4 ms·
It is complicated and wavelength dependent. In near infrared, Hubble and JWST have about the same resolution. As the frequency moves further into infrared, JWST
by asmithmd1 4y ago
It is complicated and wavelength dependent. In near infrared, Hubble and JWST have about the same resolution. As the frequency moves further into infrared, JWST is better than Hubble. The other things that affect how clear an image is are “point spread function” - how much light gets scattered. And how steady the telescope can be held on one spot. Both of these capabilities are better for JWST than Hubble.
- causality0 4y agoAgain the evasive language. I'm not talking about the technical specs, I'm talking this dang picture. This one. Are the finest details in this picture finer than the finest details in the Hubble ultra-deep field?
- asmithmd1 4y agoAre “the finest details” of an X-ray of your wrist finer than a screen grab from a camera phone video of your wrist?
- RandomBK 4y agoThis picture is not the actual image data from JWST, but rather an interpretation of infrared data. If you're only asking about the details in this picture, my understanding is that JWST is better though not by orders of magnitude. However the actual answer is that the two telescopes are not easily comparable in this fashion.