4 ms·

Have they released any high resolution version? I tried finding on their website, but did not find anything.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dwringer 4y ago
I tried comparing this image with some from the Hubble and this one appears to be slightly sharper (not to mention much more detailed in terms of the atmosphere thanks to the infrared wavelengths). I don't think it gets too much higher-res than this without a probe getting close to the planet. A google search indicates Neptune's largest apparent size in the sky is 2.4 arcseconds[0], and a commentor below suggests JWST's resolution is approximately 0.1 arcseconds (.068 at a wavelength of two microns[1], from some google searching), which would suggest a rough maximum resolution of about 35 pixels, while this image is 80. I'm unclear on the exact reasons for this difference. [0] https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptunefact.html https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptunefact.... [1] https://www.stsci.edu/files/live/sites/www/files/home/jwst/about/history/white-papers/_documents/JWST-scientific-capabilities.pdf https://www.stsci.edu/files/live/sites/www/files/home/jwst/a...
nowahe 4y ago
Looks like the image in the article is a crop of this[1] view, which can be accessed in high res. You can find all the JWT images in full res on here[2]. [1]: https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01GCVNZ68YTC7FPTBSNA3QDGYW.png https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01GCVNZ68YTC7FPTBSNA3QDGYW.png [2]: https://webbtelescope.org/resource-gallery/images https://webbtelescope.org/resource-gallery/images
- stoicjumbotron 4y ago
  Thanks a lot for the links!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mbauman 4y ago
  Holy cow the whole field is so amazing. Galaxies everywhere!
  - sizzzzlerz 4y ago
    Those are the first things I look for in space images. If you haven't seen it, go find the Webb deep field image that they released a month or two ago. It will blow your mind!
  - krallja 4y ago
    The historical context blows my mind, too. The debate of "do other galaxies even exist?" wasn't definitively settled until 1923, 99 years ago, with Edwin Hubble's observations of Cepheids in Andromeda. Now, you can just, like, look at them. (With a good telescope.) Every single place you look.
- dwringer 4y ago
  Thanks for the links! I checked out the source image and it still appears to be 80 pixels high in the "full resolution for display" image, same as the article's crop. There is a "close up" view which shows Neptune as 300px high, but I can't resolve any detail that isn't in the 80 pixel version. I think this is as detailed as it gets based on the apparent size of Neptune and JWST's angular resolution.
  - sbierwagen 4y ago
    NIRCAM has a resolution of 0.031 arcsec per pixel, and Uranus is between 4.1 and 3.3 arcseconds wide as viewed from Earth, so it would only ever be between 132 and 106 pixels wide. https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-camera https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-camera https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uranusfact.html https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uranusfact.h... If you want a higher resolution image, we'll either need a bigger telescope or a Uranus orbiter.
layer8 4y ago
This seems to be the highest-res closeup: https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/046/01GCVNBC11Z11KDTJ5CFGTMX72 https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/046/01G...
- dwringer 4y ago
  I think that's been upscaled, as it shows Neptune being over 300px in diameter. Unless I'm misinterpreting something (a distinct possibility), that would require an angular resolution of nearly 10x what the JWST is capable of. I don't know what kind of processing they applied to get it to that size but I can't resolve any detail in that closeup that isn't visible in the version where it's 80px. By my naive calculations (which I explain in another comment), Neptune should be about 30 pixels wide - is there anyone who can shed light on this mystery?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

I tried comparing this image with some from the Hubble and this one appears to be slightly sharper (not to mention much more detailed in terms of the atmosphere thanks to the infrared wavelengths). I don't think it gets too much higher-res than this without a probe getting close to the planet. A google search indicates Neptune's largest apparent size in the sky is 2.4 arcseconds[0], and a commentor below suggests JWST's resolution is approximately 0.1 arcseconds (.068 at a wavelength of two microns[1], from some google searching), which would suggest a rough maximum resolution of about 35 pixels, while this image is 80. I'm unclear on the exact reasons for this difference. [0] https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptunefact.html https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptunefact.... [1] https://www.stsci.edu/files/live/sites/www/files/home/jwst/about/history/white-papers/_documents/JWST-scientific-capabilities.pdf https://www.stsci.edu/files/live/sites/www/files/home/jwst/a...

nowahe 4y ago

Looks like the image in the article is a crop of this[1] view, which can be accessed in high res. You can find all the JWT images in full res on here[2]. [1]: https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01GCVNZ68YTC7FPTBSNA3QDGYW.png https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01GCVNZ68YTC7FPTBSNA3QDGYW.png [2]: https://webbtelescope.org/resource-gallery/images https://webbtelescope.org/resource-gallery/images

stoicjumbotron 4y ago
Thanks a lot for the links!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mbauman 4y ago
Holy cow the whole field is so amazing. Galaxies everywhere!
- sizzzzlerz 4y ago
  Those are the first things I look for in space images. If you haven't seen it, go find the Webb deep field image that they released a month or two ago. It will blow your mind!
- krallja 4y ago
  The historical context blows my mind, too. The debate of "do other galaxies even exist?" wasn't definitively settled until 1923, 99 years ago, with Edwin Hubble's observations of Cepheids in Andromeda. Now, you can just, like, look at them. (With a good telescope.) Every single place you look.
dwringer 4y ago
Thanks for the links! I checked out the source image and it still appears to be 80 pixels high in the "full resolution for display" image, same as the article's crop. There is a "close up" view which shows Neptune as 300px high, but I can't resolve any detail that isn't in the 80 pixel version. I think this is as detailed as it gets based on the apparent size of Neptune and JWST's angular resolution.
- sbierwagen 4y ago
  NIRCAM has a resolution of 0.031 arcsec per pixel, and Uranus is between 4.1 and 3.3 arcseconds wide as viewed from Earth, so it would only ever be between 132 and 106 pixels wide. https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-camera https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-camera https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uranusfact.html https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uranusfact.h... If you want a higher resolution image, we'll either need a bigger telescope or a Uranus orbiter.

layer8 4y ago

This seems to be the highest-res closeup: https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/046/01GCVNBC11Z11KDTJ5CFGTMX72 https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/046/01G...

dwringer 4y ago
I think that's been upscaled, as it shows Neptune being over 300px in diameter. Unless I'm misinterpreting something (a distinct possibility), that would require an angular resolution of nearly 10x what the JWST is capable of. I don't know what kind of processing they applied to get it to that size but I can't resolve any detail in that closeup that isn't visible in the version where it's 80px. By my naive calculations (which I explain in another comment), Neptune should be about 30 pixels wide - is there anyone who can shed light on this mystery?