Image talk:Pluto.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] resolution

right|60pxsurely there's no point in this pic being so large since it's lo-res.

[edit]  ???

Is it low resolution, or does it look like a disco ball?

It looks like a disco ball to me! But the description explains that very little data is available. The image itself is high-res, but there's not a lot of data to put on it. -- Mithent 01:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

PARTY GUYS!

Seriously, someone fix it. --80.63.213.182 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)OMG NO!

right|120px

Fix what exactly? -- MacAddct1984  03:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a terrible picture. And when they can't get it in better resolution, it could at least be small so it wouldn't look so pixelated. --80.63.213.182 19:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree... The image looks really crappy. Maybe we can use something like this, also taken by Hubble, of Pluto and its moon Charon. I got it from here, which declares that the picture is Public Domain. --DDG 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yall need help!Mewmewpower

The latter picture is very good for the good looking of an article (and very famous, also). BUT the current version has the advantage that is much closer to the "real" image of Pluto (the description page at NASA reads "Pluto in True Color"). I also think that reducing its size as mentioned, will render it useful only as an icon for userboxes (humor: I support the disco frisco Pluto Dwarfs :D) --Dead3y3 Talk page 19:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
We have artists conceptions on many objects in space. This picture doesn't really tell much about the surface, other than the color. But of course, it wouldn't be right, would it? Anyway, i agree that the picture does NOT need to be the visible channels. MUHAHA!1one --80.63.213.182 20:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph?

So is this the closest anyone's ever got to a close-up real photograph of Pluto, instead of a telescope image or a drawing? JIP | Talk 20:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This has to be the worst image ever put on a popular Wikipedia article. Its like a joke.

That is a matter of opinion. Although the image is pixalated to the point that it appears to be censored, it is the most detailed image ever obtained of the planet. Up until now, the only images of Pluto have been points of light against the star backround. This image shows some colour variations on the planet's surface. It shows us that Pluto is predominantly brown. That's morre than we knew a decade ago. -- Jason Palpatine 21:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)

[edit] Correction

Surely if you used Gaussian blur, it would look better? Troubleshooter 20:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean bilinear filtering. — Mütze (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shows what we know...

This image brings home the point that we know hardly anything about Pluto. 74.104.224.144 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a 70's disco ball!... :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.168.233 (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] use on Moons of Pluto

This image (reduced to 50px) was removed from Moons of Pluto due to its copyright status. However, the same rational for Pluto works there; the article was merely split off. Can we adjust the (c) boxes to mention both articles? kwami (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)