James Webb first images – complete set of high resolution shots now live

Post by bowsamic » Tue, Jul 12, 2022, 9:08 PM UTC

shitpostbot wrote: post #110

roywiggins wrote: post #85

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 had always assumed they were doing it completely mathematically though. Like collating spectrometry readings to know what elements were present where and figuring out the temperature for blackbody emission or something, or even just linearly transforming the raw data from the spectrum the telescope can receive to the visible spectrum. Kinda disappointing if it's really just a paint by numbers Photoshop to look nice

Post by ckosidows » Tue, Jul 12, 2022, 9:13 PM UTC

glitcher wrote: post #181

idiotsecant wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing matters. You live for a while and then you die, but it sure can be a cool trip getting there!

Nothing and Everything matters simultaneously, reality is the ultimate paradox :)

Post by randyrand » Tue, Jul 12, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

yaakov34 wrote: post #338

randyrand wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone have a simulated image of what it would look like in visible light without red shifting? i.e. If we were moving at the same velocity of the Nebula looking with our own eyes. i.e. What it would look like "in real life if I actually went there"

These objects are much too faint to see much of anything with human eyes. We can see them in astrophotography because the exposures are hours long (or weeks even, sometimes), and because telescopes gather more light than the eye per unit time, as well. This is why these nebulae look like billowing clouds - they are huge (light years across), so some light is absorbed as it crosses them, and some of the infrared light…

Post by beowulfey » Tue, Jul 12, 2022, 9:22 PM UTC

whiteboardr wrote: post #77

Watching the livestream i was more than surprised, that color correction actually happens in Photoshop. Also, there seem to be multiple layer-masks involved for specific regions and objects. I get that you can shift and composite color, based on hue, apply filters etc, but: Photoshop? Curious if anyone can explain, that what we see is actual science or some touched up version of objects in our universe. p.s.: What st…

Post by collaborative » Tue, Jul 12, 2022, 9:27 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #214

mrandish wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Mobile is actually a great platform to get Hugh resolution, since you can zoom in really easily and navigate the full image. However, after spending 10 minutes on mobile this morning, I was unable to find any high resolution images, and many images had that anti-pattern of a BS HTML gallery that severely restricts interacting with the image.