Original - A photo of Victoria Crater, Mars - with colour adjusted to produce a more realistic image - based on the images from the older missions where real-colour cameras were used (ones that don't pipe through filters to create multiple black and white images which are later recombined) as this is a more reliable method. The ground now also matches recent photos of Mars taken from altitude.
Reason
It is high quality, high resolution and provides an accurate photo of mars
Support as nominator --Scottcabal (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's already featured. Do you want to replace? I'm not at all convinced yours is more correct since skies on Mars are meant to be red due to suspended dust, the producers are the guys who made and run the camera, the Viking blue skies were due to incorrect calibration, yours looks a lot like the false color version and HiRISE is not true color but near IR + red + cyan. MER-C 12:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if it was incorrectly calibrated can you explain why the ground pics with a dark red sky have a significantly different colour to the ones from above the ground? the sky should be a misty white/blue rather than just blue or dark red which is what i've tried to show in this pic, as well as showing the ground colour to be correct - just look on the page about the Victoria Crater on here... the ground in the pic I uploaded, and the aerial pic of the crater match. I guess If you were physically there it could appear slightly darker than I have shown due to the distance of the sun, but the colouration would be the same. Scottcabal (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the aerial pics are not true color while the ground ones are. MER-C 00:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the image no longer appears in any articles. Speedy close. (I feel a little too involved to nuke this myself). MER-C 00:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think there is potential for improvement in the featured image. They should have calibrated these values before putting them on the guns. Once again, we have an example of a histogram with huge amounts of dead space, and I can actually get a version very close to Scottcabal's by executing an auto-WB command. If we're going to feature an image of Mars that isn't true colour, we might as well use the full dynamic range we have available in our output medium. At the very least, the contrast should be stretched. Oppose speedy at this point. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Color channels can be edited independently in GIMP without taking the image apart first, using curves for instance, or using the Color->Decompose/Recompose mechanism (which automatically creates the layers you're referring to). As it stands, the image seems very poorly calibrated since there's dead space both in the value view (i.e. all three "channels" have *some* dead space) as well as the blue gun specifically. Even if the blue gun were to carry a blue wavelength channel, and blue light were underrepresented on Mars, I'm not sure that's an excuse to consign the blue gun to being only 2/3 used, rather than compromising on the final image not having the correct hues as the human brain would reconstruct them (were a human observer actually present on Mars, without a color-filtering visor), but in return giving the user a contrast-rich image. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Upon close inspection this image is fairly drab. Not worthy of FP. Why is 'color-accurate' better than an adjusted histogram image? Teque5 (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
