Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/animhorse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Animated Horse
- Reason
- It's just a rotoscoped version of the Edward Muybridge classic.. which is already featured
- Nominator
- ffroth
- Delist — ffroth 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delist per nom. Cacophony 22:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delist, for the love of God. Spikebrennan 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. You make it sound like rotoscoping is trivial crap. The anim is used in several articles and illustrates something completely different from the original muybridge animation. --Dschwen 05:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per Dschwen. de Bivort 07:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Haven't we been through this enough times already with this image? howcheng {chat} 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Question Why is this animation faster than the version of the original that we've got? Enuja (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I thought exactly the same thing. Not that I know much about rotoscoping, but to me that would indicate that it may not have been done all that well (maybe it would be nothing onerous to slow it down?). I actually prefer the other, newer version in the article, if we really wanted one for rotoscoping (see third image here). --jjron 07:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I understand that these sequences are very much slowed down from the actual speed of horse galloping; I just wanted to know if Janke used the version featured here at wikipedia to rotoscope, and if we could compare the rotoscoped animation with an animation at the same speed of the images used to make the animation. I haven't voted yet because the problem I have with the rotoscoped animation is that the horse's hooves appear to collide, and I wanted to compare and see if, at the same speed, the original that Janke used also make it look as if the hooves collide. If it is simply the speed, I will vote to keep this as a featured image, (with a suggestion to slow it down to better see what is going on) if it is that the hoof size has been increased, I will vote to delist it. If I can't tell, I will not vote. Enuja (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Of course hoof-size has been increase, just as hair-do-size, eye-size and snout-size. You might not have noticed that the Muybridge original is not having a smirky smile either. It's a cartoon for crying out loud. And there is a place for this in an encyclopedia too. Don't be ashamed of it! --Dschwen 04:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply to Enuja: It's not from the same series of Muybridge photos. I have three books by him, and this is rotoed from one of the dozens (maybe even hundreds) of horses in the books. The motion is accurately traced, but yes, as Dschwen says, there's a lot of exaggeration, in order to achieve the cartoony look. AFAIK, there are no other pure animated cartoons featured on Wikipedia - check Category:Wikipedia_featured_animations. The speed of my animation is in fact more natural than the other examples - just imagine the often heard clippety-clop gallop sound when watching, and you'll see! Furthermore, this cartoon illustrates the animation techniques of "looping", "shooting on twos", and persistence of vision, as explained in the relevant articles. (PS: "hooves colliding" is just a matter of the perspective/camera angle...) --Janke | Talk 09:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Of course hoof-size has been increase, just as hair-do-size, eye-size and snout-size. You might not have noticed that the Muybridge original is not having a smirky smile either. It's a cartoon for crying out loud. And there is a place for this in an encyclopedia too. Don't be ashamed of it! --Dschwen 04:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I understand that these sequences are very much slowed down from the actual speed of horse galloping; I just wanted to know if Janke used the version featured here at wikipedia to rotoscope, and if we could compare the rotoscoped animation with an animation at the same speed of the images used to make the animation. I haven't voted yet because the problem I have with the rotoscoped animation is that the horse's hooves appear to collide, and I wanted to compare and see if, at the same speed, the original that Janke used also make it look as if the hooves collide. If it is simply the speed, I will vote to keep this as a featured image, (with a suggestion to slow it down to better see what is going on) if it is that the hoof size has been increased, I will vote to delist it. If I can't tell, I will not vote. Enuja (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Delist per above comments. --jjron 07:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Question The original doesn't have a full tail, yet both rotoscoped versions do. How is this possible? Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep--Mbz1 16:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment & keep I made this to illustrate rotoscoping, animation and animated cartoon, not Muybridge per se. In fact, it isn't even in the Muybridge article! Animators have used Muybridges motion sequences as reference for a hundred years... Sure, the greyscale version is a bit smoother (except for an error in the hind legs), but it is not really a "cartoon". --Janke | Talk 20:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep "It's just a rotoscoped version of the Edward Muybridge classic.. which is already featured" makes this seem like an attempt at copying Muybridge's animation, thus trivializing it. It isn't trivial and isn't used to illustrate Muybridge, per Janke. --Mad Tinman T C 16:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delist per nom.--SECisek (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as a great encyclopedic example of exactly what it is meant to illustrate. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
No consensus MER-C 04:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
