Talk:Multispectral imaging/Archive 1

Archive 1

Multi-spectral image

This article definately needs some work as it appears a lot points to it and there is a difference between a multispectral image and *imaging*. I did not put up the cleamup notice but I will clean this up a bit but I am fairly certain I will not be able to bring this up to snuff, and will leave this for some one else to add on to my changes and decide it is sufficient. I will jsut get the ball rolling. Magu 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As a satellite imagery lay person, "Multi-spectral is the opposite of panchromatic" makes no sense at all. Opposite like north-south and black-white? Or like apples-oranges? --Knulclunk 16:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Both mid-infrareds are called short wave infrared (SWIR) by most of the world. Midwave infrared is usually the 3-5 µm band for thermal radiation. The so called thermal infrared is usually called long wave infrared (LWIR). There is generally a crossover into millimeter waves where it is still called 'infrared'. This regime is more recently being called terraherz. 135 µm is considered infrared in some applications and terraherz in others.

rr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.225.107.17 (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How about spelling it properly!

There should NOT be a hyphen in MULTISPECTRAL. The article is schizoid with regard to the spelling but the proper one should NOT have the hyphen!

Yes. I'll move it after waiting a couple days for any objections. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Requesting a move

Oh. This is how it's done nowadays. I'm a filemover in Commons and do them there myself, but not here in en. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Multi-spectral image → Multispectral image – The other multispectral articles use it as one word, as do people in the business, as mentioned above. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support – there's no reason for the hyphen. Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Vsmith (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiki etiquette help

I am very deeply involved with macro-scale multispectral imaging - for example the mention of the Archimedes palimpsest references work that I have done. I think this article could benefit from adding information about macro-scale MSI, since at the moment there is (some) extraneous data which leaves the reader with the incorrect impression that MSI is a satellite based technique when in fact it is mainly used for lab applications (I would probably say anything involving satellites is hyperspectral, but I'm not an expert in that field). There are also many more uses for MSI than the article mentions, and so perhaps most importantly I would be able to tie MSI as a technique into other fields with the judicious use of wiki markup language

However, because I am so involved with particular MSI techniques I am slightly concerned my edits will come across as 'propaganda' for the techniques and machines my company consults with. Obviously I do not intend to do this deliberately, but all the information I can add will necessarily be focused on areas I have worked in, and that inevitably means areas where our MSI techniques edge out competing techniques

Please could someone advise what the correct way to declare an interest is before I make any substantial edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.142.159 (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome; we can use some help from someone who actually knows the topic. The whole area of spectral imaging in Wikipedia is badly organized. Perhaps this is in part because WP:EXPERTs have written about their particular narrow interest without much connecting it with other methods and applications of which they show little awareness. As an experienced Wikipedian with a casual interest in the topic (mainly through a casual interest in astronomy) I cannot hope to handle the technical issues but may be able to suggest ways to navigate through the thickets of Wikipractice.

To start off, you have tripped over one of the least important customs when you put a new topic at the top of a talk page instead of the bottom. A trivial matter, which I have fixed. Anyway your concerns are real and a lot of canned guidance has been prepared for similar circumstances, including WP:COI and WP:EXPERT. Of course you don't have to read everything that's been officially written about such matters since thousands of us WP:WATCHLISTers are ready to pounce on transgressions, and sometimes we remember to be WP:POLITE when it's clearly just an innocent slip.

One of the first tools for handling such questions is to open a WP:ACCOUNT which comes with a WP:USERPAGE where you can put your autobiography so far as it's relevant to your Wikiactivities. Be careful not to use a corporate name as part your username; I just use my real name but the majority use the name of their favorite fairy, football team, Renaissance painter or whatever.

The palimpsest in question is mentioned briefly in Multispectral image and has its own article which, at my first glance, does not go deeply into the methods that were used in picking out the old words. So yes, so far as there are good WP:SOURCEes (on Web are nice but not necessary) then a good clear description for beginners would be welcome. Usually it's better to start by making a new technical section in an existing article and, if it develops well, should be WP:SPLIT off into its own technical article. But please do check around among the various related articles and, if you can do something broader to organize the complex to be more coherent and more balanced, give some thought to that, too. As an example, far as I can see, nowhere in Wikipedia do we have a mention that there is such a thing as "macro-scale" MSI, which to me suggests starting with defining the differences and affinities in contexts, aims and methods between this and whatever the others may be.

Anyway, contributions from someone who actually knows a topic are always welcome. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)