61–70 of 196 posts
Also look at the comparison to the Hubble image. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/st... Impressive to see the infrared spectrum seeing through all the background gas to the millions of stars.
Notice how every star twinkles the same way. I thought it was because of how the mirrors were arrayed. But this time the twinkles are different.
Would it be possible for them to algorithmically remove the lens artifacts? I suppose just "anything with hexagonal symmetry gets deleted". They're kinda pretty but it's sad to think that this isn't what it would actually look like if you had really good infrared eyes.
What's up with all the "lens flares"? Is this a flaw in the imaging? Some real phenomenon? Or just an artistic license effect that has been added to increase visual appeal?
Imagine the civilizations that live between these pillars.
What's up with all the "lens flares"? Is this a flaw in the imaging? Some real phenomenon? Or just an artistic license effect that has been added to increase visual appeal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Webb observes "much further" into the IR [1]. 1. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/hu... (this image is from [2]) 2. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-vs-webb-on-the-s...
JWST is undeniably a superior and remarkable instrument, but there has been a bit of a trend I have noticed on social media - and this may just be my perception rather than reality - of comparing it with suboptimal alternatives rather than the best image we had prior to the JWST, often making the new images look dramatically better when in fact the improvements to the best images we already had are more subtle (perha…
Hubble's visible light Pillars of Creation image, for example, is super famous and instantly recognizable, but I'm not sure I would have known what I was looking at if the infrared version was used.
Also, different devices rarely have exactly the same usage and specifications. For example, Webb and Hubble have very different wavelength sensitivities, and this has tradeoffs in resolution and quality. In other words, the subjective image quality you get from the pictures may not tell the whole story of how valuable the data itself is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting- If you look closely at the super bright objects, there are both hexagonally symmetric artifacts and cardinal up/down/left/right artifacts. I’d love to hear from someone with knowledge of how these arise and what optical tradeoffs prevent designs from eliminating them.
It's possible through deconvolution with a model of the "point spread function" aka PSF. There are techniques from radio astronomy (where interferometry necessitates some kind of Fourier basis model and deconvolution/imaging procedure) which has been extended to the optical domain. See for example: https://twitter.com/NGC3314/status/1582442367482634242?t=Eaa...
Also look at the comparison to the Hubble image. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/st... Impressive to see the infrared spectrum seeing through all the background gas to the millions of stars.
I think they’re millions of galaxies , which is even more amazing