The sliders break when page zoom is anything other than 100% :/
Compare Webb's Images to Hubble
71–80 of 254 posts
Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble
#72Question 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…
IANA{astrophysicist, space engineer} but I do follow this closely and have what I call a working armchair understanding of this stuff. Anyone from relevant fields is welcome to gently correct any imprecisions. I always want to learn more and will thank you for it >could Hubble achieve the same quality of images as Webb if it was given 100x (or whatever) more time exposure? No, for a different and simpler reason: Hubb…
Plus, upgrading Hubble wouldn't get us close either. JWST is specifically designed to shield the sensors from IR/heat, and it's 1 million miles from Earth for a similar reason.
Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble
#73To touch the stars. To reach a galaxy. To dream of afar. And in the deepest space, see our ancestry.
It's hard to look at the Webb images without thinking that there must be life and technology out somewhere else in the stars.
Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble
#74For the professional (or former professional) astronomers among us, I will make my somewhat amused observation that what people are most paying attention to is not really the distinguishing features of JWST. People seem most impressed by the apparent increase in resolution of the images, which is not from a certain point of view the hardest thing to do . HST might have done that if its instruments had been of differe…
Agreed! In the SMACS 0723 image, there is a red spiral galaxy near the top right which is effectively not present in the HST image because it was redshifted out of the spectrum. This implies it's one of the galaxies receding the fastest from us in the image right? And therefore also among the oldest and farthest away?
Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble
#75born too early...
For the machines that will replace us.
Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANA{astrophysicist, space engineer} but I do follow this closely and have what I call a working armchair understanding of this stuff. Anyone from relevant fields is welcome to gently correct any imprecisions. I always want to learn more and will thank you for it >could Hubble achieve the same quality of images as Webb if it was given 100x (or whatever) more time exposure? No, for a different and simpler reason: Hubb…
> That is ~6.25 times the light collection area of Hubble(25.4m² vs 4m²) This would have to be scaled by the wavelength being observed, for a resolution comparison. Hubble actually has better absolute resolution, when viewing shorter the wavelengths that JWT can't sense (0.05 arcseconds vs JWT 0.1 arcseconds).
Right, that didn't occur to me at first, but is just obviously true when you point it out, thanks. Though I didn't know that hubble is actually higher resolution in that comparison.
Then, in some sense, the first part of my explanation is most of the story in the case of comparing MIRI(mid-infrared instrument) to hubble in the near-infrared.
But in comparing NIRCAM to Hubble in the near-infraread JWST would in fact have greater resolution, no?
Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble
#77Now build a zoomable full-res version. Because I am spoiled and want the internet to do things for me.
ESA got your back: quintet: https://esawebb.org/images/weic2208a/zoomable/ https://esawebb.org/images/weic2208b/zoomable/ carina: https://esawebb.org/images/weic2205a/zoomable/ https://esawebb.org/images/weic2205b/zoomable/ Southern ring https://esawebb.org/images/weic2207a/zoomable/ https://esawebb.org/images/weic2207b/zoomable/ https://esawebb.org/images/weic2207c/zoomable/ Deep field https://esawebb.org/images/wei…
Well, I found my next set of ultrawide wallpapers for my 49" monitor :) Thanks!
Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble
#78Why is there so much more lens flare on Webb vs Hubble? It seems to negatively degrade the photos taken much more so than Hubble.
This is a great explanation:
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/james-webb-spikes/
Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble
#79Earlier 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?
Well I mean the JWST is in orbit both around the L2 point and the sun. It's sensitive equipment must also be facing away from the sun. So there's a lot of movement going on out there.
Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble
#80Question 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'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.
I'm sorry but no no no. These telescopes are tracking the objects they are imaging specifically to avoid imaging issues from motion. This isn't some dude in the backyard with an alt-az scope bought from a Sears catalog.
I really hope you were trolling with this response