Talk:Lenna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyvios are always a concern, but I think the quoted portions here are fine, since they include a legitimate cite. I trimmed them a bit, too. - DavidWBrooks 18:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Why "Lenna"?

Can anyone tell me (or better yet explain in the article) why the image is named Lenna while the model is named Lena? —Rory ☺ 02:46, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Playboy called her Lenna even though it's spelled Lena, because the word Lena in Swedish is pronounced Lenna. So they were effectively anglicising the name so that English readers would pronounce it correctly. Graham 02:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I doubt that; it's not pronounced that way. "Lehna" would be much closer, but still not completely perfect. 194.47.144.5
I've heard Swedish people say Lena, and it sounds more like [lina] to my ears. I can't imagine why they used Lenna, when that seems to suggest [lɛna]. --Kjoonlee 15:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
According to my Swedish office-mate, it would be sort of like "leena" near Stockhold, but more like "lehna" or "laina" near Lund, where the dialect is closer to Danish. Does anyone know where she was from? Dicklyon 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I had only heard people from Stockholm. I've never heard anyone from Lund. I've no idea where she's from, though. 213.88.162.217 16:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the most probable explanation is a typo. The people who entered the filenames for this series of images weren't making any effort whatever to be exacting. Hence the reason why the equally famous 'baboon.tif' image is in fact a Mandrill.

[edit] Coincidence/Connection

Perhaps interestingly, the specific issue of Playboy Lena is a centrefold of features in the film Sleeper by Woody Allen. In the film, Woody Allen plays a person who has been preserved in liquid nitrogen and awakes in the 22rd century. At some point in the film he finds a stash of "historical artifacts", among which is this issue of Playboy. Lena as the centrefold is shown fleetingly on screen. See "A Note on Lena", by David C. Munson, Jr. Editor-in-Chief, Emeritus, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing Vol. 5. No. 1. January 1996 , reprinted here -- Hut66au

Strikingly accurate prediction. Perhaps, somebody guessed that the issue was going to be the best-selling ever, so there was a high probability that it survived from the past (1974) to the present (217X) time--and therefore of being extant. -- Pichote (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

The request to merge these two sounds reasonable, but when I went to check, the article on the girl is part of a series on Playboy playmates, so you don't want to turn it into a redirect to this article, ... and I think the Lenna article is sufficiently established in the geek world that this article is justified going into more detail than would be right on an article about the playmate herself. So I guess I would say no, don't merge them. - DavidWBrooks 16:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The Lenna centerfold was an industry changing photo, certainly due a seperate article, I would think (as a bad example, we have a Mona Lisa article AND a Leonardo da Vinci article. Staxringold 13:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Do not merge, would be my vote. Lenna, the picture, has became far more famous (or encyclopedic, if you prefer) than Lena Soderberg herself. --Abu Badali 18:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the Merge tag. Nobody here nor on Lena Soderberg has supported it (not that it's drawn a huge amount of comment). - DavidWBrooks 20:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] intro length box

This is a personal preference, but I find the "cleanup" box and its variants, like the one just stuck on this article, incredibly annoying: They're a sign saying "I don't like this article, but I'm not going to do anything about it - you have to." If you think the intro needs altering, alter it! - DavidWBrooks 14:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, and I have removed the tag. The gripe was that the into is too long. Thing is, what it's really saying is that the second para needs a subheading, though it's not obvious what it should be. As it stands the intro is fine, th esecond para further expands on that. Maybe it doesn't even need a subheading there - it's not compulsory to have a subheading just to make the intro more obvious - the line break there does just that. Graham 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm the one who added the intro length box. The only reason I added it was because the style guide recommends lead sections consist of 2-3 paragraphs and I wasn't sure of the best way to correct that. This article has 4 paragraphs in the lead section (5 if you count the qoute as a paragraph). I'm sorry that it was perceived as anything other than constructive criticism. - ApolloCreed 05:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colors

I think it's also worth mentioning that the colors in this photograph are by no means true (skewed heavily toward red). I can't help but wonder what the ramifications of that were; perhaps an explanation for the problems with red in the JPEG algorithm? Themadchopper 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - this of all pictures needs to be right. It's not enough to 'correct' the colour balance in this image. We need to seek out an earlier, more 'standard' version of it that's never been through lossy compression or an 8 bit data path and store is as a truecolour 24 bit 'PNG' (which doesn't distort colours or introduce artifacts of any kind). Other pictures on other Wiki pages can tolerate image compression artifacts - but not this one. Anyone know where to get something like that? SteveBaker 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well no, that's not exactly what I meant. To answer your question, there's an uncompressed TIFF version available at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~chuck/lennapg/lena_std.tif. And the Wikipedia JPEG looks pretty close to that to me as far as color. But what I was talking about was the fact that the photo had been massively postprocessed by Playboy before it was ever even scanned in. All the centerfolds of the 1960s had a heavy red cast added for aesthetics. (See [1].) Themadchopper 06:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh! I see. So you think the article should mention this? I think it would be hard to prove that JPEG is messed up because of Lenna because so many other photos were used in tweaking the algorithm. If we can't be sure of that, we shouldn't say so here. But if there is some outside source for the fact that Playboy boost the red in their images - then that is definitely worth mentioning. I you want to compare, I made a more natural looking version of Lenna here [2]. I reduced the gamma settings for Red and boosted them quite a bit for Green. I'd upload it here but I can't figure out what copyright to give to it. SteveBaker 07:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think either should be mentioned in the article without a good source, no. I was just kind of curious as to whether there was such a source. (I mean, the latter's clear from examination of the images themselves, but it would be "original research" to add it on that basis.) (Nice work on the adjustment by the way.) Themadchopper 04:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. We should do nothing unless we can find substantiating evidence someplace. SteveBaker 04:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand all of the above discussion. Just to make sure - we want the image that is used by the image-processing literature. If this is not a perfect reproduction of the original, then so be it. The discussion should be about "where do we find the standard image" rather than "where do we find a better scan of the original" or "how do we correct the image to make it more realistic" etc. PAR 14:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name spelling

I'm Swedish, and I for sure know our lastnames are never speller Soderberg, be it internationalization, her real name was with 90% chance Söderberg and not Soderberg.

I changed this, if anyone is going to hate me for it, revise it.

--213.89.141.235 03:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've searched, and found no evidence that her name is Söderberg. Even sites with proper accents, spell her name Lena Soderberg née Sjööblom. Idem at Lena Soderberg. — Adhemar 19:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. Maybe I was wrong. Reverted my own previous edit. — Adhemar 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

I restored some quotes, since they had been turned into statements that seemed to need sources. As quotes, the source is more clear. Retelling a second-hand story in our own words seems like a poor way to treat what is essentially a story, not a compendium of verifiable fact. Please discuss here if you see a better way for one or more of the quotes. Dicklyon 07:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria says:
"If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. [..] Always use a more free alternative if one is available." (Criterion #1)
Regardless of whether it is a quote or article text it needs to be referenced to an equal degree. I have reverted your changes on these grounds. Feel free to improve the text using your own words (that is your contribution to Wikipedia). --Oden 07:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You keep messing up the article. The source for the things you recast as facts are the story I quoted, from the referenced source; there is no reliable source to say what Sawchuk's recollection was--we have to take the writer's publication on what he was told, and decide ourselves whether to believe it, knowing it is a quote of him. The statements are no more verifiable than that, but the story is published, and the story being told that way it is is what's verifiable. A short quote of a few sentences is not a big block of text. Please stop, or propose here a sensible alternative. And why did you partially revert the lead rewrite, too? Dicklyon 08:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not reword the lead-in (diff). As for our fair use policy, see above.--Oden 08:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I must concur with Oden: such huge quotes are not justified per our fair use policy. WP:FU#Text makes it clear:
“ Brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use. [...]

In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy

 ”

MaxSem 08:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference 6 - The Cool Hunter

How could an article dated May 26, 2006 have been retrieved on January 14, 2006? In any case, the link is now a 404. Ppelleti 15:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history, the retrieved date is a typo (2007 was meant) and I've left a message on the poster's Talk page about the 404 - perhaps it can be fixed. - DavidWBrooks 16:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall that it was me who first came up with that ref, though it may have been my typo. I've replaced it with a more official source. Dicklyon 16:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)