I have a issue with the current images being posted by Tagaziel, they are of lower quality e.g. pixelated edges and lower res and way to bright that they wash the color out. It has even got to the point that they have lock image files to prevent uploading of better quality images. example would be as below.
I would like as a community to decide on what is the best course of action, is the brightness to high etc. ☣Avatar☣ 00:27, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Here's a simple illustration of why I'm replacing dark images with barely visible features with bright images with actual colours:
These are two images, the left brightened, the other the original, set against the background of a typical infobox. As you can easily see, the current images are invisible, the new ones quite to the contrary.
- I'd agree with GA here. Your pictures look way too washed out. The old ones may have been too dark, but went to the other extreme. Ausir(talk) 01:00, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Number one it doesn't explain your reasoning on the revert and locking of the mercy image, when the brightness level are exactly the same, that is just childish behaviour and a example of ownership of the page and abuse of admin powers. If brightness levels are your only issue then why not take the higher res images and brighten them, doesn't take much to do that no does it. Instead you insist on making lower quality images with no reason why or explanation except for an excuse that they are brighter. And finally the images are not all used on the darker background, example in Sniper rifle, where it looks really bad or even if you click on any image to enlarge it. But if you issue is the them being on a dark background, then why not address that issue and get the background changed, that is something I would personally agree does need to be looked at. ☣Avatar☣ 01:10, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
I've locked the Mercy page because you kept replacing my image with one of your own, with the exact same angle, pose and brightness. If an image is present in the database already, don't replace it with an identical one just to claim credit.
Above is another version. The middle one is just one variation lighter than the basic image.
- I am not doing it to claim credit, which is something that I feel you are doing in this whole debacle of yours, hence all the excuses and complaints that you have used and I have overcome each time. I replaced it because I increased it to a higher res image and smoothed out all the pixelated edges on yours (something you can quit clearly see on the full size images of both yours and mine), which you would notice if you read the summary on my upload and also what I wrote on your wall. In fact I uploaded several images of mercy to compensate for each and everyone of your complaints down the line and yes I took a final picture in the same pose to prevent any more of your complaints or criticisms about this that or the other. Basically you where looking for excuses to use your picture so you can claim credit, when you couldn't give any on the latest image as I duplicated the exact same picture pose and light conditions, you deleted it and lock the image. This is also evident that you are trying to take credit with the rest of the images, instead of taking the original image and brightening it up therefore keeping the quality, you insist on taking lower quality images under the giess of them not being bright enough. Which in my mind is pretty much you edit warring and abusing your position to claim credit on the images. I wouldn't mind if the images where of same or greater quality, but the simple fact is that they are not as evident below, mine being the left one (and I had to scale mind down to fits yours). ☣Avatar☣ 02:04, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
- But it something of note, that your example are all posted at half size, so it is hard to actually see anything. Now if you want to stop trying to the skew the images in your favor and actually post the originals and and scale them down to 240px, then that might be acceptable. But you examples do not work on a white background at all. ☣Avatar☣ 02:08, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the weapon images Tagaziel uploaded today aren't improvements, they do look washed out. Avatar's images may be a little dark, mostly caused by a somewhat dark background, but that's no good reason just to replace them with lower res images with pixelated edges.
- If something should change, then it's at least using Avatar's high quality images and brighten them just a bit to make the features of the weapon come out better. Or another thing could be tried first: change the background to a more even, little lighter, green color. That should show the weapon better also, since now it's getting dark around the edges. Or use a both options, needs a little experimenting.
- Till then Avatar's images should not be replaced anymore, his weapon images are of great quality. So just a little tweaking here or there is needed. Jspoelstra 03:29, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Tagaziel, your current image on the Mercy page sucks. Please revert it to the one Avatar has entered.--Gothemasticator 06:05, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
- You mean my 1400x600 pixel half-a-megabyte image that clearly shows the weapon how it appears from the player's perspective in Fallout: New Vegas and twice the resolution as Avatar's? Uh, okay. Tagaziel (call!) 10:40, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Browser cache problems. I see the current image now. I retract my statement. Sorry for the confusion.--Gothemasticator 14:58, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, not cache issue, the image was updated 4 hours after your comment. ☣Avatar☣ 18:04, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Probably an appropriate forum thread to bring this up in...
How does everyone feel about me uploading Fallout 2 weapon images with the actual in-game brightness instead of lightened versions? Examples below (though with different weapons, the difference is clearly discernible):
Lightened broken image link removed
Lightened broken image link removed
- I think the lightened ones are OK, the original ones might be too dark for infoboxes, and the lightened ones are not too lightened. Ausir(talk) 09:22, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
- I like the lightened versions of the Fallout 2 better also.
- Tagaziel has uploaded some new weapon images today and they are improvements compared to the images he uploaded yesterday. The resolution is about the same as Avatar's images now, and being just a bit lighter does show the weapon better in the infobox. So that wouldn't be too bad an idea. Personally I would like the weapon to point the other way though, so from left to right.
- Still I would like to make a point of how things are going here. Avatar doesn't deserve being harassed this kind of way by Tagaziel. The wiki wouldn't have been where it is today without Avatar. He spent a lot of time improving the weapon pages and is doing some fine work on location pages now. If you want valuable members being chased away than this is the way to do it. If I may suggest, untill there's an outcome to this matter, just leave the weapon pages be. Let the community speak some more and I think the bureaucrats should make the firm and final say. Jspoelstra 14:16, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Now if you could of produced such a image in the first place, then why didn't you instead of replacing a perfectly good image with such a crappy one previously. Secondly, it still has pixelated edges which I would prefer to be removed, if you want tips on that I am more than happy to provide them, but otherwise it is a damn good image. Now onto your more recent uploads, most of them are no different in brightness at all and it fact have pixelated edges still. So those are a step backwards in image quality and as such I have corrected those issues. On the other hand some images are of decent quality like the Minigun and That Gun (which by the way you have uploaded a darker version of your very own original, kinda goes against your whole argument really), which would only require a minor touch up to make it perfect. Now onto the final thing, I have no idea why on earth you are taking the images from the other side, but I would like for them to be switched to keep uniformity across all the weapon images and keep this Wiki looking as professional as possible.
- I still don't know you motives as your argument does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny and you own action contradict you very own words. But if you insist on continuing to replace the images, I am going to hold you to the very same standards I hold myself to when producing images. And if they are not up to scratch, I will correct them and I don't care if your a admin and try to shout Vandalism etc. it will be done ☣Avatar☣ 18:50, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Wikis are a communal effort. If GhostAvatar wasn't here, another user would do the same thing. There's only one person without whom the Vault would not be where it is today and that is Ausir. Anyone else is perfectly expendable. Except for Porter. Furthermore I did not harass him. The dispute was over image quality and while it did get heated up, it will lead to something better, eg. insane competition over item image quality and a large amount of 1600x500 renders ending up on the wiki. Tagaziel (call!) 20:10, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly I would appreciate it if you didn't remove my posts from a forum thread (I have placed them back in and is in fact violation of the Wiki rules on conduct). Secondly having the attitude of people being expendable is counter productive to a Wiki, not really the kind of attitude I would expect from a Admin. And if you want insane image sizes I can easy go up to 2400 x 850 (and that's original pixel size). ☣Avatar☣ 20:31, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree with Tagaziel that another user would do the same thing as Avatar, and I think anyone who's been following his work, would agree with me. Skilled members like him are hard to come by. And I really am not in favor of an insane competition. Instead it's better to await the outcome of this forum and work together, possibly dividing the various tasks. Jspoelstra 21:17, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, just noticed on Tagaziel's and GhostAvatar's talk pages they have patched things up. I'm glad to see that. I hope the image-editwarring will be over now. Jspoelstra 21:27, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Back to the Fallout 2 weapon images for a second...
- They may be taken straight from in-game FRM files, but they are by no means the original image brightness. I suspect whomever was converting the FRMs to a usable format were using a program that auto-lightens them, as I have used before.
- In any case, I will cease with uploading images with the original brightness; however, I will make a compromise by lightening them only a tad bit. (To a level I'm sure everyone could agree on) -- Ghouly89 (Talk) 21:35, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Uh, no, they are the original brightness because they are converted straight from the game files. The FRM viewer does not auto-lighten them, it simply converts them to .BMP. In-game brightness is tied to the gamma setting in the options. It's best to stick to the brightness as it exists in freshly converted files. Tagaziel (call!) 21:56, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just going to have to prove you wrong then. ;)
- You say they were converted with FRM Viewer? The program I use to convert the FRMs to 32-bit pixel depth bitmaps (retains the exact colors because 32-bit encompasses all colors) is the Titanium FRM browser. As mentioned before, it converts exact colors, while the FRM viewer converts to, as far as I know, 16-bit pixel depth bitmap images. 16-bit does not encompass all colors, so the FRM viewer cannot claim to convert exact colors.
- Just as well, many images on here have been distorted because of said conversion via the FRM viewer, example at the right. Notice the red pixels on the knuckles? These are not present in the original FRM file. If you feel the need to prove me wrong, take a screenshot in-game.
- Also, new examples of weapon images as opposed to the current images:
- Current: broken image link removed
- I would say go with it Ghouly, those examples are obvious improvements, as for lightening them, to me the mini gun looks fine in the infobox. But I would suggest padding the image out a bit with some space as it is touching the top and bottom boarders on the infobox, just a extra 10pixel either side should do it. ☣Avatar☣ 00:34, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
(<--) Alright, to clarify something, I was wrong; both the Titanium FRM browser and the FRM Viewer save bitmaps in 32-bit format. However, the FRM viewer still produces a few random, off-colored pixels, so I am still going to continue with replacing the images that I have converted and lightened. -- Ghouly89 (Talk) 01:51, February 7, 2011 (UTC)