7 ms·

Here is a Hubble side by side of the deep field for comparison https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10159217085846758&set=gm.10160069710501170&type=3&mibext

Here is a Hubble side by side of the deep field for comparison https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10159217085846758&set=gm.10160069710501170&type=3&mibextid=wxGVb6 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10159217085846758&se...

throwaway5752 4y ago
My understanding is that it is also 12-13 hours of exposure for the Webb image vs weeks for Hubble.
- pavon 4y ago
  That is incorrect. The famous Hubble Ultra Deep Field image[1] took 11.3 days of imaging spread over four months (because of high demand to use Hubble). However, that is a different part of the sky. The Hubble image shown here was taken as part of RELICS[2], a survey of images to find good candidates for JWST to image, and was only exposed for 1.7 hours (5 orbits at ~20 minutes each), compared to JWST's exposure time of 12.5 hours. So comparisons between between Hubble and JWST for that particular shot are not fair to Hubble. [1]https://esahubble.org/images/heic0611b/ https://esahubble.org/images/heic0611b/ [2]https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/relics/ https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/relics/
kzrdude 4y ago
Right and it's slightly rotated, 20-30 degrees (guess). Just for others that try to line them up
quaintdev 4y ago
A GIF comparing both Hubble and JWST https://i.redd.it/9uyhwijeo0b91.gif https://i.redd.it/9uyhwijeo0b91.gif
- wolfd 4y ago
  I made this page (posted in another thread yesterday) because I was rather underwhelmed by the .gif. I think the page shows in much better detail the difference between the telescopes' capabilities. https://blog.wolfd.me/hubble-jwst/ https://blog.wolfd.me/hubble-jwst/ (If you're on mobile, you should be able to zoom in and still use the slider)
  - fatbas202 4y ago
    This is really awesome. Thank you!
  - april_22 4y ago
    damn, this is really awesome!!
  - nabakin 4y ago
    Interested in adding the Carina Nebula comparison? I'm crop-aligning the full resolution images rn and will have them in a bit Edit: btw you should add the ability to zoom on desktop too. Would make it a lot easier to see the massive difference between the two
  - emptyfile 4y ago
    Great stuff!
- bdefore 4y ago
  The additional detail of the red spiral galaxy around 12:30 is stark by comparison to others. Any ideas on why?
  - nacogo 4y ago
    The reddest objects in the JWST are frequently not even present in the Hubble image, as they were redshifted into a band of light Hubble couldn't even detect. That's my favorite part about this image - those galaxies we can now see which were previously redshifted beyond our capacity to detect. They're the oldest, and receding from us the fastest.
- ehsankia 4y ago
  Here's another tool with all 4 photos: https://johnedchristensen.github.io/WebbCompare/ https://johnedchristensen.github.io/WebbCompare/
mike10921 4y ago
Ok to be honest I know it's not cool to admit it, but so far it all looks the same. If someone told me that the Webb picture was taken by Hubble I would not have thought about it for an extra second. I'm hoping that in the future we see pictures of locations and environments that are mind-blowing to the average person who loves space.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  The difference is in a) the details and b) the length of time the telescope has to gather light to get the photo. JWST got the photo in hours when Hubble took weeks, and there's easily 10x as many objects in the JWST shot. JWST can thus observe much fainter and much more distant objects - galaxies billions of years old, exoplanets, etc., and it can do more of it.
  - mike10921 4y ago
    Of course, I get it, but we are allowed to admit that to the average person so far it looks like more of the same.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      I'm honestly not sure how you someone can look at those two photos side-by-side and think they're the same. Hubble's is like slapping a 360p cam rip on a 4k TV.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - capableweb 4y ago
      Unless you know what you're looking at, most if not everything looks mundane. It's only with perspective that we can grasp the beauty of things like these, or just other things, like ants. To most people, ants are just an annoying bug. But to scientists (and curious non-scientists), ants are endlessly fascinating creatures. Together with scientists who speak to "common folk", even they can understand the beauty in how ants work. That's why outreach and education is so important. And sometimes the beauty doesn't come from the direct thing (like these images, although I'd argue they are beautiful by themselves too) but from the indirect implication of the thing (time to acquire the picture, the data gathered to "draw" the picture, the community for even enabling this picture from being drawn and so on).
systemvoltage 4y ago
This makes the Hubble telescope even more impressive in my eyes. Built 50 years ago with presumably 60 year old tech. > Hubble telescope was funded and built in the 1970s by the United States space agency NASA with contributions from the European Space Agency. Its intended launch was 1983, but the project was beset by technical delays, budget problems, and the 1986 Challenger disaster. Hubble was finally launched in 1990.

throwaway5752 4y ago

My understanding is that it is also 12-13 hours of exposure for the Webb image vs weeks for Hubble.

pavon 4y ago
That is incorrect. The famous Hubble Ultra Deep Field image[1] took 11.3 days of imaging spread over four months (because of high demand to use Hubble). However, that is a different part of the sky. The Hubble image shown here was taken as part of RELICS[2], a survey of images to find good candidates for JWST to image, and was only exposed for 1.7 hours (5 orbits at ~20 minutes each), compared to JWST's exposure time of 12.5 hours. So comparisons between between Hubble and JWST for that particular shot are not fair to Hubble. [1]https://esahubble.org/images/heic0611b/ https://esahubble.org/images/heic0611b/ [2]https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/relics/ https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/relics/

kzrdude 4y ago

Right and it's slightly rotated, 20-30 degrees (guess). Just for others that try to line them up

quaintdev 4y ago

A GIF comparing both Hubble and JWST https://i.redd.it/9uyhwijeo0b91.gif https://i.redd.it/9uyhwijeo0b91.gif

wolfd 4y ago
I made this page (posted in another thread yesterday) because I was rather underwhelmed by the .gif. I think the page shows in much better detail the difference between the telescopes' capabilities. https://blog.wolfd.me/hubble-jwst/ https://blog.wolfd.me/hubble-jwst/ (If you're on mobile, you should be able to zoom in and still use the slider)
- fatbas202 4y ago
  This is really awesome. Thank you!
- april_22 4y ago
  damn, this is really awesome!!
- nabakin 4y ago
  Interested in adding the Carina Nebula comparison? I'm crop-aligning the full resolution images rn and will have them in a bit Edit: btw you should add the ability to zoom on desktop too. Would make it a lot easier to see the massive difference between the two
- emptyfile 4y ago
  Great stuff!
bdefore 4y ago
The additional detail of the red spiral galaxy around 12:30 is stark by comparison to others. Any ideas on why?
- nacogo 4y ago
  The reddest objects in the JWST are frequently not even present in the Hubble image, as they were redshifted into a band of light Hubble couldn't even detect. That's my favorite part about this image - those galaxies we can now see which were previously redshifted beyond our capacity to detect. They're the oldest, and receding from us the fastest.
ehsankia 4y ago
Here's another tool with all 4 photos: https://johnedchristensen.github.io/WebbCompare/ https://johnedchristensen.github.io/WebbCompare/

mike10921 4y ago

Ok to be honest I know it's not cool to admit it, but so far it all looks the same. If someone told me that the Webb picture was taken by Hubble I would not have thought about it for an extra second. I'm hoping that in the future we see pictures of locations and environments that are mind-blowing to the average person who loves space.

ceejayoz 4y ago
The difference is in a) the details and b) the length of time the telescope has to gather light to get the photo. JWST got the photo in hours when Hubble took weeks, and there's easily 10x as many objects in the JWST shot. JWST can thus observe much fainter and much more distant objects - galaxies billions of years old, exoplanets, etc., and it can do more of it.
- mike10921 4y ago
  Of course, I get it, but we are allowed to admit that to the average person so far it looks like more of the same.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    I'm honestly not sure how you someone can look at those two photos side-by-side and think they're the same. Hubble's is like slapping a 360p cam rip on a 4k TV.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - capableweb 4y ago
    Unless you know what you're looking at, most if not everything looks mundane. It's only with perspective that we can grasp the beauty of things like these, or just other things, like ants. To most people, ants are just an annoying bug. But to scientists (and curious non-scientists), ants are endlessly fascinating creatures. Together with scientists who speak to "common folk", even they can understand the beauty in how ants work. That's why outreach and education is so important. And sometimes the beauty doesn't come from the direct thing (like these images, although I'd argue they are beautiful by themselves too) but from the indirect implication of the thing (time to acquire the picture, the data gathered to "draw" the picture, the community for even enabling this picture from being drawn and so on).

systemvoltage 4y ago

This makes the Hubble telescope even more impressive in my eyes. Built 50 years ago with presumably 60 year old tech. > Hubble telescope was funded and built in the 1970s by the United States space agency NASA with contributions from the European Space Agency. Its intended launch was 1983, but the project was beset by technical delays, budget problems, and the 1986 Challenger disaster. Hubble was finally launched in 1990.