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?
I was wondering that too. I'm not a photography expert, but i recall that lens flares are in the shape of the lens. Since the telescope uses those honeycomb lenses, the 6-sided flares seem to make sense. Happy to be corrected of course.
NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation
71–80 of 196 posts
Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation
#72Would 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.
Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation
#73Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation
#74James Webb telescope is great and all, but I have to say I think the older image is more stunning and more aesthetically pleasing. Cleaner, simpler, nicer colors, more mysterious looking.
Webb's purpose is scientific measurements, not cool looking images. (Though wallpapers are a nice bonus!)
When it comes to aesthetically pleasing images, I'm consistently blown away by the composite images combining Webb with other devices like Chandra.
Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation
#75Would 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.
As I understand it, they aren't exactly lens artifacts, they're stars in the foreground. The telescope can't see past them and we don't know what's there. To me, it would defeat the observational mission of the JWST to fill it in with some pixels that were similar to the rest of the background. However, I also think you raise a good point, since all these images are constructed from non-visible infra-red light and ma…
Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation
#76Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation
#77When I go outside I can barely see any stars, unlike my ancestors who saw a sky utterly filled with stars. Then I go on my computer and I can see more stars, with more details, than my ancestors even imagined. I can't decide if it's a worthwhile tradeoff.
Take a trip out to the mojave and you can see stars like your ancestors. It's awe-inspiring and otherwordly.
Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation
#78When I go outside I can barely see any stars, unlike my ancestors who saw a sky utterly filled with stars. Then I go on my computer and I can see more stars, with more details, than my ancestors even imagined. I can't decide if it's a worthwhile tradeoff.
Now, having moved to Flagstaff, AZ, a dark sky community, the night sky is fantastic. It has returned to me the beauty and wonder the sky once must have instilled in everyone. It's not the grand canyon, or deep in Death Valley or other parts of the Mojave. But it is enough. On new moons, not more than 30 minutes from town, the milky way can be so bright as to leave an 'afterglow' when one closes their eyes.
Computers and these images, while fascinating, will never truly rival the beauty of your own eyes seeing the night sky unaccosted by human development.
Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take a trip out to the mojave and you can see stars like your ancestors. It's awe-inspiring and otherwordly.
Or if you're on the East Coast, come to Pennsylvania! https://www.darksky.org/our-work/conservation/idsp/parks/che...
Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation
#80Every time I see a photo of Pillars of Creation it makes me wonder if we would even be able to distinguish an unfathomably optimized engineered system from what we consider raw physics with our current understanding.
This follows from the fact that there is still a lot of “raw physics” we do not fully understand. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_p...