3 ms·
Wild picture, but less sublime than the original. Same feels when NASA/ESA deconstructed the gas layers in 3d to refect the thin layers (like old school paralla
by dirtyid 4y ago
Wild picture, but less sublime than the original. Same feels when NASA/ESA deconstructed the gas layers in 3d to refect the thin layers (like old school parallax animation background) instead of the awesome awesome voluminous celestia architecture I had in my head. Some old shows look worse in HD.
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/pillars-of-creation-revealed-in-3-d https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/pillars-of-creati...
- zimpenfish 4y agoI do kinda get a bit more "oomph" from the old picture because it feels like it's been punched out of space rather than being a wispy thing in the way (e.g. you can see more stars through it.) Which is bonkers because the new photo is amazing.
- dirtyid 4y ago>"oomph" Yeah, I think James Webb (being amazing) and resolving so much more stars in these photos kind of removes the oomph of original Hubble photos that showed seemingly lonely cosmic monoliths in largely empty void Which made the subject feel more sublime. New photos have so much stars which everywhere, shifts the enormity of structures onto the sheer abundance of the background universe. It makes the subject feel smaller by revealing just how much bigger the cosmos is. Amazing in a different way.