Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Andromeda Galaxy

Andromeda Galaxy (infrared)

Reason: High res, great quality. Enormous EV, this is one of the best known galaxies in the universe, at least to us. Definitely the best quality image we have of it from the project.
Articles this image appears in: Andromeda Galaxy, Spitzer Space Telescope, Andromeda's satellite galaxies, Time in physics
Creator: Spitzer Space Telescope

Support as nominator --—Ceranthor 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the source of the colour in this image? Is there a larger version available? (Note the "halfsize" in the file name). Noodle snacks (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image appears to be colorized (arbitrarily - it could have easily been green or blue) based on incoming light at λ = 24 μm. See here. Higher resolution image. MER-C 10:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support high rez The one MER-C linked to above.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support high rez: Plenty of EV. ~~But for me, the wow factor is lacking, i'd prefer a regular colour picture.~~ (Striked because people mistook what I meant. (it was worded poorly) – Jerry^teps 08:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Infrared by definition doesn't have a visible colour, so I guess what you are really saying is that you'd prefer a real-colour image of the galaxy rather than infrared, but the actual information gained from it would be completely different and not comparable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you misunderstood what I was saying (It was worded poorly). It's that in my opinion, the infrared picture does not have as much visual appeal as a real colour picture would. But the picture has information that a real colour picture could never capture, it's that i'm taking a few "points" off because an infrared picture does not have the same visual appeal in my opinion as a real colour picture does. I shouldn't really of mentioned because it's not really that relevant since i'm still supporting and nothing could be done to fix it without loosing current detail. – Jerry^teps 23:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Conditional support and comment You cannot get a "regular color picture" of this - it is an image of one single wavelength of infrared (24 micron)! This is a dramatic contrast to the traditional view at visible wavelengths, as the source page states. This info must be in the caption for me to support (only the hi-res version) ! --Janke | Talk 09:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was about to upload the high rez to a new file name when I realized it's about 21MB, whereas the halfsize is about 1KB. I expected it to be bigger, but not by four orders of magnitude. Can someone explain this discrepancy? (And upload a possibly compressed version of the hi rez to Commons?)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1,014 KB means 1.014 MB. Some countries use commas as thousands separator, others as decimal point. So, it's only 2 times 1 order of magnitude... --Janke | Talk 13:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes more sense. (Even so, 20x the size for about 4x or 5x the area?) Oh well.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support High Res The high resolution version when it gets uploaded. I think the arbitrary colouring needs to be mentioned somewhere though. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Full version uploaded, but can we move the file so that it's not "halfsize"? —Ceran [ speak ] 12:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Andromeda galaxy Ssc2005-20a1 halfsize.jpg --Fir0002 07:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: has since been moved to File:Andromeda galaxy Ssc2005-20a1.jpg, due to move on Commons. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]