Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CRT color enhanced.png

CRT [edit]

Excellent illustration. Even includes well-commented POV-ray source.

Nominate and support. - ed g2s • talk 13:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. It's a useful illustration, but has a variety of aesthetic problems. The choice of colors and textures is ugly, the composition is a little cluttered, the font used for the numbers is inappropriate and some of the edges (for example in the circle marked '5') lack antialiasing. Redquark 18:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 1. Okay, most of my concerns were addressed. Redquark 22:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another POV-Ray!!! I would support a higher-res version. Who wants to bust out POV-Ray and do some crazy rendering? I think the colors are fine, from what I remember of seeing inside of a CRT they are fairly accurate. -Ravedave 20:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very informative. I don't see any problem with the colors, although I share Ravedave's concern about the resolution. If someone who has POV-Ray installed would like to give it a try... -Glaurung 05:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~STRONG Oppose~~ In addition to the (slight) aesthetic problems, there is an error in the illustration: The phosphor dots. They are actually not hexagonal, but round (made photomechanically by exposing photoresist through the mask), and also, there is a black area separating the dots from each other. As shown, even the slightest error in focus or alignment of the electron beams would cause huge color/purity errors - the black area between the dots prevents that. This needs to be fixed before proceeding. --Janke | Talk 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ My eyes! My eyes! It's a good informative illustration, but not a great one. --Surgeonsmate 08:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC) (Later: I've withdrawn my opposition after seeing the edits, but I still don't think it's striking enough for FP. --Surgeonsmate 07:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Support very tedious work was required for this, and the result could be slightly better with better choice of colors. That red in cross-section of tube bothers eyes, but it can be featured as is IMHO... -- Mtodorov 69 12:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... as long as that error is fixed, i.e. add some black around round phosphor dots. That shouldn't be too much trouble, and we'd have a technically accurate image. --Janke | Talk 16:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a larger render and applied the requested changes in Photoshop (sorry, I'm not much of a POV-Ray guru - it's my first try). Of course it could be larger still, but these two renders already took the better part of a night on my lowly machine... -- grm_wnr Esc 19:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I don't mind the colors too much and it is informative. Broken Segue 20:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for edit 1. Good enough for me, although a higher resolution render is always useful. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cutaway color needs to be changed. The red in the zoom makes it hard to tell that there is a cut-away in the zoom as well. Also the cutaways near the end are still bright red, when the rest are dull red. What does everyone think the cutaway color should be? I am thinking dull orange.-Ravedave 21:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There should probably be a label on the big thing at the top which is the grounding cable I believe? I think they're usually a little smaller as well (or at least, could be for the purpose of this illustration). At the moment it looks like (3) is labelling it. ed g2s • talk 22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am preparing a new render, with the cuts actually changed to the dull orange / light brown Ravedave suggests in the POV-Ray stage (it's necessary because the coils reflect them). I also added a label to the anode connection (per ed g2s), and another two additional ones to the two coils. It should be finished tomorrow. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - POV-Ray died on me just now, and I can't keep it running over night. I've uploaded a version with all the Photoshop fixes and an approximation of the new cut color, so you can comment on them while I'm sleeping ;). I'll incorporate any suggestions into a new version when I have the new render (should be tomorrow at this time at the latest) -- grm_wnr Esc 01:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nice, the brown looks much better. You missed some of the red cut-out color on the middle top, by #3. Should the holes in the apature grill not be reflective? Maybe black? Grey? Also can you provide the names for the new labels? -Ravedave 02:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course. It's just a preview, you know ;) -- grm_wnr Esc 08:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you make the anode a little smaller? ed g2s • talk 11:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, final version is uploaded. Nearly all comments have been incorporated. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, however beam coming out of the electron gun is off. Also be sure to provide the updated POVRay source, the Edit is still pointing to the original source. -Ravedave 17:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit. This is getting better all the time. But you have my support already, since the errors are fixed. A great illustration whatever the final version will be. ~~(PS: I don't think the "beam is off" - it's a delta configuration, not in-line.)~~ - yes, it was off, but fixed now, I see... --Janke | Talk 17:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another small point: the blue beam doesn't seem to line up with the hole in the electron gun. ed g2s • talk 18:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the current brown color of the cutaway is too close to that of the copper deflection coils. Maybe we should find a different color. (perhaps a pale blue or gray?) Ghostofgauss 21:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fixed the beam source, and nudged the cutaway color a bit towards yellow to seperate it from the copper(grey or blue don't look good, I tried). Source is available now. Again, a cache purge is in order. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also upload a label-less version? ed g2s • talk 12:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, Image:CRT color enhanced unlabeled.png. -- grm_wnr Esc 01:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- me again, excellent improvements, just one thing: the coil that is around the tube has a brown cross-section instead of copper one. That was red in original, too. Is that too hard to be fixed? -- Mtodorov 69 08:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I think it looks better that way too. Purge cache etc. -- grm_wnr Esc 09:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Edited version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1.7, I like a good diagram and this is a good diagram. -- BWF89 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1.7, great improvements. Just a little sad that they couldn't be worked into the povray source though. --Dschwen 11:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of them are by now, actually. The only really important missing one is the hexagon to round phosphor dot change, and that one would be quite difficult to do for a few reasons. Remember, the labelling / closeup compositing wasn't in the source to begin with. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it a hexagon texture? Could be replaced my a macro placing the disks. --Dschwen 23:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:CRT color enhanced.png Another great example of image improvement through the FPC process. A round of applause for User:Grm wnr please:-) ~ Veledan • Talk 19:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]