any reason to nominate it for FP.. it's a good representation of a plain metal cylinder with a ruler. Perfect for the article, but not impressive for FP sorry! --frotht 04:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Question The ruler in the background is a yardstick, right? Shouldn't this rather be a metric ruler? I'm inclined to support this, but the reflection of the marbled countertop makes it look like it's corroding, and I don't see that the marbling adds anything to the picture. If these two things can be corrected I'd certainly support. I think it's very illustrative, helps the article, and replaces a fair use picture with a free one. ~ trialsanderrors 04:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the textured table helps give life to the image.. otherwise the whole cylinder would just be a gray shape like the top. I don't know if the ruler needs to be metric (it's just for scale) but it certainly makes sense since the image is of a kilogram --frotht 04:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but the texture doesn't have to be brownish marbling. Anything that doesn't create the impression of corrosion would do. ~ trialsanderrors 04:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ruler is a solid model I had left over from a work project. I did that project (a medical device) in all-metric units. And the ruler I based it off of had a metric side to it too! Still, I chose not to use the metric side. Why? I chose to model the inch-based side for scale with the medical device because the American audience that would be viewing those medical images is better accustomed to inch-based rulers. In other words, it wasn't about the logic of a metric ruler for a metric medical device, it was about the intuition of the eye. Of course, it’s less intuitive for non-American audiences, but that’s what I had laying around in the computer. Greg L (my talk) 05:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Because American will understand better" or "Because Europeans will understand better" aren't good reasons to select one unit rather than the other. Wikipedia is made to be used by people worldwide (that's especially true for the English one) so either way, some people won't be happy with the choice. However, your picture has a scientific value and meter is the fundamental unit of length in the SI. That's why i think you should use a meter-based ruler. Ksempac 17:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I like the image both in style and quality, and I think your rationale about the use of the yardstick as opposed to a metric ruler is good. But I think it should be pointed out in the caption that it is a yardstick. I guess almost all metric-Europeans have never seen a yardstick and would mistake the ruler on this image for a metric ruler very easily, especially in the thumbnail. My visual intuition as a European tells me this kilogram prototype is about 2cm in diameter, a completely insane suggestion in my experience. :-) – sgeureka t•c 07:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Well, it’s a moot point because the nomination is clearly going down in flames. But I’m confused. The caption says it “sits next to an inch-based ruler”. Is a caption that says “yard stick” clearer terminology for Europeans than “inch-based ruler”? To split hairs, it is a foot-long ruler with a well-recognized profile to Americans; no yard stick has this distinctive profile. Greg L (my talk) 14:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would leave it as "inch-based ruler". I don't think a yard stick means anything to most Europeans - except as a colloquial term, but I could be wrong. I'm Australian (a non-European metric-based country). :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it just means that I was blind when I read the proposed caption. :-) And I just copied the word "yardstick" from above; I have never seen such a ruler in my home country (until I spend some time in the US), and I guess we don't even have a proper name for it here. – sgeureka t•c 15:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would love to support this, but 1) the ruler/yardstick is stuck in the shadow making reading it harder than it needs to be. 2) is the top supposed to be blue? not according to my newspaper who recently reported about the standard kilo losing weight. 3) the jpg choice means there's a lot of compression artifacts. - Mgm|(talk) 08:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The image itself is just a little bland and under-descriptive. I know its hard to present a measurement of weight visually, and I'm not sure this really adds enough to the article. Better than nothing in the article, but not a stand out for FP imho. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well, I see that the vote is certainly not going well, but it would be wrong of me to let Agüeybaná’s vote hang out there all by itself. So… WOW, what a cool-looking CG image! When you visit Kilogram article and you first lay eyes upon that article, one’s initial impression is that Wikipedia sure is one first-class online encyclopedia. Kudos the the techno-stud (whomever he may be) for the contribution! ;-) Greg L (my talk) 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'll throw my vote in there as well. It's a very striking and informative CG image. I can't imagine a better illustration of the subject. Kaldari 22:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I know this is a computer-generated image, not a graphic, but would it work in SVG format? I'm certainly defering to the graphics types around here on this, but it needs to be in the format that graphics folks agree is best for me to vote for it. Also, the length metric needs to be in SI units and you need to be able to see the ruler at least on both sides of the IPK. I think the bit of the inch-based ruler to the left of the IPK doesn't have any numbers on it; to give scale, I need to know the demarcations on the ruler. Also, it does look as if the top of the IPK is blue. Maybe an off-center blue spot-light would be better? This image has greatly improved the kilogram article, because other images (like the ones of all the bell jars linked on the kilogram page) just don't clearly show what the IPK looks like (even on the "artistic one" of K20 I can't tell if the edges are rounded or not) and I agree that it's really unrealistic to expect a free image of the IPK to ever be available. To summarize, I'd support if this image was 1)in format graphics folks recommend 2)SI unit length to compare and 3) not all blue on top. Enuja (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The top of the IPK is blue because a blue light is above and behind reflecting into it. This is similar to the Robert Rathe picture of K20 (except he used orange). That same blue light is what causes the blue cast projecting towards the viewer along both sides of the IPK. Typically, JPEG compression results in visual artifacts because a significant level of compression is used. In this particular case, the original, double-size image from the CG engine was saved as a TIFF file (lossless compression). I then reduced the image in size by a factor of two in Photoshop to further smooth the image and then saved it at a quality level of 12 (very highest quality level). At this compression level, there are zero detectable visual artifacts; the image is indistinguishable from its lossless original. Uploading the same image in another format would be trivial. I seriously doubt that anyone is going to change their vote based only on this issue. This picture is a contribution and there necessarily have to be limits to the amount of time I’m willing to invest into it. As I stated above, the ruler was already a solid model left over from previous projects. Creating new graduations and legends on the ruler would take hours, which I am not willing to do. You can't tell from the image, but this is a true 3D solid modeling program and the “ink” of the graduations are actually a thousandth of an inch thick. It takes time to make all that “ink.” The program also has a bug in it so I can't use the “4” “6”, “8”, “9”, and “0” digits because they hide the wood texture in their closed loops; that’s why numerals aren’t on the ruler past “3” (hidden behind the IPK). I never self-nominated this image because I knew this detail would come up. No one notices when it’s simply in the Kilogram article but when it’s a candidate for FP status, flaws like this take on new significance. The vast majority of the roughly six hours I spent making this image was in lighting the scene. And even then, I combined lighting from two different prior projects to expidite the process. If there are any who feel that having the full-size original being stored in another format besides JPEG is enough by itself to change their vote, post your answer. I'd be pleased to upload the file in another format. I chose (perhaps wrongly) JPEG under the theory it was most compact and would function faster on Wikipedia. Greg L (my talk) 06:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeI understand the use of CG-imagery to convey meaning or to present art and there can be crossover between the two. This image is art lurking under the auspice of mathematic and science. Real images obviously exist of the IPK and although they may not be as aesthetically pleasing as other FPs they convey much more meaning than this image. If the image were a diagram of dimensions, protection mechanisms, etc. it would be a better candidate FP material than a shiny CG-image with lighting/shading effects. The ruler really does nothing more than provide a simple reference for the vague scale of the object. When one looks at the image it conveys that the IPK is ~2inch metallic cylinder...that's all. From an artistic perspective, the images lighting effects are nice but overall composition could be better with the ruler hidden behind and the blue light choice of the composer. Buphoff 06:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaction: Yes. As you wrote, “real images obviously exist of the IPK…” The trouble is: they’re all copyrighted. See above. Greg L (my talk) 16:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Good for the article, but since this is a synthetic picture, it's not worthy of FP status IMO, since it lacks the "wow" factor that other featured CG images have. (PS: Why use an inch ruler? The kilogram is metric, at least to my knowledge... ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now now, lets not be bitter :) We're all trying to compliment you as much as possible while politely opposing --frotht 16:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't being bitter whatsover. I saw Janke’s smiley face, understood the humor he intended, and responded in kind. I do take note of the seeming hubris in your assumption that I need to be counseled by a college-age youngster. No offense taken though. Greg L (my talk) 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Computer-generated_kilogram&oldid=1136456659"