8 ms·

Higher Resolution Images available here: https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/038/01G7JGTH21B5GN9VCYAHBXKSD1 https://webbtelescope.org/contents/

Higher Resolution Images available here: https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/038/01G7JGTH21B5GN9VCYAHBXKSD1 https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/038/01G... Full-Res 4537x4630 PNG (28.51 MB): https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01G7JJADTH90FR98AKKJFKSS0B.png https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01G7JJADTH90FR98AKKJFKSS0B.png Hubble's capture of the same area: https://bigthink.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/smacs0723-73.jpg https://bigthink.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/smacs0723-73... and a gif comparison vs the JWST: https://i.redd.it/9uyhwijeo0b91.gif https://i.redd.it/9uyhwijeo0b91.gif posted by /u/WhatEvery1sThinking on Reddit.

Kye 4y ago
If I knew JavaScript I would make a bookmarklet that makes it slowly pan over the full-res version, stopping periodically. Since I don't, I made a poster of crops: https://twitter.com/KyeFox/status/1546629778349907968 https://twitter.com/KyeFox/status/1546629778349907968
darzu 4y ago
Same comparison zoomed into my favorite part without motion: https://twitter.com/sprigland/status/1546633629236748294 https://twitter.com/sprigland/status/1546633629236748294
skrause 4y ago
All the very red galaxies in the JWST image are mostly or completely invisible in the Hubble image. That’s because they’re so redshifted that they’re out of the spectrum Hubble can see. Those are the galaxies that are really far away.
- ffhhj 4y ago
  Comparing both images, there is a perfectly round red dot that's just a few pixels wide, a little up from the most prominent star, which doesn't correspond to another object in Hubble's image. Is that an image artifact or some laser guide?
  - sbierwagen 4y ago
    Could be an internal reflection. The optical path for many JWST instruments is, uh, compact: https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2021/09/Webb_MIRI_imaging-mode_animation/(lang)/en https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2021/09/Webb_MIRI_... (Every kilo on telescope structure you save by folding the optical path is a kilo you can add in propellant, extending the working life of the spacecraft) Instrument internals are painted black and heavily baffled, but nothing in optics is perfect. Dithering the direction the telescope is pointed in and image stacking should cancel out most optical artifacts, but internal reflections will be worse for bright objects like stars, which JWST probably isn't usually going to be observing with the imaging instruments.
  - jccooper 4y ago
    It is a bit suspicious looking, but there's a lot of very red objects that the Hubble image doesn't catch. Presuming that the red colors in the images are the deeper infrared wavelengths (and thus the most heavily-redshifted objects) I would guess that Hubble just didn't have the detectors to see those.
- perihelions 4y ago
  Here's a variant of that GIF that separates out the blue, blue+green, and blue+green+red channels, to (hopefully) highlight which differences are due to the longer wavelengths (and which look more like exposure time difference). Webb's color mapping roughly aligns with the RGB channels, so I think this is meaningful [0]. https://i.ibb.co/D8dW6v5/jwst.webp https://i.ibb.co/D8dW6v5/jwst.webp [0] https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/038/01G7JGTH21B5GN9VCYAHBXKSD1?news=true https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/038/01G... ("...the assigned colors are: Red: F444W Orange: F356W Green: F200W + F277W Blue: F090W + F150W") Steps to reproduce: convert 9uyhwijeo0b91.gif[1] -resize 4537x4630 aligned-hst.png cp STScI-01G7JJADTH90FR98AKKJFKSS0B.png jwst-rgb.png convert jwst-rgb.png -channel R -fx "u*0" jwst-gb.png convert jwst-gb.png -channel G -fx "u*0" jwst-b.png convert -delay 150 -loop 0 jwst-{b,gb,rgb}.png aligned-hst.png my.gif ffmpeg -i my.gif -loop 0 my.webp
- pcdoodle 4y ago
  Aren't the red ones moving really fast away from us and the white ones more "stationary" from our point in the universe?
  - dmitrybrant 4y ago
    Yes, that's generally true. Galaxies that are redshifted are moving very fast relative to us. But the only reason for them to be moving so fast is due to the expansion of the universe, and these galaxies being sufficiently far away. The large white elliptical galaxies in the center of the image are in the "foreground", while the orange-ish galaxies are much farther away in the background. This is why the light from the more distant galaxies is curved and distorted by the foreground objects, creating the lensing effect that we see.
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    Hubbles law says that astronomical objects that are further away also move away from us more quickly with the constant of proportionality being the Hubble constant
lamontcg 4y ago
What is the exposure difference between the Hubble and JWST images?
- Temporal_Trout 4y ago
  I couldn't find an exact exposure time for the Hubble image, the press release by the ESA has this quote though: "This deep field, taken by Webb’s Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam), is a composite made from images at different wavelengths, totaling 12.5 hours – achieving depths at infrared wavelengths beyond the Hubble Space Telescope’s deepest fields, which took weeks." [1] There is also another comment further down this thread stating Hubble was 140 hours. [2] [1] https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2022/07/Webb_s_first_deep_field https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2022/07/Webb_s_fir... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32063214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32063214
  - perihelions 4y ago
    Those exposure times (weeks / 140 hours) are for these images [0,1], Hubble's deep fields. Hubble's photo of this galaxy cluster, the one our root comment shows superimposed over JWST's, took 5 Hubble orbits [2]. I think that's around 2-3 hours of exposure time. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field [2] https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/relics/ https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/relics/ ("For each cluster, the team observed to 5-orbit depth with ACS and WFC3/IR") (If you want to verify [2] is talking about the same photo, you can retrieve it from the "SMACS J0723.3-7327" row, from the "Color Images" column/field).
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      LEO should be >= 80 mins so 5 hubble orbits should be >= 400 mins / 6.6 hrs? EDIT: nasa.gov says 95 mins, so ~8 hrs.
      - perihelions 4y ago
qbasic_forever 4y ago
Wow I love how things that were dots or haze with Hubble are brilliant spirals and galaxies in the JWST image. Absolutely amazing!
- criddell 4y ago
  I always wonder if we had a sensitive enough instrument, would it get more difficult to pick out individual galaxies? Or, are there enough galaxies that an image taken by a very sensitive telescope would have no black areas?
cbm-vic-20 4y ago
Incredible. If each of those galaxies has on average a few hundred billion stars (our is estimated to have between 100b-400b), and each of those little dots is an entire galaxy, well, that's a lot of stars in this image.
- MrDunham 4y ago
  People use the term mind-blowing loosely but it really fits here. That’s an utterly astounding, incomprehensible number of stars. And this image is “roughly the size of a grain of sand held at arms length” of the night sky.
  - floatrock 4y ago
    a brief peek into infinity
    - 314 4y ago
      Not really - there is a fairly definite ending about 13.4b light years into the image.
      - losvedir 4y ago
        I think you're referring to the age of the universe here? But due to inflation, although the universe is 13 billion years old, the observable universe is quite a bit bigger than that (i.e. we can see stars much further than 13 billion light years away).
        314 4y ago
        I was thinking of the age - good point.
  - delta_p_delta_x 4y ago
    > And this image is “roughly the size of a grain of sand held at arms length” of the night sky. For a more specific measurement: NASA says 2.4 arcminutes across[0]. [0]: https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/038/01G7JGTH21B5GN9VCYAHBXKSD1#:%7E:text=Image%20is%20about%202.4%20arcmin%20across:~:text=Image%20is%20about%202.4%20arcmin%20across https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/038/01G...
zamadatix 4y ago
I created a webp comparison: https://ibb.co/9ZjpLnV https://ibb.co/9ZjpLnV
- martijnvds 4y ago
  James Webp?
wolfd 4y ago
Thanks for finding those images! I threw together a page that lets you compare them via a slider. You should be able to zoom in on mobile! https://blog.wolfd.me/hubble-jwst/ https://blog.wolfd.me/hubble-jwst/ The .gif comparison was a bit... upsetting since the color palettes are so limited and the resolution is so low, so it really didn't put JWST _or_ Hubble in a good light.
- caseyf7 4y ago
  This is incredibly useful. Thank you!
- fsckboy 4y ago
  would it make sense to balance the two images in terms of brightness? the hubble one just seems dimmer. There is some extra "pinpoint" clarity in the Webb image, but it doesn't show (for instance) a bunch of new stuff, I was surprised at that.
  - black_knight 4y ago
    There is definitely new stuff there – if you look closely. The new stuff is of course faint and small. Otherwise Hubble would have seen it!
- HPsquared 4y ago
  It looks like restoration of an old painting where the aged, yellowed varnish is stripped away to reveal the (much brighter and more detailed) original painting below.
  - barfingclouds 4y ago
    Couldn’t you just do basic photo touch ups to get the Hubble to look about the same???
    - collinmanderson 4y ago
      No. Webb looks deeper into the infrared and can see galaxies that Hubble can't see. There're some red galaxies in Webb (upper-right especially) that aren't in Hubble's at all.
noisy_boy 4y ago
Highly recommend the full-res image - brings out a great deal of character from a lot of the galaxies that is just not visible in the zoomed-out image.
noisy_boy 4y ago
Some that I found quite interesting: https://ibb.co/zPvxrFT https://ibb.co/zPvxrFT https://ibb.co/NYsp9Jw https://ibb.co/NYsp9Jw https://ibb.co/wJDQ7XM https://ibb.co/wJDQ7XM https://ibb.co/yf8RTM2 https://ibb.co/yf8RTM2 https://ibb.co/d72g9Jx https://ibb.co/d72g9Jx https://ibb.co/BBPvFZf https://ibb.co/BBPvFZf https://ibb.co/567Z9RC https://ibb.co/567Z9RC https://ibb.co/Hpm43Xr https://ibb.co/Hpm43Xr https://ibb.co/JBhmCxL https://ibb.co/JBhmCxL https://ibb.co/PMYqnXb https://ibb.co/PMYqnXb
- drclau 4y ago
  Can you elaborate why you found those interesting?
  - noisy_boy 4y ago
    Mainly because most of the pictures I usually see of the galaxies in space, they appear as practically identical dots. Never before I've seen this level of detail and the variety of shapes. Each of these galaxies have billions of stars and planets and they are billions of such galaxies. I know we have read these numbers before but just seeing them "up-close" like this in such a small section just makes it that much more real. Just imagine how much more vivid they would appear once the technology progresses ever further.
    - anjc 4y ago
      > Mainly because most of the pictures I usually see of the galaxies in space, they appear as practically identical dots. Never before I've seen this level of detail and the variety of shapes. Do you mean these specific galaxies? If not, you can see many galaxies in amazing detail with very modest equipment. If you know what you're looking for you can faintly see Andromeda with the naked eye.
      - noisy_boy 4y ago
        Terrible light pollution where I stay - hopefully one day I'll be able to retire to a place more conducive to stargazing.
igorv 4y ago
I've created a zoom & pan version of the full-resolution image - https://example.sirvtest.com/nasa/universe.html https://example.sirvtest.com/nasa/universe.html
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
alionaguseva 4y ago
How about 1.4 Gigapixel image of the galaxy? The new photos by @NASAWebb are stunning. Let's Enhance's AI made them super high res for you to enjoy the clearest view of the Universe. Download: 80MP/140MB https://drive.google.com/file/d/150VhXVEfYXmr70LrrZxQ50pU0u5H9VXV/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/150VhXVEfYXmr70LrrZxQ50pU0u5... 1.4GP/2.5GB (note: not every image viewer can handle a file this big) https://drive.google.com/file/d/14x__QDUmrIvLnlxoSOksu3mgpeXj3mjQ/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/14x__QDUmrIvLnlxoSOksu3mgpeX...

Kye 4y ago

If I knew JavaScript I would make a bookmarklet that makes it slowly pan over the full-res version, stopping periodically. Since I don't, I made a poster of crops: https://twitter.com/KyeFox/status/1546629778349907968 https://twitter.com/KyeFox/status/1546629778349907968

darzu 4y ago

Same comparison zoomed into my favorite part without motion: https://twitter.com/sprigland/status/1546633629236748294 https://twitter.com/sprigland/status/1546633629236748294

skrause 4y ago

All the very red galaxies in the JWST image are mostly or completely invisible in the Hubble image. That’s because they’re so redshifted that they’re out of the spectrum Hubble can see. Those are the galaxies that are really far away.

ffhhj 4y ago
Comparing both images, there is a perfectly round red dot that's just a few pixels wide, a little up from the most prominent star, which doesn't correspond to another object in Hubble's image. Is that an image artifact or some laser guide?
- sbierwagen 4y ago
  Could be an internal reflection. The optical path for many JWST instruments is, uh, compact: https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2021/09/Webb_MIRI_imaging-mode_animation/(lang)/en https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2021/09/Webb_MIRI_... (Every kilo on telescope structure you save by folding the optical path is a kilo you can add in propellant, extending the working life of the spacecraft) Instrument internals are painted black and heavily baffled, but nothing in optics is perfect. Dithering the direction the telescope is pointed in and image stacking should cancel out most optical artifacts, but internal reflections will be worse for bright objects like stars, which JWST probably isn't usually going to be observing with the imaging instruments.
- jccooper 4y ago
  It is a bit suspicious looking, but there's a lot of very red objects that the Hubble image doesn't catch. Presuming that the red colors in the images are the deeper infrared wavelengths (and thus the most heavily-redshifted objects) I would guess that Hubble just didn't have the detectors to see those.
perihelions 4y ago
Here's a variant of that GIF that separates out the blue, blue+green, and blue+green+red channels, to (hopefully) highlight which differences are due to the longer wavelengths (and which look more like exposure time difference). Webb's color mapping roughly aligns with the RGB channels, so I think this is meaningful [0]. https://i.ibb.co/D8dW6v5/jwst.webp https://i.ibb.co/D8dW6v5/jwst.webp [0] https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/038/01G7JGTH21B5GN9VCYAHBXKSD1?news=true https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/038/01G... ("...the assigned colors are: Red: F444W Orange: F356W Green: F200W + F277W Blue: F090W + F150W") Steps to reproduce: convert 9uyhwijeo0b91.gif[1] -resize 4537x4630 aligned-hst.png cp STScI-01G7JJADTH90FR98AKKJFKSS0B.png jwst-rgb.png convert jwst-rgb.png -channel R -fx "u*0" jwst-gb.png convert jwst-gb.png -channel G -fx "u*0" jwst-b.png convert -delay 150 -loop 0 jwst-{b,gb,rgb}.png aligned-hst.png my.gif ffmpeg -i my.gif -loop 0 my.webp
pcdoodle 4y ago
Aren't the red ones moving really fast away from us and the white ones more "stationary" from our point in the universe?
- dmitrybrant 4y ago
  Yes, that's generally true. Galaxies that are redshifted are moving very fast relative to us. But the only reason for them to be moving so fast is due to the expansion of the universe, and these galaxies being sufficiently far away. The large white elliptical galaxies in the center of the image are in the "foreground", while the orange-ish galaxies are much farther away in the background. This is why the light from the more distant galaxies is curved and distorted by the foreground objects, creating the lensing effect that we see.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  Hubbles law says that astronomical objects that are further away also move away from us more quickly with the constant of proportionality being the Hubble constant

lamontcg 4y ago

What is the exposure difference between the Hubble and JWST images?

Temporal_Trout 4y ago
I couldn't find an exact exposure time for the Hubble image, the press release by the ESA has this quote though: "This deep field, taken by Webb’s Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam), is a composite made from images at different wavelengths, totaling 12.5 hours – achieving depths at infrared wavelengths beyond the Hubble Space Telescope’s deepest fields, which took weeks." [1] There is also another comment further down this thread stating Hubble was 140 hours. [2] [1] https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2022/07/Webb_s_first_deep_field https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2022/07/Webb_s_fir... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32063214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32063214
- perihelions 4y ago
  Those exposure times (weeks / 140 hours) are for these images [0,1], Hubble's deep fields. Hubble's photo of this galaxy cluster, the one our root comment shows superimposed over JWST's, took 5 Hubble orbits [2]. I think that's around 2-3 hours of exposure time. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field [2] https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/relics/ https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/relics/ ("For each cluster, the team observed to 5-orbit depth with ACS and WFC3/IR") (If you want to verify [2] is talking about the same photo, you can retrieve it from the "SMACS J0723.3-7327" row, from the "Color Images" column/field).
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    LEO should be >= 80 mins so 5 hubble orbits should be >= 400 mins / 6.6 hrs? EDIT: nasa.gov says 95 mins, so ~8 hrs.
    - perihelions 4y ago

qbasic_forever 4y ago

Wow I love how things that were dots or haze with Hubble are brilliant spirals and galaxies in the JWST image. Absolutely amazing!

criddell 4y ago
I always wonder if we had a sensitive enough instrument, would it get more difficult to pick out individual galaxies? Or, are there enough galaxies that an image taken by a very sensitive telescope would have no black areas?

cbm-vic-20 4y ago

Incredible. If each of those galaxies has on average a few hundred billion stars (our is estimated to have between 100b-400b), and each of those little dots is an entire galaxy, well, that's a lot of stars in this image.

MrDunham 4y ago
People use the term mind-blowing loosely but it really fits here. That’s an utterly astounding, incomprehensible number of stars. And this image is “roughly the size of a grain of sand held at arms length” of the night sky.
- floatrock 4y ago
  a brief peek into infinity
  - 314 4y ago
    Not really - there is a fairly definite ending about 13.4b light years into the image.
    - losvedir 4y ago
      I think you're referring to the age of the universe here? But due to inflation, although the universe is 13 billion years old, the observable universe is quite a bit bigger than that (i.e. we can see stars much further than 13 billion light years away).
      - 314 4y ago
        I was thinking of the age - good point.
- delta_p_delta_x 4y ago
  > And this image is “roughly the size of a grain of sand held at arms length” of the night sky. For a more specific measurement: NASA says 2.4 arcminutes across[0]. [0]: https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/038/01G7JGTH21B5GN9VCYAHBXKSD1#:%7E:text=Image%20is%20about%202.4%20arcmin%20across:~:text=Image%20is%20about%202.4%20arcmin%20across https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/038/01G...

zamadatix 4y ago

I created a webp comparison: https://ibb.co/9ZjpLnV https://ibb.co/9ZjpLnV

martijnvds 4y ago
James Webp?

wolfd 4y ago

Thanks for finding those images! I threw together a page that lets you compare them via a slider. You should be able to zoom in on mobile! https://blog.wolfd.me/hubble-jwst/ https://blog.wolfd.me/hubble-jwst/ The .gif comparison was a bit... upsetting since the color palettes are so limited and the resolution is so low, so it really didn't put JWST _or_ Hubble in a good light.

caseyf7 4y ago
This is incredibly useful. Thank you!
fsckboy 4y ago
would it make sense to balance the two images in terms of brightness? the hubble one just seems dimmer. There is some extra "pinpoint" clarity in the Webb image, but it doesn't show (for instance) a bunch of new stuff, I was surprised at that.
- black_knight 4y ago
  There is definitely new stuff there – if you look closely. The new stuff is of course faint and small. Otherwise Hubble would have seen it!
HPsquared 4y ago
It looks like restoration of an old painting where the aged, yellowed varnish is stripped away to reveal the (much brighter and more detailed) original painting below.
- barfingclouds 4y ago
  Couldn’t you just do basic photo touch ups to get the Hubble to look about the same???
  - collinmanderson 4y ago
    No. Webb looks deeper into the infrared and can see galaxies that Hubble can't see. There're some red galaxies in Webb (upper-right especially) that aren't in Hubble's at all.

noisy_boy 4y ago

Highly recommend the full-res image - brings out a great deal of character from a lot of the galaxies that is just not visible in the zoomed-out image.

noisy_boy 4y ago

Some that I found quite interesting: https://ibb.co/zPvxrFT https://ibb.co/zPvxrFT https://ibb.co/NYsp9Jw https://ibb.co/NYsp9Jw https://ibb.co/wJDQ7XM https://ibb.co/wJDQ7XM https://ibb.co/yf8RTM2 https://ibb.co/yf8RTM2 https://ibb.co/d72g9Jx https://ibb.co/d72g9Jx https://ibb.co/BBPvFZf https://ibb.co/BBPvFZf https://ibb.co/567Z9RC https://ibb.co/567Z9RC https://ibb.co/Hpm43Xr https://ibb.co/Hpm43Xr https://ibb.co/JBhmCxL https://ibb.co/JBhmCxL https://ibb.co/PMYqnXb https://ibb.co/PMYqnXb

drclau 4y ago
Can you elaborate why you found those interesting?
- noisy_boy 4y ago
  Mainly because most of the pictures I usually see of the galaxies in space, they appear as practically identical dots. Never before I've seen this level of detail and the variety of shapes. Each of these galaxies have billions of stars and planets and they are billions of such galaxies. I know we have read these numbers before but just seeing them "up-close" like this in such a small section just makes it that much more real. Just imagine how much more vivid they would appear once the technology progresses ever further.
  - anjc 4y ago
    > Mainly because most of the pictures I usually see of the galaxies in space, they appear as practically identical dots. Never before I've seen this level of detail and the variety of shapes. Do you mean these specific galaxies? If not, you can see many galaxies in amazing detail with very modest equipment. If you know what you're looking for you can faintly see Andromeda with the naked eye.
    - noisy_boy 4y ago
      Terrible light pollution where I stay - hopefully one day I'll be able to retire to a place more conducive to stargazing.

igorv 4y ago

I've created a zoom & pan version of the full-resolution image - https://example.sirvtest.com/nasa/universe.html https://example.sirvtest.com/nasa/universe.html

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

alionaguseva 4y ago

How about 1.4 Gigapixel image of the galaxy? The new photos by @NASAWebb are stunning. Let's Enhance's AI made them super high res for you to enjoy the clearest view of the Universe. Download: 80MP/140MB https://drive.google.com/file/d/150VhXVEfYXmr70LrrZxQ50pU0u5H9VXV/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/150VhXVEfYXmr70LrrZxQ50pU0u5... 1.4GP/2.5GB (note: not every image viewer can handle a file this big) https://drive.google.com/file/d/14x__QDUmrIvLnlxoSOksu3mgpeXj3mjQ/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/14x__QDUmrIvLnlxoSOksu3mgpeX...