Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mandelbrot Spiral Cleft 2

Mandelbrot_Spiral_Cleft_2

Clear and striking Mandelbrot set image. This appears in Mandelbrot set. It was created by David R. Ingham. It looks like a science fiction cover because it is purely mathematical in origin and has no direct connection with reality. Fine detail was averaged out by down-sampling.

Nominate and support. - David R. Ingham 20:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is one of the best (and certainly the most colourful) fractal images I've ever seen. Raven4x4x 03:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 18:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Image:Mandelpart2.jpg is already featured. Do we need a second featured Mandelbrot? Also, why did you resample it. As pointed out several times, upload highest resolution and let mediawiki resample. --Dschwen 23:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I much prefer this picture to Image:Mandelpart2.jpg, so that isn't a problem in my case. Raven4x4x 00:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, we have 2 fractals already featured. image:buddhabrot-deep.jpg is featured too.Circeus 19:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but you can't really say that the image:buddhabrot-deep.jpg and this one are similar enough to disqualify this one from being featured. Raven4x4x 09:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A photo has finite resolution in the first place. With fractals, it seems to me that whether and how to resample fundamentally change the character of the image. I will upload the point by point calculation if requested, but I don't condider it to be the same picture. It has only colors in the color lookup table. If someone with a larger computer wants my colorset and coordinates, they are welcome to re-do it with higher resolution. So I feel that this is the highest resolution version of this particular image.David R. Ingham 03:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's all a matter of personal taste, but I think this is a slightly ugly and not very striking image. There are multiple better pictures on the same page: take, for example, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fractal-zoom-1-03-Mandelbrot_Buzzsaw.png
Support - unbelievably beautiful JoJan 16:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Considering the large number of potential candidates, for mathematical creations such as Mandelbrot sets, I think we need to set the bar high. In any case, the currently featured one as linked above is better; for this one, the colours aren't terribly nice. Enochlau 15:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
( − ) Oppose The colors to me are terrible, and as Enochlau says, for something like Madelbrots which can be quite easily created, the bar has to be high --Fir0002 21:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Garish coloring. I like the coordinate choice better than current FP Image:Mandelpart2.jpg's, though. —Cryptic (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Colors too bright, and there's an infinite number of fractals that we can nominate; thus, they have to be exceptional. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've seen much better images of the Mandelbrott Set. - JustinWick 01:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that some others are shown in more that one version so I am adding my other version. From a data visualization point of view, this shows less, but some may prefer it artisticly.David R. Ingham 21:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted , but it's featured in my book. Although I do see where the opposers are coming from: I put it as my wallpaper and the rest of the family told me to get rid of it. :) Raven4x4x 04:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]