12 ms·

Handy Dandy Slider action between the two! https://esawebb.org/images/comparisons/weic2216/ https://esawebb.org/images/comparisons/weic2216/

nuccy 4y ago
Technically the comparison is not totally fair, that Hubble image was taken in visible light, while Webb's in infrared. Dust blocks visible light stronger, so background stars are effectively hidden from Hubble, but not from Webb. Here [1] you can see same field in visible and close infrared taken by Hubble. Webb of course shines in all the fine details and faint stars number. [1] https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/heic1501c.jpg https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/heic15...
- abcc8 4y ago
  I think the comparison is (rightly) meant to highlight the different imaging capabilities of the two telescopes.
  - xeromal 4y ago
    But if the hubble can take an infrared picture, that would be a better comparison point, no?
    - nuccy 4y ago
      Webb observes "much further" into the IR [1]. 1. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/hubble_webb_emspectrum_cropped.jpg https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/hu... (this image is from [2]) 2. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-vs-webb-on-the-shoulders-of-a-giant https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-vs-webb-on-the-s...
      - dwringer 4y ago
        JWST is undeniably a superior and remarkable instrument, but there has been a bit of a trend I have noticed on social media - and this may just be my perception rather than reality - of comparing it with suboptimal alternatives rather than the best image we had prior to the JWST, often making the new images look dramatically better when in fact the improvements to the best images we already had are more subtle (perhaps because they are particularly subtle on low res article thumbnails and mobile devices?)
        mlindner 4y ago
        Well some of that is because JWST's images are actually lower resolution than Hubble in many cases (depending on the wavelength). Though at wavelengths they both operate in, Webb's will of course be much higher resolution.
        itishappy 4y ago
        I doubt it's anything nefarious. I think it's due to choosing comparisons based on popularity vs content. Hubble's visible light Pillars of Creation image, for example, is super famous and instantly recognizable, but I'm not sure I would have known what I was looking at if the infrared version was used. Also, different devices rarely have exactly the same usage and specifications. For example, Webb and Hubble have very different wavelength sensitivities, and this has tradeoffs in resolution and quality. In other words, the subjective image quality you get from the pictures may not tell the whole story of how valuable the data itself is.
      - edvards 4y ago
        Does this mean what Hubble sees is actually closer to what I'd see with my own eyes than Hubble, or Hubble's version is closer?
        officialjunk 4y ago
        yes, hubble's image is closer to what you could see with your eyes, since we also (mostly) sensitive to visible light. the zoom magnification is different, though, of course.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwoutway 4y ago
      Both can be true. Maybe an analogy would be a car vs truck, or photo camera vs video camera. They’re the same things but provide different value.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- peanutz454 4y ago
  Now I am intrigued, the infrared image from Hubble seems to be able to see through even more clouds than JWST! What gives?
  - stormbrew 4y ago
    Put another way: jwst sees both the clouds and (many of) the stars, while Hubble seems to have been able to see one or the other more clearly at a time. You could infer from that that the thing jwst is doing better is having a much greater range of spectrum available to it at a time (though I don't actually know if that's correct).
  - loonster 4y ago
    The JWST and Hubble have multiple cameras. The Hubble IR image is likely just the IR camera while the JWST is likely a composite of multiple cameras. (This is purely speculation.)
- dylan604 4y ago
  Fair? This is exactly why they are not the same type of telescope only Biggie Sized. Seeing these comparisons is the point. "Here's visible light, and now here's what's hiding behind the visible dust" should be the tag to everyone of these kinds of comparisons
- poulpy123 4y ago
  *it's not so much that isn't fair, just that they show different things but the problems is that it is not explained
rainbringer2000 4y ago
It will be fascinating to see what other objects hubble captured over the years look like in higher definition
_bohm 4y ago
The fact that the tiniest features of the cloud appear preserved between the two images gives an appreciation for how big it is. The two photos are taken 27 years apart
- usrusr 4y ago
  I'm more surprised by how much change there is. All the bluish stars in the JWT version are also in the Hubble version, but none of the yellowish. Is that parallax movement or are they obscured by the medium mentioned in the article? ("no galaxies")
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    That's dust. JWST uses infra-red because it can see through dust.
  - cogwheel 4y ago
    The bluest ones in the JWST images are the higest frequency (shortest wavelength) it can see. These are the longest frequencies hubble can see, so they look reddish. Anything in JWST that is lower frequency (yellow to red) will not be visible to Hubble
perryizgr8 4y ago
The hubble image looks much more aesthetically pleasing, even though it clearly has less detail.
- mlindner 4y ago
  Actually Webb has marginally less resolution than Hubble. Even though Webb is significantly larger the wavelength used is significantly longer resulting in a resolution that is approximately half that of Hubble. Of course the electronics are better so some of the image capturing is better but the resolution is not.
- augustuspolius 4y ago
  I would like to see Webb’s photo without so much lens flare on individual stars (not sure if that’s the right term). Just kind of toned down stars but the same level of detail.

nuccy 4y ago

Technically the comparison is not totally fair, that Hubble image was taken in visible light, while Webb's in infrared. Dust blocks visible light stronger, so background stars are effectively hidden from Hubble, but not from Webb. Here [1] you can see same field in visible and close infrared taken by Hubble. Webb of course shines in all the fine details and faint stars number. [1] https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/heic1501c.jpg https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/heic15...

abcc8 4y ago
I think the comparison is (rightly) meant to highlight the different imaging capabilities of the two telescopes.
- xeromal 4y ago
  But if the hubble can take an infrared picture, that would be a better comparison point, no?
  - nuccy 4y ago
    Webb observes "much further" into the IR [1]. 1. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/hubble_webb_emspectrum_cropped.jpg https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/hu... (this image is from [2]) 2. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-vs-webb-on-the-shoulders-of-a-giant https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-vs-webb-on-the-s...
    - dwringer 4y ago
      JWST is undeniably a superior and remarkable instrument, but there has been a bit of a trend I have noticed on social media - and this may just be my perception rather than reality - of comparing it with suboptimal alternatives rather than the best image we had prior to the JWST, often making the new images look dramatically better when in fact the improvements to the best images we already had are more subtle (perhaps because they are particularly subtle on low res article thumbnails and mobile devices?)
      - mlindner 4y ago
        Well some of that is because JWST's images are actually lower resolution than Hubble in many cases (depending on the wavelength). Though at wavelengths they both operate in, Webb's will of course be much higher resolution.
      - itishappy 4y ago
        I doubt it's anything nefarious. I think it's due to choosing comparisons based on popularity vs content. Hubble's visible light Pillars of Creation image, for example, is super famous and instantly recognizable, but I'm not sure I would have known what I was looking at if the infrared version was used. Also, different devices rarely have exactly the same usage and specifications. For example, Webb and Hubble have very different wavelength sensitivities, and this has tradeoffs in resolution and quality. In other words, the subjective image quality you get from the pictures may not tell the whole story of how valuable the data itself is.
    - edvards 4y ago
      Does this mean what Hubble sees is actually closer to what I'd see with my own eyes than Hubble, or Hubble's version is closer?
      - officialjunk 4y ago
        yes, hubble's image is closer to what you could see with your eyes, since we also (mostly) sensitive to visible light. the zoom magnification is different, though, of course.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwoutway 4y ago
    Both can be true. Maybe an analogy would be a car vs truck, or photo camera vs video camera. They’re the same things but provide different value.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
peanutz454 4y ago
Now I am intrigued, the infrared image from Hubble seems to be able to see through even more clouds than JWST! What gives?
- stormbrew 4y ago
  Put another way: jwst sees both the clouds and (many of) the stars, while Hubble seems to have been able to see one or the other more clearly at a time. You could infer from that that the thing jwst is doing better is having a much greater range of spectrum available to it at a time (though I don't actually know if that's correct).
- loonster 4y ago
  The JWST and Hubble have multiple cameras. The Hubble IR image is likely just the IR camera while the JWST is likely a composite of multiple cameras. (This is purely speculation.)
dylan604 4y ago
Fair? This is exactly why they are not the same type of telescope only Biggie Sized. Seeing these comparisons is the point. "Here's visible light, and now here's what's hiding behind the visible dust" should be the tag to everyone of these kinds of comparisons
poulpy123 4y ago
*it's not so much that isn't fair, just that they show different things but the problems is that it is not explained

rainbringer2000 4y ago

It will be fascinating to see what other objects hubble captured over the years look like in higher definition

_bohm 4y ago

The fact that the tiniest features of the cloud appear preserved between the two images gives an appreciation for how big it is. The two photos are taken 27 years apart

usrusr 4y ago
I'm more surprised by how much change there is. All the bluish stars in the JWT version are also in the Hubble version, but none of the yellowish. Is that parallax movement or are they obscured by the medium mentioned in the article? ("no galaxies")
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  That's dust. JWST uses infra-red because it can see through dust.
- cogwheel 4y ago
  The bluest ones in the JWST images are the higest frequency (shortest wavelength) it can see. These are the longest frequencies hubble can see, so they look reddish. Anything in JWST that is lower frequency (yellow to red) will not be visible to Hubble

perryizgr8 4y ago

The hubble image looks much more aesthetically pleasing, even though it clearly has less detail.

mlindner 4y ago
Actually Webb has marginally less resolution than Hubble. Even though Webb is significantly larger the wavelength used is significantly longer resulting in a resolution that is approximately half that of Hubble. Of course the electronics are better so some of the image capturing is better but the resolution is not.
augustuspolius 4y ago
I would like to see Webb’s photo without so much lens flare on individual stars (not sure if that’s the right term). Just kind of toned down stars but the same level of detail.