Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hurricane Emily 1915z July 14 2005.jpg

Hurricane Emily 1915z July 14 2005.jpg

This is the most beautiful picture of a Hurricane I've ever seen. It appears in the Hurricane Emily article, and is from: http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/hurseas2005/Emily1915z-050714-1kg12.jpg I've never used a Wikipedia picture for my wallpaper -- but I had to make an exception for this one. It's striking.

Nominate and support. - The Peacemaker 06:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Computer drawn surely (just look at the 1920px version). If this is so then I would not support it since plenty of genuine photos of hurricanes are available - Adrian Pingstone 07:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Most definitely. I think there is already a featured picture of a hurricane, and it's real. Phoenix2 23:04, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the land on most weather sat photos are computer compiled. PPGMD 02:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point. I'm saying that the clouds themselves are computer drawn. Have another look at the peripheral clouds on the 1920px version. I'm not talking about the green land surface - Adrian Pingstone 10:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The clouds are photographic from GOES-12's visible camera. The photographic clouds are textured on a 3d cloud height surface, generated by computer from other data. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

( + ) Support It was hard deciding on this one, because the clouds around the hurricane look crummy, but the actual hurrican (in particular the eye) looks great in the 3D. --Fir0002 10:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - a strange mixture of computer-generated height data on the pics edges and normal photography in the central areas - Adrian Pingstone 12:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's computer-generated height data with photographs overlaid throughout the entire image. It's just that the heights are noticably discontinuous outside the hurricane (individual thunderstorms), and relatively flat inside (central dense overcast). -- Cyrius|✎ 18:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your explanation but I still hate the look of the pics outer edges - Adrian Pingstone 22:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like them either, I'm just trying to keep the facts straight. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you're looking for a "real" picture, I believe this one of Dennis is real and is quite beautiful: Image:Hurricane Dennis on July 7 2005 1550 UTC.jpg. --tomf688^(talk) 21:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Based on the computer generated height data on the pics edges and the fact there are other alternatives in wikipedia already. David D. 17:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support PPGMD 22:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for above reasons. Enochlau 06:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not promoted This link is Broken 13:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]