Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:45, 13 July 2007

Deletion of Image:Carburetor2.png

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Carburetor2.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. It has been nominated for deletion because it has been obseleted by a more recent version of the diagram. Thank you. WikipedianProlific 10:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

FPC

Your animation Image:Kochsim.gif has been nominated for Featured Picture. Beacause it has recieved some complaints over size and aliasing, I wonder if you might be able to upload a larger, anti-aliased version. It certatinly is interesting, and I would love to see a better version. J Are you green? 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added notes to the image description that may interest you.Cuddlyable3 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It really is an interesting illustration. Do you think that you could redo it as, perhaps, a 400 by 200 pixel animation in greyscale with antialiasing? I love the idea, and I would absolutely support a newer version. J Are you green? 20:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Increasing the pixel resolution is easy and just makes the file bigger. Rendering in a greyscale however would need some arbitrary process which goes beyond what the Koch curve defines. Aliasing is the result of sampling in space or time (see my image description notes) so there are several possible sources to consider. Strictly speaking, we should not see a 2-D line at all, nor the structure of the fully developed Koch curve. For a beautiful image, search out (Google) the sphereflake! Cuddlyable3 08:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's OK - I just thought it might have a chance if you could do that. J Are you green? 00:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To do anti-aliasing, just render it 3x as big as the final image, and shrink it down (e.g. with bi-cubic). Of course to do "perfect" anti-aliasing you'd need an infinitely large initial rendering, but it doesn't need to be perfect. A separate comment, there's too much white space as the bottom. —Pengo 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the means to do this and see the result? The code to draw the Koch curve is rather simple and I can help you with that if you wish. However you could also take the existing image (or just one frame of it) and reduce its size to 67 x 34 pixels; that simple exercise might save you some time and possible disapointment. As to the white space, you are right that it could be reduced. Cuddlyable3 19:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I reduced one frame - looks tiny but antialiased to me... If you upoload a new version of the Koch curve that is identical to this one except that it is rendered at, perhaps, 900 by 450 pixels, I can shrink it down for you to 300 by 150 pixels and get antialiasing as a side-effect, as Pengo suggested. J Are you green? 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

J, please post your reduced frame here if you can, so we can all see it. Since the object is scaling invariant we don't need to push especially large files through the Wiki server, do we?

I note that the antialiasing process Pengo describes if done on a 2-colour (monochrome) image generates a 16-colour (greyscale) image. This is because one filters by taking 3x3 blocks of pixels, using 3 different coefficients for center, mid-side and corner.

However I think a quest for an "antialiased" Koch curve by increasing pixel resolution will only lead to huge image files (slow to load) and no new aesthetic delight, until one has magnified it so much that the finite iteration limit of the curve computation becomes visible. At that stage you are just seeing a monochrome line figure, which is where it all started. Cuddlyable3 07:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK; here you go. It obviously is tiny, which is why I am asking you to render the original at 900 by 450 pixels. As for file size, relax. Your GIF is currently 4 KB; I cannot see a 900 by 450 version being more than 85 KB, still a really small file. If you upload a large verision over the current one, I'll downsample it for you. J Are you green? 20:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the resolution and limitations, its not really how much deatil is really there (especially for something like this where antialiasing will destroy that ultrafine detail) as how easy it is on the eye. To be honest, a 200 by 100 pixel image looks tiny on my screen (about 2 by 4 cm). I really wouldn't mind the lack detail so much as to have a larger, anti-aliased image. By the way, downsampling probably will destroy any visible limitations of the "finite iteration limit," so I wouldn't worry about that too much. J Are you green? 20:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK; there you go J. Cuddlyable3 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is my first time ever working with an animation, so forgive me if I did anything stupid... but here is my version. J Are you green? 00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

J, I was expecting you to reduce Kochsim2 33% as you did with the tiny image, which has grey pixels. Kochsim3 is reduced only 66% and, from the looks of it, is still 2-colour (it's hard to see at the moment as I am on an office computer. I find that I can freeze the frame by jiggling energetically with the mouse!).Cuddlyable3 08:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I reduced it to 66 % because it had a sufficient enough anti-aliasing effect for me. It is four shades of grey. I can upload one reduced to 300 pixels if you wish, but adding more shades of grey makes my computer play the animation too slowly. J Are you green? 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the big image with one that A) shows only the points along the finite Koch curve that I have been using in these animations, without connecting them with straight lines, and B) has a finer time resolution. I find it interesting that A) the thinning out of points density during the zoom can always be hidden by storing a higher iterated curve. (Mine has 4097 points which was adequate for the original 200x100 pixel illustration.) B) The subjective effect of the continuous zoom is not linear! We have self-similarity in shape but I think we need the time scale (or the zoom ratios) to be exponential to get a smooth zoom. Cuddlyable3 10:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fuel Injection Talk Page Comments Deleted

Please cease and desist a potential revert war over comments I made on the talk page for fuel injection. The comments made ARE NOT covered by WP:RPA as they are not a personal attack on yourself, furthermore WP:RPA is an essay and is not official policy. The points you are removing were actually made themselves regarding some comments you left on my talk page and user page that were quite malicious (ironically themselves a personal attack on my credibility and motives. If I recall I believe you were suggesting i was somehow pushing my portfolio for personal gain rather than the best interests of the wiki).

They were comments that were relevant to that article and remain so, therefore they should stay. Personal attacks are not this kind of thing, they are name calling, racist/slanderous/libellous comments for example. Factually accurate information, for example informing other editors of a wide ranging conflict you and I had been having, was in the interest of the article and was/is not covered by WP:RPA. Equally, if you go to the RPA article, at the very top it informs you that it is not official policy and simply an opinionated essay. Talk page comments should not usually be edited like this. If you wish to add further points to a talk page it is best to raise it as a new point rather than deleting old (especially still relevant) points. I emplore you to let this matter rest as it has been dead and buried (or so I thought) for some months now, and I thought we had quite adultly resolved the whole matter. I fail to see why you now feel these comments should be removed? I will escalate the matter to administration if nessessary as I feel strongly that the comments should remain. I am not ashamed of what I said there and feel it still holds relevance to the nature of the discussion we were having, as everything I said was factually accurate. WikipedianProlific 19:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you have once again reverted comments i made on the article page once again simply quoting WP:RPA in the comments line I will have to escalate the matter to administration. I had hoped we might be able to solve the dispute in an adult manner between the two of us however that seems unlikely as you seem unwilling to discuss it. We have already established that WP:RPA doesnt cover this and ISNT policy anyway, its just an essay. Therefore I am interested to see what your logic is behind these moves. WikipedianProlific 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionally please see Misplaced Pages, Refactoring Talk Pages. I quote from that article "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page". You openly accused my of using wikipedia as an art gallery to furhter my own gain? Not good faith. Secondly, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted" I have openly objected to the changes. This is because "Refactoring may cause confusion if improperly applied to an ongoing discussion". Unlike WP:RPA, WP:RTA is policy. I hope by bringing this to your attention you can better understand my positon on the matter. WikipedianProlific 13:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)