Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

johnedchristensen.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 254 posts

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#131

Post by dylan604 »

scrollaway wrote: post #128
dylan604 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's hard to look at the Webb images without thinking..." What am I missing?

A charitable interpretation. You're making the assumption the poster meant they didn't have this feeling before. They might just be repeating that, once again, it's difficult to do this with Webb. Hubble is irrelevant. Anything else is irrelevant. They're talking about the pictures here in front of us.

cheap shot?

I was absolutely agreeing with the sentiment. I clearly asked if the feeling was there before as well or if it was just from the new images.

Thanks for your charity though

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#132

Post by supernova87a »

tigershark wrote: post #88
supernova87a wrote: post #61

For 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…

The increased resolution is extremely important given that the diffraction threshold is function of the wavelength and the mirror diameter. And you can clearly see that in the MIRI images at a longer wavelength that have a noticeably lower resolution compared to Nircam. If Webb mirror was as big as Hubble the resolution would have been bad in the long wavelengths. Hubble couldn’t have had a better resolution with bet…

Those are good points -- my original comment was a little simplistic.

I don't have the info at hand -- do you know what was the resolution of HST optical/NIR imagers versus JWST new imagers?

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#133

Post by dtgriscom »

nomel wrote: post #65
mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #47

Earlier 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).

The resolution is limited by the diameter, not the area (although they're usually closely linked).

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#134

Post by mortenjorck »

nacogo wrote: post #74
supernova87a wrote: post #61

For 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? https://blog.wolfd.me/hubble-jwst/

Related question: to confirm, some of the additional detail we’re seeing in the JWST images is in fact IR that has been “hue clamped” into the visible spectrum?

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#135

Post by soulofmischief »

mortenjorck wrote: post #134
nacogo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? https://blog.wolfd.me/hubble-jwst/

Related question: to confirm, some of the additional detail we’re seeing in the JWST images is in fact IR that has been “hue clamped” into the visible spectrum?

It's all IR. It's color-mapped over RGB, but the sensors are IR.

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#136

Post by jsjohnst »

libraryatnight wrote: post #96
supernova87a wrote: post #61

For 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…

Quoted post unavailable.

> I'm sure you were well intentioned, but this comment read all kinds of rude and negative.

Pot, meet kettle. Except you are flat out an arse while GP was mostly innocent in their action I feel.

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#137

Post by tmm84 »

SCAQTony wrote: post #122

Aesthetically, I like the Hubble images better, they are more painterly and colorful. However there is no doubt that the JWST contains way more information and is exponentially more valuable.

I'm glad someone here said this about them. I grew up seeing Hubble style images (non-IR) so I get the warm fuzziness they have. For me the one thing that gets me are the big shiny stars that seem to have big streaks going everywhere. They feel like lens flare in the photos.

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#138

Post by svachalek »

ElThomaso wrote: post #125
supernova87a wrote: post #61

For 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…

In the second image it is clear that more of the nebula is visible, isn't this because more wavelengths of light are being detected? In this case an amateur absolutely can appreciate the technical improvements, the IR is mapped to a visible RGB spectrum...

Different wavelengths. The JWST also cannot see the shorter wavelengths that Hubble excels at.

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#140

Post by mastazi »

protoster wrote: post #28

Bug report: On Firefox the difference wiper thing doesn't appear for the last image (Carina Nebula), it only shows the full Webb image.

on Brave, instead it's the polar opposite, only the Carina Nebula works

Edit it could be because of my default zoom level https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32076048

Post reply on HN