4 ms·

It would be great if they did a before and after shot. Like, here’s what we could see at this point in space before. Now we can see… THIS!

deelowe 4y ago
https://petapixel.com/2022/07/11/comparing-hubble-to-james-webb-the-difference-in-detail-is-astounding/ https://petapixel.com/2022/07/11/comparing-hubble-to-james-w...
- capableweb 4y ago
  Yeah, that's not very good implementation. PetaPixel usually have good content, but using a GIF to compare these two images? Come on! You can see the compression artifacts very easily.
  - yreg 4y ago
    How about this one, by a user from here? https://blog.wolfd.me/hubble-jwst/ https://blog.wolfd.me/hubble-jwst/
    - boriskourt 4y ago
      This is a great way to show all the new distant details. Amazing to think that so many of the artifacts in Hubble's total darkness are galaxies upon galaxies.
  - deelowe 4y ago
    This was also recently posted on reddit: https://johnedchristensen.github.io/WebbCompare/ https://johnedchristensen.github.io/WebbCompare/
    - jonplackett 4y ago
      Was J J Abrahams involved in Webb, because it really seems to produce nice lens flair
      - capableweb 4y ago
        What you're seeing is not lens flares but diffraction spikes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_spike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_spike You could call those lens flares I guess, but commonly known as diffraction spikes when it comes to telescopes. In this case they appear because of the supporting struts in the James Webb telescope.
  - HedgeGriffon 4y ago
    Umm.. not compression artifacts. GIF uses lossless LZW. Maybe color palette artifacts since GIFs are usually palettized and not true color (although with a tortured use of local color tables they can even be true color)
    - capableweb 4y ago
      This is the nitpick we all come here for :) Choosing a limited palette in order to save bytes, some might say is compression. If said compression hurts the image quality, some might call that "compression artifacts". The point stands, GIF was a poor choice for the format here.

deelowe 4y ago

https://petapixel.com/2022/07/11/comparing-hubble-to-james-webb-the-difference-in-detail-is-astounding/ https://petapixel.com/2022/07/11/comparing-hubble-to-james-w...

capableweb 4y ago
Yeah, that's not very good implementation. PetaPixel usually have good content, but using a GIF to compare these two images? Come on! You can see the compression artifacts very easily.
- yreg 4y ago
  How about this one, by a user from here? https://blog.wolfd.me/hubble-jwst/ https://blog.wolfd.me/hubble-jwst/
  - boriskourt 4y ago
    This is a great way to show all the new distant details. Amazing to think that so many of the artifacts in Hubble's total darkness are galaxies upon galaxies.
- deelowe 4y ago
  This was also recently posted on reddit: https://johnedchristensen.github.io/WebbCompare/ https://johnedchristensen.github.io/WebbCompare/
  - jonplackett 4y ago
    Was J J Abrahams involved in Webb, because it really seems to produce nice lens flair
    - capableweb 4y ago
      What you're seeing is not lens flares but diffraction spikes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_spike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_spike You could call those lens flares I guess, but commonly known as diffraction spikes when it comes to telescopes. In this case they appear because of the supporting struts in the James Webb telescope.
- HedgeGriffon 4y ago
  Umm.. not compression artifacts. GIF uses lossless LZW. Maybe color palette artifacts since GIFs are usually palettized and not true color (although with a tortured use of local color tables they can even be true color)
  - capableweb 4y ago
    This is the nitpick we all come here for :) Choosing a limited palette in order to save bytes, some might say is compression. If said compression hurts the image quality, some might call that "compression artifacts". The point stands, GIF was a poor choice for the format here.