File talk:USS Saratoga aft, Emissary.jpg

jpg
Please use jpg format for screencap images.--Alan 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you quickly explain the reason for this? I was under the impression that PNG had better quality than a JPG while still being considerably smaller than a BMP. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 00:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

While .bmp's are obviously not accepted on this site - 99.9% of our screencaps are .jpg - were as 99.9% of "homemade" graphic art is typically .png. --Alan 01:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Better version
Considering the low quality of the version, is it possible Alan for you to upload a better version? Ambassador/Ensign_Q 01:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Uploaded File:USS Saratoga aft, Emissary.jpg, but do we also need File:Uss saratoga 2367 aft.jpg? We current have quite of few, nearly redundant images of this single vessel. --Alan 01:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I liked that latter image because it contained both the Melbourne and Saratoga. I was planning to put said-image into the Melbourne article. But yes, it may be redundant. Then again, the point of this latest aft picture was to show the pods and lack of roll-bar clearly for the Miranda article, so maybe the other aft image does have a place? Ambassador/Ensign_Q 01:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, looking at the group of pics you grouped here, perhaps we should replace the image you suggested to delete with one which better shows the Melbourne and the Saratoga (I believe there is one other shot of the two ships together) and keep that image and "File:USS Bellerphon - USS Yamaguchi, aft.jpg" to illustrate the Battle of Wolf 359 in the "Battle of Wolf 359 article. We might want to delete "File:Uss saratoga 2367 attacked.jpg" in favour of "File:USS Saratoga aft, Emissary.jpg" since it shows the tractor beam, but as I said the latter image's main purpose is to illustrate the sensor pods and lack of roll-bar as clearly as possible for the Miranda-class article, not as another Saratoga pic.  ""File:Uss saratoga 2367 attacked.jpg" is currently also being used for the tractor beam article, but we could easily put the equivalent Melbourne "locked in tractor beam pic back" (File:USS_Melbourne_attacked.jpg) and then delete "File:Uss saratoga 2367 attacked.jpg".  The problem is that the Melbourne tractor pic also shows a cutting beam as well as the tractor beam, whilst "File:Uss saratoga 2367 attacked.jpg" shows only the tractor beam, and therefore may be a better representation of just the Borg tractor beam.


 * So summarizing:


 * * File:Uss saratoga 2367 aft.jpg - replace with a version which better shows both the Saratoga and the Melbourne together, and use it in the Battle of Wolf 359 article and maybe the USS Melbourne article.


 * * File:USS Bellerphon - USS Yamaguchi, aft.jpg - use also for the Battle for Wolf 359 article. To be honest, I wouldn't really count this as a Saratoga pic anyway since the other two ships are far more dominant. (Never mind, it's used for the Yamaguchi article as the main picture.)


 * * File:USS Saratoga aft, Emissary.jpg - in-use for the article to clearly illustrate the class variant.


 * * File:Uss saratoga 2367 attacked.jpg - better representation of a Borg tractor beam then the equivalent Melbourne picture, but otherwise it is expendable, especially since "File:USS Saratoga aft, Emissary.jpg" also shows a tractor beam. We may want to replace it with an "Enterprise-D locked in Borg tractor beam" pic anyway, which would be as good in showing the Borg tractor beam.


 * * File:Uss saratoga 2367 fore.jpg - definitely must be kept. It is the main Saratoga picture, and it also clearly ilustrates the ventral dome mounted phaser bank unique to this variant of Miranda-class.


 * If we were bold enough, we may even want to add another Saratoga picture, one that illustrates its actually destruction. If we replace "File:Uss saratoga 2367 attacked.jpg", this proposed image could be used instead in the Saratoga article, as well as another picture in the Ambassador/Ensign_Q 14:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made some changes to my above post, as some of it was inaccurate. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 00:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)