171–180 of 410 posts
I am confused because I thought it was an infrared telescope? Are these images as received, or are they frequency shifted post processed into the visible range?
Note that the "colors" used in that graphic are also false, since only F070W and F090W are in the human eyeball's passband.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference between 'actual science' and 'some touched up version of objects in our universe' is smaller than you might think: no matter how good your eyes, if there was no frequency shift involved you would not be able to perceive the image, other than as an array of numbers. To facilitate your consumption of the data it has to be frequency shifted and the easiest way to do this is to map the IR intensity to a ra…
Thanks, but how is the sausage made then? Guess, that’s my main question. I get that the aquired data needs to be transformed in a way so we get an image that depicts a reality we can visually process. I honestly thought there’s some tools in Nasa’s imaging group that, based on scientific rules, pumps out an image that is correct - seeing Photoshop in use left me wonder… I get that the investment needs to be “sold” t…
Direct links -- Stephan's Quintet (NIRCam and MIRI Composite Image): https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01G7DB1FHPMJCCY59CQGZC1YJQ.png Southern Ring Nebula (NIRCam and MIRI Images Side by Side): https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01G79R28V7S4AXDN8NG5QCPGE3.png “Cosmic Cliffs” in the Carina Nebula (NIRCam Image): https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01G7ETPF7DVBJAC42JR5N6EQRH.png Webb's First Deep Field (NIRCam Image): https://stsci-opo.org…
Thanks for posting these links! It was frustrating that the main NASA PR pages linked photos that were 1280x720. I guess that's to protect their bandwidth costs since much of the general public is probably viewing on mobile anyway and higher res would not only be slower but wasted bits. I just wish NASA had provided a link at the bottom of their low-res image pages to intermediate sized images (~4k) for desktop viewi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference between 'actual science' and 'some touched up version of objects in our universe' is smaller than you might think: no matter how good your eyes, if there was no frequency shift involved you would not be able to perceive the image, other than as an array of numbers. To facilitate your consumption of the data it has to be frequency shifted and the easiest way to do this is to map the IR intensity to a ra…
Thanks, but how is the sausage made then? Guess, that’s my main question. I get that the aquired data needs to be transformed in a way so we get an image that depicts a reality we can visually process. I honestly thought there’s some tools in Nasa’s imaging group that, based on scientific rules, pumps out an image that is correct - seeing Photoshop in use left me wonder… I get that the investment needs to be “sold” t…
Since we can't visually process spectrums other than visible, there's no "correct" way to show the image.
So, am I to get this right? The universe, it's big. Like really big?
Less flippantly, the number of galaxies in the images is just mind boggling. I'm looking forward to seeing 3d explorable map of the galaxies someday. I know it will happen if it hasn't already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Webb's primary camera is infrared, so there is by necessity a choice to be made with how to present the data for humans who can't see in infrared.
I am aware. (And have been eagerly waiting for this moment for ages) It just seems “unscientific” to just use Photoshop and above all curious about the set of rules and algorithms, that enables them to decide which hue to pick for which region, levels, etc.
I hope someone from NASA will read this or perhaps someone can forward this message, but all we want (mere mortal humans) is quick access to the direct links to the highest resolution images. From what I can tell it takes anywhere from 5 (if you know what you're doing) to 10 clicks (once you understand the UI) to find all the links for a -singular- image. Thanks nonetheless.
https://webbtelescope.org/news/news-releases?Collection=Firs...
1. Pick subject 2. Pick image which interests you (bottom) 3. Pick resolution you need (left sidebar)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, but how is the sausage made then? Guess, that’s my main question. I get that the aquired data needs to be transformed in a way so we get an image that depicts a reality we can visually process. I honestly thought there’s some tools in Nasa’s imaging group that, based on scientific rules, pumps out an image that is correct - seeing Photoshop in use left me wonder… I get that the investment needs to be “sold” t…
I don't think there's a scientific definition of "correct" for these sorts of images. How would you even define correctness?
Based on their distance, hence blue-/redshift, you could at least predict the visible colors we might perceive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference between 'actual science' and 'some touched up version of objects in our universe' is smaller than you might think: no matter how good your eyes, if there was no frequency shift involved you would not be able to perceive the image, other than as an array of numbers. To facilitate your consumption of the data it has to be frequency shifted and the easiest way to do this is to map the IR intensity to a ra…
What would these look like, if you could point a ground telescope at the exact same spot? How much light is in the visible spectrum?