4 ms·
I was honestly slightly underwhelmed by the improvement in detail until I saw your comment about the exposure times. Now my mind is utterly blown, thank you.
by mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
I was honestly slightly underwhelmed by the improvement in detail until I saw your comment about the exposure times. Now my mind is utterly blown, thank you.
- knowaveragejoe 4y agoThe level of detail completely blows away other deep field images.
- dredmorbius 4y agoI need to double-check the colour-to-wavelength mapping, but I suspect many of the redder objects in the image would be entirely invisible to the Hubble simply by being beyond its sensor range in the IR spectrum.
- perihelions 4y agoRight, the longest wavelength filter here is 4.4 µm [0]. In Hubble's version, the reddest filter they use is 1.6 µm on WFC3/IR [1] (which I believe is Hubble's reddest overall and limited by its optics). Four of the six filters used are outside Hubble's range. [0] "In this case, the assigned colors are: Red: F444W Orange: F356W Green: F200W + F277W Blue: F090W + F150W" https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/038/01G7JGTH21B5GN9VCYAHBXKSD1?news=true https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/038/01G... [1] https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/relics/ https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/relics/
- MattRix 4y agoI don’t think most of the comparison images so far have really demonstrated the difference in quality and resolution, but this gif does: https://twitter.com/jason4short/status/1546633395643432961?s=20&t=POVxZ5CCplXkzfzl2XyoWQ https://twitter.com/jason4short/status/1546633395643432961?s...
- JohnBooty 4y agoI was also underwhelmed until I zoomed alllllll the way in. Try it.