Live data from Hacker News

Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

johnedchristensen.github.io

51–60 of 254 posts

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#52

Not trying to underscore this incredible achievement, but I'm curious if we could use AI techniques to upscale the Hubble images to achieve similar results as the Webb telescope. Has this been tried before?

AI upscaling works if you want a prettier picture, but not if you want to actually know more. AI can't magically conjure information that isn't there, so if you upscale it has to invent details to fill in. Which is fine for some use cases, but not for science or truth-finding.

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#53
post #26

Question for anyone who happens to be an expert: Is there any way to quantify how much better Webb is independently of the amount of time used to take the exposures? Like, could Hubble achieve the same quality of images as Webb if it was given 100x (or whatever) more time exposure? I'm trying to understand how much the improvement is "speed of convergence" vs. "quality of asymptotic result". (Though... is that even a…

I worked in astronomy software for a few years for a different telescope, the LSST. I am not an expert, but I was in this world enough to answer.

The short version - it converges faster (probably like 5-10x faster), but also (as everyone else said) works in different wavelengths.

You can think of a telescope as a "photon bucket." The number of photons it collects is proportional to the area of the aperture. Webb's aperture area is 25.4 square meters, while Hubble's is 4 square meters, so roughly speaking JWST will get photons about 6 times quicker than Hubble.

But that's only the roughest measure. Once you've got the photons, what do you do with them? You send them to a detector. There's loss in this process - you bounce off of mirrors, with some small loss. You pass through band filters to isolate particular colors, which have more loss. The detector itself has an efficiency; in CCD cameras people speak of "quantum efficiency" - the probability that a photon induces a charge that can be counted when you read out the chip. That quantum efficiency depends on the photon's wavelength.

Furthermore - the longer your exposure, the more cosmic rays you get which corrupt pixels. You can flush the CCD more often and detect the cosmic rays and eliminate them, but you'll eventually brush against the CCD's read-out noise, which is a "tax" of noise you get every time you read out data.

So this all get's complicated! People spend many years characterizing detection capabilities of these instruments, and write many pages on them.

JWST's capabilities are described here: https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-camera/nircam...

HST's camera is more complicated to characterize, partly because it's older. Radiation has damaged and degraded many of the components so they have a lot of noise. The details of how this works are at the edge of human knowledge, so we don't have a great model for them. From the STIS handbook:

    Radiation damage at the altitude of the HST orbit causes the charge transfer efficiency (CTE) of the STIS CCD to degrade with time. The effect of imperfect CTE is the loss of signal when charge is transferred through the CCD chip during the readout process. As the nominal read-out amplifier (Amp D) is situated at the top right corner of the STIS CCD, the CTE problem has two possible observational consequences: (1) making objects at lower row numbers (more pixel-to-pixel charge transfers) appear fainter than they would if they were at high row numbers (since this loss is suffered along the parallel clocking direction, it is referred to as parallel CTE loss); and (2) making objects on the left side of the chip appear fainter than on the right side (referred to as serial CTE loss). In the case of the STIS CCD, the serial CTE loss has been found to be negligible for practical purposes. Hence we will only address parallel CTE loss for the STIS CCD in this Handbook.

   The current lack of a comprehensive theoretical understanding of CTE effects introduces an uncertainty for STIS photometry.
Now - this was all about how many photons you collect. When humans look at an image, they also care a lot about how fine the details are on it. This has to do with the resolution of the telescope's imaging systems. Resolution is limited by the number of pixels on the detector, and (to a much lesser extent) by the optical train of the telescope - the aberrations and distortions introduced by mirrors that focus light onto the detector's pixels.

Hubble has a high-res camera, and a separate wide-angle camera. Hubble's high-res camera actually outperforms JWST - it can resolve down to 0.04 arcsec, while JWST's can go to around 0.1 arcsec. But JWST's camera has a much wider field of view.

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The spikes are caused by diffraction of light around the struts supporting the secondary mirror. Hubble has 4 supports for the secondary mirror. JWST has 3 support for the secondary mirror, which because...physics (I don't know I'm not an optics guy)...manifests as 6 diffraction lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_spike EDIT: It may be caused by both the diffraction spikes from the supports struts and th…

Apparently the Diffraction spikes come from both the primary mirror shapes and the struts holding the secondary mirror. The primary mirrors of the JWST are hexagonal which would explain hexagonal looking effects. The three struts are apparently designed so that two of the struts match the hexagonal mirror angles at all times and are "hidden" inside. (The third strut apparently sometimes causes two much smaller "horiz…

Oh, thank you that makes sense. And due to the folding of the mirror and launch envelope constraints they can't equally space the three struts such that ALL are inside the diffraction of the hexagonal mirror.

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#55

Not trying to underscore this incredible achievement, but I'm curious if we could use AI techniques to upscale the Hubble images to achieve similar results as the Webb telescope. Has this been tried before?

Sure you could try, but without getting real higher fidelity photos you’d never know how realistic the synthetic images are.

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no expert either, but I imagine that high exposure times come with more motion blur. So just cranking up exposure time does not necessarily result in better pictures.

Motion of what?

everything everywhere all at once

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#58

I love this. But the Carina Nebula doesn't work on Firefox for Android. It just displays the JWST image.

For me it shows the top half of the Hubble version, but not the bottom.

That's the extent of the Hubble original

https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/2008/34/2405-Im...

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no expert either, but I imagine that high exposure times come with more motion blur. So just cranking up exposure time does not necessarily result in better pictures.

Motion of what?

Minor changes to the satellite position? Vibration from some hardware? I dunno but the parent asks a question I ask too.

When you do long exposure, any kind of movement, even very small, can degrade your image.

How JWST handles movement during long exposure is a good question. Same with hubble.

Post reply on HN