Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Micro image of a pixel

800 x enlargement of a pixel

**Original** - A single pixel, enlarged 800 times.

Reason: Highly ecyclopedic, extremely detailed due to 800 x enlargement. Top image quality, even though it just barely fulfills our size requirement, it is razor-sharp.
Articles this image appears in: pixel, only for today!
Creator: User:Janke

Support as nominator Janke | Talk 12:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support High encyclopedic value. Tomdobb (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Despite the excessive noise, I must insist that this image is used in Black hole. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too dark and noisy, unfortunate framing. Should be white, normalized to the 1600x1200 standard and denoised (it is obviously pixelated) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support High encyclopedic value and good technique --Luc Viatour (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unfortunately, the subject does not take up enough of the image, given the size requirements. Next time make sure you use a higher power zoom on your camera. Also appears to be a bit out of focus. Was the pixel in motion or is it just due to shaky hands? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-01 13:57Z
Strong Support very high enc, massive historical value, impossible to reproduce. Quite possibly one of the most informative diagrams I've ever seen on FPC. E∞T∞A∞ —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Doesn't work as a thumbnail. I can only see the "un-enlarged" pixel at full image size on my monitor. If adopted, we will have to restrict use to only the full size image due to technical limitations! Rmhermen (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement Neutral - Unbelievable enc, but should be SVG Uberlemur (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Support a good April Fool's joke --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong comment. Caption needs to point out that the depicted pixel is black, because otherwise we'd never know. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support So that's what they look like up close. Massively important image, how else would anyone know what a pixel looks like, they're normally too small to see.C hris_huh^talk 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Arrow is clearly not at exactly a bearing of 135^o, hence no reflective symmetry in the top-left to bottom-right diagonal. Centy – reply• contribs – 15:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Would support color version. Also, where is the tail? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This pixel doesn't walk through walls... --Janke | Talk 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose This is not a single black pixel enlarged 800 times, it's actually 640,000 black pixels together in a herd. Might work in the 640000 black pixels article. Matt Deres (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Pstuart84 Talk 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Pstuart84 Talk 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not used in any articles. Someone didn't get the joke. ::cough, cough:: tiZom_(2¢) 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lawful Neutral, I'll be keeping my eye out for anyone trying to close this nomination too early *glares* gren グレン 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supportoppose Its atypically posed and not in its natural habitat. ^8thstar 19:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - to me this is just a big black box --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 19:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You need a bigger monitor. That would make it an even bigger black box. You might be able to adjust the color settings on your monitor and thereby change the color of the box. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughtful Suppose Dust on SLR sensor? Oppose per unnatural environs and inability to tell if this is the front or back of the animal. Excessive oversharpening. Blocky JPG artifacts present. Should be SVG, but just because this is an SVG doesn't mean it gets a free pass. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) —Preceding comment was added at 21:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Downright unencyclopedic, pixels aren't androngenous. Please ID and replace the symbol. Thegreenj 21:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs to be antialiased. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]