Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Bouncing ball strobe edit.jpg

•  Info created by MichaelMaggs - uploaded by MichaelMaggs - nominated by MichaelMaggs --MichaelMaggs 18:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Info A bouncing ball captured with a stroboscopic flash at 25 images per second. Note that the ball becomes significantly non-spherical after each bounce, especially after the first. That, along with spin and air-resistance, causes the the curve swept out to deviate slightly from the expected perfect parabola. As the ball falls freely under the influence of gravity, it accelerates downward, its initial potential energy converting into kinetic energy. On impact with a hard surface the ball deforms, converting the kinetic energy into elastic potential energy. As the ball springs back, the energy converts back firstly to kinetic energy and then as the ball re-gains height into potential energy. Energy losses due to inelastic deformation and air resistance cause each successive bounce to be lower than the last.
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 18:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Now supporting better edit, below. --MichaelMaggs 16:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Amazing. Dori - Talk 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- MJJR 21:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC) As LucaG -- MJJR 21:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --LucaG 22:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Vote moved to edit by Richard --LucaG 18:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Mbz1 01:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Question Do you still have the original with background? I'm just curious about seeing it. Acarpentier 03:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Edges looks bad, may it can be improved. --Beyond silence 08:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than happy to email the RAW file to anyone who can improve the editing. I know there some real experts out there; any volunteers please?--MichaelMaggs 09:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery ? Send it to me :) --Richard Bartz 12:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, thanks very much. Email sent. --MichaelMaggs 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Well done illustration for articles about mechanics. --Egg 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - Very well done, clear and informative caption - Alvesgaspar 19:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Romary 21:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Until the edit with the better background removal comes out. --Digon3 ^talk 21:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Support - Husky ^{(talk to me)} 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support for other picture. Husky ^{(talk to me)} 13:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I wish the basketballs were more basketball-colored, but it's a very interesting image, especially how you can see the ball distort. Are there equal time lapses between each image? JaGa 04:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, 1/25 of a second between each. The image is of a child's ball about the size of a tennis ball. --MichaelMaggs 06:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support --Karelj 19:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured, cause other version has more support Simonizer 15:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This extremely professional re-edit from my original RAW file has been done by Richard Bartz, and I'd urge everyone to vote for this instead of my own very imperfect Photoshop efforts. Thanks very much to Richard for the work he's put in. --MichaelMaggs 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support --MichaelMaggs 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Nicely done. Dori - Talk 17:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - Alvesgaspar 17:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Husky ^{(talk to me)} 17:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Acarpentier 17:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Good work. --Egg 18:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Much better. --LucaG 18:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Good work. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support very nice. --Digon3 ^talk 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Romary 19:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Good improvements --JaGa 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- MJJR 21:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Leafnode 23:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Thermos 03:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Much better!  Question Isn't the first ball unnecessary? --Beyond silence 08:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good question --Richard Bartz 12:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have suggested the image would look nicer without the first ball. I don't feel strongly either way, but getting rid of it would save the queries about whether it is in the right place (it is). On the the hand I really don't want to have to re-start the voting all over again. Would deleting it be a small enough edit to avoid having to ask everyone to re-vote? --MichaelMaggs 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the german Author which used this graphic here, here and here could tell us if the first ball would be neccesary or not. I will invite him for some suggestions. --Richard Bartz 20:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first ball is not necessary. Actuality this ball gives a wrong impression of the physical laws. Wladyslaw 07:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Wladyslaw for complying on my invitation --Richard Bartz 09:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please cut! --Beyond silence 09:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean by please cut ? --Richard Bartz 09:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably "please cut the first ball out of the picture". Would you be able to do that, Richard, and re-post? You're the only one who can make that edit without having to do a lossy re-save of the jpg version. --MichaelMaggs 09:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont saved the version because the job was done i thought --Richard Bartz 11:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support and it looks great --Pumpmeup 09:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Benh 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Even if it would have been great having some scale or another static object on the image in order to be able to judge the size of the ball. I thought it was a big basket ball, which is not apparently ! --Atoma 08:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]