Talk:Standard test image

message: This article really needs some sources that describe who used these test images. I have never seen Masuda anywhere before, and I couldn't find it on Google.... ~MDD4696 00:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - that would be a good extension of this article. As for the Matsuda image, I know it was named for the researcher who first used it. His name is Ichiro Matsuda and there's a list of his publications at http://itohws03.ee.noda.sut.ac.jp/~matsuda/mrp/ and an email address. I believe that the image was first used by him, then by other researchers. I don't know which of the publications use it, but we could probably find out by emailing him. The Lena image is pretty well documented at Lenna. I am not a specialist in the field, I just used the test images for a project I worked on, and tried to gather as many as possible, then decided to share the knowledge. I found all of them on the web, including the Matsuda images, and looking for them again, you are right, they are gone. I don't know why. PAR 04:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that the 24 bit pictures are preferable, as long as they are the same size. I think the size needs to be the same for comparisons. If you have 24 bit versions of the same size, could you replace the 8 bit versions? PAR 04:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I uploaded the images and changed the links.  Most of them were the same size.  A few were slightly larger (787x576).  I think some people stretched them to 720x576 probably because 787 is a weird number:  it's not divisible by 16... who knows... Petit 07:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: "It has been suggested that Lenna be merged into this article or section."
: Strong Oppose - Firstly, there is little point in merging an article with a precise title and reasonable length into an article with a less accurately worded title that is a mere stub.  If we did the merge, we'd have an article that talked almost entirely about the Lenna image (and at great length!) and which said nothing about any of the other test images.  I'd take one look at that hypothetical article and say to myself: "If this article is only talking about the Lenna image - why does it's title refer to test images in general?".
: The Lenna article is plenty long enough to stand alone - and contains far more information than would be appropriate if we were merely describing it as a test image.  Lenna is almost an industry "mascot" or something akin to an Internet meme - it's gone way beyond being merely a standard test image.  In fact, the very poor colour balance of the original image make it a pretty poor test image by modern standards.
: If this article described many different test images in similar detail then a merge might be more appropriate - but I'm pretty sure that if we did so, this article would be so long that we'd have to consider splitting it up!  So, no - this is a ridiculous suggestion.
:SteveBaker 17:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong Oppose - it's such a lame idea the guy who suggested it didn't even start a discussion or support it.  It would be better to get rid of this orphaned article, and merge what little content it has into others. Dicklyon 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is merit to having an article that discusses the standard image processing test images - but this one needs a  lot of actual content to be added to it - not just a gallery - but actual information about each image.  Why was it selected?  What features does it have that are important to image processing?  Where did it originally come from?...there is plenty that could be written - and there are TONS of reference books out there that discuss them. SteveBaker 18:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  So work on that, instead of trying to destroy a perfectly good article on Lenna. Dicklyon 19:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong Oppose - There's a story here, specific to this image. It's important. - grubber 00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment: Any image which is iconic (like the Mona Lisa) warrants its own article. The problem is that at the present time this article and the one on Lenna are very short. Unless the articles are significantly improved it makes more sense to merge for now and split them if the combined article becomes too long. The same holds true if there are several iconic test images. --Oden 00:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Lena image is certainly iconic. The story may be short, but it is a very interesting (and fun) piece of history for those in the image processing community -- we run into this image on day 1 of learning how to process images. - grubber 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong Oppose - Lenna is the most famous example of a standard test image. There is plenty of story to go with this image and it definitely deserves its own article. There are stories that go with the other test images as well, including the image processing references in which they were used. Perhaps not enough to warrant a separate article for each, but certainly enough to warrand a standard test image article. PAR 01:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong oppose for the same reasons outlined above.  I had no clue to the image's background (despite having used it in many classes).  Score one for wikipedia. Cburnett 03:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't know we closed this quickly! I also could propose the opposite, this article is a stub and in the 15 months it has existed it has not been improved significantly (first edit). It really only serves as a gallery of fair use images, which is not permitted. Why not merge Standard test image into Lenna? --Oden 09:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read the comments above - we've already answered that question. SteveBaker 13:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merge of [[Lenna]] into this article. 

message: I would like to see each image given its own section with each image getting the following:
* What features make this image standard?
* Why this one instead of another similar image?
* Where has this image been used before and by whom?  (references)
I think this would make the fair use claim stronger and make this article much more valuable.  Granted, this effort wouldn't be worth it if they survive IFD. Cburnett 03:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion process is no excuse for abstaining from improving an article. The argument could even be made that deleting the images makes room for more text as well as free images. The article has roughly the same amount of text since it was first created (first edit). It is a stub with fourteen (14) fair use images. We usually don't allow more than one fair use image at the most in an article this short. --Oden 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can call edit warring "improving the article" but it is not.  Edit warring never improves an article, it only disrupts things.  Never.  Again: there are no free images.  You can't just make an image be ubiquitous like Lenna, nor can you make a new painting and call it a Picasso.  Cburnett 17:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion idea 

message: The links in the external links section need to be incorporated into the text of the article as references, otherwise they will be removed as linkspam per WP:EL. --Oden 03:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a real problem with this article, don't you? Cburnett 03:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a personal attack, but I will assume good faith. --Oden 08:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not an attack.  Your actions seem to indicate that you have an issue with this article.  Cburnett 17:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I would like to remind all users here that edit warring is never the way to resolve content disputes.  I have blocked Oden for this very reason.  An IFD and TFD are in progress to resolve the issue and discussion on this page seems quite civil.
Again, edit warring is never the way to solve things!  Cburnett 04:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have brought this block up on Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Removing_images_on_sight. --Oden 08:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No edit warring 

message: :Image:Airplane24.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Airplane24.png

message: What about non-digital standard test images? They're "standard test images" too, I think.--Exidor (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What non-digital images do you have in mind? Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of a test image I've seen on film, of a woman with a colorful dress. ISTR it was used in the '60s, probably to compare prints to the original master. But I'll be darned if I can find it again.--Exidor (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you maybe thinking of a TV test card?  SteveBaker (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm sure it was on film.--Exidor (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Digital?