Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Comet 17P/Holmes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Comet 17P/Holmes

Original
Original
Reason
It is one remarkable comet, really once in a life time opportunity and you do not need a telescope to see it. It is not as spectacular as Comet McNaught was, yet it is really, really unique.
Proposed caption
17P/Holmes is a periodic comet in our solar system, discovered by the British amateur astronomer Edwin Holmes on November 6, 1892. In only 42 hours in October 2007, the comet brightened from a magnitude of about 17 to about 2.8. This represents a change of brightness by a factor of about a half million times, and is the largest known outburst by a comet. Few days ago this comet was bigger than the Sun! The image shows the ion tail of the comet. Now the comet has lost her tail and you could see it no more. The nomited image was published on APOD
Articles this image appears in
17P/Holmes
Creator
Ivan Eder
  • Support as nominator Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The image is small, yet the subject is taking the whole frame, so should be OK IMO. Please, support the image, or oppose it or do not vote at all, but do go out and look at this amazing comet.Here's the image, which I took today from my backyard with 55 mm lens, which shows the comet as an easy naked eye object. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Image is on the small side but the subject takes up the whole image. It's been mostly cloudy the last week so I haven't seen the comet in a while. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-20 17:29Z
  • Support - Great photo! ALSO - a high res image online at [1] if the author will allow it to be uploaded instead! Tom Ruen (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Tom, I'm afraid I cannot upload a higher resolution image. The author gave me personal permission to use his photo, yet he specificly allowed only this small image to be uploaded to Wikipedia. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would like to see more info about the picture before supporting the nomination. It looks stunning. But how was it taken, using what equipment, what post-processing (Photoshop, gimp) has been applied? Acting the devil's advocate here, I am not even sure it is a real picture without more information. Mlewan (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Here are picture details:
      instrument: TMB 130/780 apochromat with field flattener
      camera: modified Canon EOS 350D (Baader filter inside)
      mount: Synta EQ6 + Boxdörfer DynoStar
      guiding 72/500 refractor, SBIG St-4
      exposure time: 15x5min at ISO800
      location, date: Mount Pilis (near to Budapest), Hungary; 11.04.2007
      observing conditions:transparency: 7/10, seeing: 2/10, temp.: +3°C
      processing:Iris, Registar, Photoshop Neat Image
      I'd like to add few words about astro photography to explain a little bit what this all means. The creator of the image used a telescope with equatorial mount. This type of mount could follow the sky movement (for at least some time) in order to show the stars as points and not as star trails. He took 15 exposures (for 5 minutes each) and then he stacked them in one image using Registar. It is a very common practice in astrophotograpgy. I hope it answers your question. Thank you --Mbz1 (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Support - Just what I wanted to know! Thanks! Mlewan (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Great photo, and although its size is below the usual FP recommendation, it is already enlargened (and still has a really good quality). Actually, it's so good that it almost looks fake. Not your everyday photo. – sgeureka t•c 14:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Great photo, but this is the only image that shows any kind of tail. From my understanding, the tail is pointed away from the Earth. Others have used more exposure and not imaged any tail. I would advise caution until the image can be verified or repeated. Robogun (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid you are mistaking, when you stated that it was the only image, which shows any kind of tail. I'd say it is the only image at Wikipedia, which shows any kind of tail. Please take a look at NASA site and you could find quite a few other images, which show the tail. The tail was visible only for few days and only with very good scopes. As I mentioned in the caption the image was published at APOD. I'm very sure they did a good verification of the image. IMO before opposing the image for such a reason it may be better to ask a question first. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for pointing that out. I now support the nomination. Robogun (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe it was my fault. I should have mentioned the story with the tail in the beginning. Could you, please, cross out your Oppose? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A higher resolution version exists. Look here.[2] If that image is recognized, I will vote to support, becuase the image is beautiful. However, I oppose the small version. TheOtherSiguy Oppose, due to it's resolution being far too small, and there are better high resolution images of the comet out there.TheOtherSiguy (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - This is the best Holmes picture I have seen on the web.Bandi bacsi18:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC) — Bandi bacsi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 'Neutral'Oppose: Seriously? This is the highest resolution we can get? A little on the small side? I think you lose a lot with an astrophoto that is at this low resolution, a lot. I am leaning oppose because of the size, it isn't just a bit on the small size, it's downright tiny. IvoShandor (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • IMO the nominated image is the best image I've seen (and I've seen many). I was not able to get a higher resolution of this image, but of course you're welcome to try. After all even, if the image will get FP status, it always could be de-listed, if a better one would became available later on. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Historical importance and irreproducibility of the shot negates the low resolution. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a note, the comet is still observable, hardly irreplacable.IvoShandor (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid the tail of the comet is gone and the brightness is diminishing. She still could go to other outburst and obtain an other tail. After all it is not the first known outburst of this comet. It happend 115 years ago and btw also in November. It is how otherwise a very dim comet was seen and discovered--Mbz1 (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If a similar photo is to be taken there's a window of only a few days, after the moon clears. It would have to be from a dark-sky site. (unless for some reason another outburst happens) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Sagittarian Milky Way. You are absolutely right about the Moon light. I did take the image of the comet today with the full Moon present, but it became increasingly difficult even to find the comet and to see where to point my camera to. Even, if the Moon light would be out of the way, a similar photo cannot be taken because the tail of the comet is there no more even with a very, very dark sky and with a very good telescope. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Too bad. This photo was taken earlier than I thought. Given the diameter, it's surface brightness should still be above that of a dark sky. Must be the dust cloud hogging all of the brightness.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to inadequate resolution. -- Moondigger (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose (sorry!)Even though the subject takes up a large part of the picture, b/c of the low resolution, the picture does not have the degree of detail that we have come to expect of FPs. Moreover, there's something about the appearance of this picture that seems somehow artificial; almost as if it were CG or something (the head of the comet and the aura surrounding it especially). (see my comment 5 indents below for details) --Malachirality (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    (Comment) It is processed to some degree, but I'm sure nothing artificial. Its hard to get such faint detail without brighter elements washing out, or without any movement. FP or not, I'm certainly glad for even a lores version on Wikipiedia. Comparative images I know of: [3] and [4]. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a useful/valuable picture no doubt, but I was more addressing FP concerns. That is, the the head of the comet almost appears stationary, is so perfectly round, and so evenly shaded (it almost looks like an .svg), when in fact comets are large, dirty, chunks of melting ice/dust hurtling through space at great speeds. Because of this, the picture appears unrealistic (I have never seen a picture of a comet, or any space image for that matter, look like this image, although my experience in this area is admittedly narrow). The point being, I guess, that this picture does not seem true-to-life to me, which undermines its essential EV (enc. value). If you or someone else can prove to me otherwise, then I'll gladly modify my vote. --Malachirality (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Ummm... I don't think anything can be proved, but the center is white for being completely overexposed, and even the overexposed center is still merely a diffuse sphere of dust. The comet itself is smaller than a single pixel, so it's all dust we're seeing. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What's EV? The picture is looking down the comet's foreshortened tail at only 14 degrees, weird stuff can happen at that angle. Like an elephant's view of it's nose. How do you know it's stationary? This is not a movie. What you see is so big (100x Earth), it could be going 13 miles a second and still take a whole day to move it's size. The icechunk itself is 0.001 pixels wide. It's symmetrical basically because this is an explosion, all of this came out of one event, — before October 23rd, there was nothing there, (maybe the tiniest 3 pixel ghost). In space, an explosion never ends. You haven't seen anything like this because this hasn't really happened before (not to this degree). Anyway, if you look closely you can see it's not completely round.
Minor note: the comet moved about 5 (wikipedia resolution) pixels upwards against the stars during the time it took the picture to be taken. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So I guess I kind of didn't really know what I was talking about/looking at earlier, but even though that that's been cleared, the original concerns still remain. Namely, this image is misleading (and thus not enc.) because it does not actually depict the comet (I thought for the longest time that the white "ball" in front was the comet head). Moreover, the most important part of the picture, the explosion, is overexposed and contains no detail; b/c of this, it's difficult and confusing to discern what the giant white mass actually is. It's obviously an interesting shot (once I actually figured out what it was) and the difficulty reflects the prowess of the photographer no doubt, but it fails on several FP criteria IMO. --Malachirality (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think it's an attractive image, though I'm not convinced that it's telling us anything much about the comet and why the comet is interesting. I notice on the spaceweather site some pictures which attempt to show how the comet grows in brightness, and I find those more interesting and helpful. This image lacks context and self-evident explanation, is small, over processed, and looks like a painting for the cover of Sci-Fi novel. I do like it, but not as a FP. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not overprocessed, just really long exposure. This isn't even a short+long composite. If your eyeballs were hugely sensitive telescopes the size of rooms or dinner tables you'd see this too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment IMO one of the prove that the image is real is that it was selected out of hundreds of images to be published at APOD. Two guys, who select the images for APOD are great specialists in astro photography. The other prove could be found by looking at the other pictures of the comet at Spaceweather.com site, for example. In any case the main idea behind nominating the image was to evoke interest to this amazing comet (and in this my goal I have succeeded (IMO)). Thank you all very much for the interest to the subject and for your votes and comments.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: I would point out that the dirty snowball theory of comets, expounded above, was kind of knocked on its heels by the Stardust spacecraft's visit to Wild 2. Comet composition is the subject of scientific debate.IvoShandor (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll defer to you on that point, but IMO it's a moot point, as the picture does not represent what I thought it depicted when I made the "dirty snowball" criticism. --Malachirality (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The mention of dirty snowball reminded me one funny story from few years ago. I've asked my supervisor, if he's seen the comet, which was visible at that time. He responded: "What is there to see, just a fuzzy ball". Then I wrote the poem. Here it is:

She really looks as fuzzy ball,
But one can use imagination,
She's faint and she is rather small,
Yet she bears magical sensation.
Like bride would fly to handsome groom
She flies to Sun in time and space,
She's very old, yet she's in bloom,
Her tail as train filled up with grace.
She dreams their first, their wedding night,
Her ring is asteroid belt,
And yes, she's ready to excite,
If even it would mean to melt.
Sorry for the poem and for my English. I just could not resist this "dirty snowball".--Mbz1 (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)