6 ms·

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-jam

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.

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.