4 ms·
Wow you're right, huge difference in the sizes of the "full res" images: > MIRI: Full Res, 1306 X 1133, TIF (1.78 MB) [1] > NIR Cam: Full Res, 4833 X 4501, TI
by fumblebee 4y ago
Wow you're right, huge difference in the sizes of the "full res" images:
> MIRI: Full Res, 1306 X 1133, TIF (1.78 MB) [1]
> NIR Cam: Full Res, 4833 X 4501, TIF (24.06 MB) [2]
Maybe it's a mistake, they suggest it should offer an "incredible amount of detail":
This Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) image also offers an _incredible amount of detail_, including a cache of distant galaxies in the background.
[1] https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/033/01G70C5F6Z698YC9E1DEBA3WET https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/033/01G...
[2] https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/033/01G70BGTSYBHS69T7K3N3ASSEB https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/033/01G...
- TremendousJudge 4y agoWell, it's incredible in the sense that I can't believe it
- DiogenesKynikos 4y agoMIRI works at longer wavelengths than NIRCam, so its angular resolution is lower (longer wavelengths mean more diffraction). It also has a smaller field of view. Those two factors mean that it has fewer pixels per image.