Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/80486DX2 200x

80486DX2 200x

This image provides a good visual for explaining integrated circuits and microprocessors, and is an unusual find on Wikipedia at this resolution. I think it's rather striking and is a good supplement to Image:80486dx2-large.jpg. At the very least, it's a nice change of subject compared with the typical featured picture nominees. Note: I had originally uploaded a slightly different image ([1]), but went with this one because it's a good bit sharper.

Nominate and support. - uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 00:47Z
Weak oppose (prefer Edit 1) ~~Low saturation,~~ vignetting, and ~~barrel distortion~~ HighInBC 01:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's pretty difficult to avoid with my microscope setup. For an extra $2k or so I could probably do something about it. Anyway, if this image is doomed because of prevailing circumstances, so be it. I doubt there are many other folks on Wikipedia who could produce this picture, though. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 04:15Z

I know how you feel, I have been trying for months to take a FP with my $300 camera, and I have not even got one I would nominate. HighInBC 04:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see what I can do with that image in photoshop. HighInBC 04:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool... By the way, the color (or lack thereof) in the image isn't incorrect. The materials you're seeing are most likely aluminum and silicon dioxide. The colors you see in the whole-die shot are largely from diffusion, refraction, and the very different lighting condition. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 04:38Z

HighinBC ... yeah me too... I have like 6000 pics with my canon S500 and not one is FP material. I have some close ones but nothing that is Fir quality. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose This is a very interesting picture. Too bad you cannot obtain a picture quality comparable to your featured whole die picture of the processor. Glaurung 06:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose it's a great picture, and that's most obvious in how much I really really want to see beyond the edges of the black, but I really would rather have a picture with more in the frame, since we can only see a single small part in this one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You guys do realize this is under an optical microscope, right? 200x magnification, remember? Used an optical microscope lately? The limited coverage of the objective is due to the magnification, comes with the territory, and is unavoidable; as is the circular viewing area and to some extent the vignetting (though it is admittedly worse here than it could be). Sure I could tile several of these things together and produce a lovely rectangular picture, but that has its own problems and I'd prefer not to seriously mess with an image other than to correct minor defects (like the barrel distortion). Lordy, would you folks fault an AFM picture for not showing enough of the target? Images produced by good microscope optics will NOT look the same as those produced by a 35 mm lens and while I don't claim that this picture is perfect, I rather think some of you are expecting a microscope to be a super macro lens pointed at a well-lit target. I can't help but notice that most (all?) of the featured micro-"photographs" on WP are produced by SEM, not by optics... Am I to understand that microscope optics produce sub-standard pictures and that I must use SEM in the future? If that's the case let me know and I won't bother nominating pictures produced by optical microscopy in the future. Sorry for the rant. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-26 20:14Z

That's fine, nobody is saying that the photograph was poorly taken, as you explained the problem clearly lies in the equipment used. The fact that there were technical limitations to the photo does not excuse it from the aestetic opinions of those who vote here. The standards of featured pictures is kept high on purpose. It is a great picture worthy of inclusion in the enclyclopedia and surely helps it's article greatly, but a featured picture needs to be an example of wikipedia's best. There are images that are much like yours such as Image:Microphoto-butterflywing3.jpg and Image:Microphoto-butterflywing4.jpg, and their are others of higher quality such as Image:Wirebond-ballbond.jpg and Image:Diatoms through the microscope.jpg. Now ask yourself if we are really being unfair or unreasonable opposing based on these technical faults? Is this image an example of wikipedia's best work? This is about the picture, we are not trying to judge you. Sorry for the rant. hehe HighInBC 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I didn't meant to suggest I perceive some slight towards me. No, far be it from me to get upset about something like this. I just think that there might be some irrational 35 mm bias going on... Not that my conspiracy theories are likely to change anyone's opinion, but I thought I might as well comment on it. To directly answer your question, yeah, I do think this is some of the best work you will see from an optical microscope on Wikipedia. Maybe I could do a bit better with some more time and maybe I could spend a week trying to get time on an SEM, but I obviously thought this was a possibility for fulfilling FP requirements, otherwise I wouldn't have nominated it. Anyway, I'm done ranting... I respect the validity of most of the criticisms raised. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-27 01:30Z
Oppose I can appreciate the difficulty, but the colors/vignetting combined with a none to sensational subject just don't make this image special enough for FP status IMO. A nice image all the same. --Fir0002 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I already explained the color. I don't know what else I can do other than inaccurately add false color to match whatever prior expectations you have... -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-26 20:27Z
Oppose. Per Fir0002. --Tewy 19:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 00:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]