3 ms·

Real or not? Anyone else get frustrated with the accepted practice in astronomy to (a) alter colors and (b) show the non-visible light spectrum. Because it re

Real or not? Anyone else get frustrated with the accepted practice in astronomy to (a) alter colors and (b) show the non-visible light spectrum. Because it results in radically different images from what we can see with our human eye and its hugely misleading to the general public. NASA has a whole article on this subject; it’s a great read. https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/science/science-behind-the-discoveries/wavelengths/ https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/science/science-behi...

malfist 3y ago
That's how photos are in general. No camera captures exactly what the eye sees. Is setting an ISO radically changing things? Is setting an exposure time radically changing things? Is having an RGGB bayer pattern radically changing things? Is having only a 91% quantum efficiency sensor radically changing things? The questions keep going, I could ask about hot pixel removal, denoise, contrast and saturation, wavelength response curves. Cameras aren't eyes. Photos aren't biochemical reactions.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  No, there's a huge difference. Regular consumer cameras are designed to be as close as possible to what the human eye sees. They're very obviously chosen to be responsive to R, G and B. Not infrared, yellow and UVB. An image like this is not meant to try to match the human eye. To try to say all cameras don't match the eyes is a false equivalence. Some are purposefully trying to match, some are purposefully trying not to (like this one).
  - malfist 3y ago
    I'd argue it isn't a false equivalence. Every time someone drags that contrast and saturation slider up they're doing something that's no different than assigning RGB to sulfur II, hydrogen alpha, and oxygen III. It's all false color to make something look good.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      That's photo editing, not camera settings like ISO or shutter speed. Cameras are still designed to try to be able to match what the human eye perceives, regardless of what you edit afterwards. An infrared telescope is not. Totally and utterly different. They're not the same.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JohnMakin 3y ago
JWST is an infrared telescope. The human eye does not see infrared.
swells34 3y ago
I sure do. But at the same time, isn't this a near infrared camera, so outside the visible spectrum?
pengaru 3y ago
Considering it's from NIRCam I don't think there's reason to expect a "real" visible light image... that's not what this sensor does.
ijustlovemath 3y ago
NIRcam studies objects in the near infrared, so invisible to human eyes. This is true of most of JWSTs instruments; everything you see is false color.
cpuguy83 3y ago
With my eyes, when I look at a light source I see light refractions (rays) coming from the source that people without astigmatism do not see. I do get what you are trying to say here and I know I'm taking your argument to the extreme, but... bear in mind that even 2 randomly selected humans would see different things looking at the same object. Even though no human can see the light that JWST is capturing doesn't mean it is not there. The colors are false indeed (compared to what a typical human would perceive as color), but then we also would get absolutely no pictures from JWST to look at.
tekla 3y ago
I prefer to be able to see things instead of black
ceejayoz 3y ago
> Because it results in radically different images from what we can see with our human eye... Good! That's why we have spent $10B on it!
jacquesm 3y ago
What a lot of nonsense. There is absolutely nothing 'misleading' about this: the general public doesn't stand a chance trying to observe Uranus with the naked eye so regardless of what you would like to see you are always going to be dependent on a telescope (which alters the perceived size), possible color filters, color shifting in case you are looking at non-visible wavelengths and so on. The JWST is so interesting especially because it can see wavelengths that we can not. If you want to take issue with something then I'd save my anger for the cameras that no longer show you what you are looking at, not for a scientific instrument doing exactly what it is meant to do and adaptations to show the output to the general public.
gitaarik 3y ago
Why would you get frustrated with that? It's not a bug, it's a feature. If we are only allowed to study the visible light spectrum, we would be missing out on a lot of valuable information. Edit: and what is misleading about it? You have to understand how the image is made. But I think NASA is making that clear, even more with the article you linked. What should NASA do otherwise? Not share these images with the public? That doesn't sound like something nice and helpful.

malfist 3y ago

That's how photos are in general. No camera captures exactly what the eye sees. Is setting an ISO radically changing things? Is setting an exposure time radically changing things? Is having an RGGB bayer pattern radically changing things? Is having only a 91% quantum efficiency sensor radically changing things? The questions keep going, I could ask about hot pixel removal, denoise, contrast and saturation, wavelength response curves. Cameras aren't eyes. Photos aren't biochemical reactions.

crazygringo 3y ago
No, there's a huge difference. Regular consumer cameras are designed to be as close as possible to what the human eye sees. They're very obviously chosen to be responsive to R, G and B. Not infrared, yellow and UVB. An image like this is not meant to try to match the human eye. To try to say all cameras don't match the eyes is a false equivalence. Some are purposefully trying to match, some are purposefully trying not to (like this one).
- malfist 3y ago
  I'd argue it isn't a false equivalence. Every time someone drags that contrast and saturation slider up they're doing something that's no different than assigning RGB to sulfur II, hydrogen alpha, and oxygen III. It's all false color to make something look good.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    That's photo editing, not camera settings like ISO or shutter speed. Cameras are still designed to try to be able to match what the human eye perceives, regardless of what you edit afterwards. An infrared telescope is not. Totally and utterly different. They're not the same.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

JohnMakin 3y ago

JWST is an infrared telescope. The human eye does not see infrared.

swells34 3y ago

I sure do. But at the same time, isn't this a near infrared camera, so outside the visible spectrum?

pengaru 3y ago

Considering it's from NIRCam I don't think there's reason to expect a "real" visible light image... that's not what this sensor does.

ijustlovemath 3y ago

NIRcam studies objects in the near infrared, so invisible to human eyes. This is true of most of JWSTs instruments; everything you see is false color.

cpuguy83 3y ago

With my eyes, when I look at a light source I see light refractions (rays) coming from the source that people without astigmatism do not see. I do get what you are trying to say here and I know I'm taking your argument to the extreme, but... bear in mind that even 2 randomly selected humans would see different things looking at the same object. Even though no human can see the light that JWST is capturing doesn't mean it is not there. The colors are false indeed (compared to what a typical human would perceive as color), but then we also would get absolutely no pictures from JWST to look at.

tekla 3y ago

I prefer to be able to see things instead of black

ceejayoz 3y ago

> Because it results in radically different images from what we can see with our human eye... Good! That's why we have spent $10B on it!

jacquesm 3y ago

What a lot of nonsense. There is absolutely nothing 'misleading' about this: the general public doesn't stand a chance trying to observe Uranus with the naked eye so regardless of what you would like to see you are always going to be dependent on a telescope (which alters the perceived size), possible color filters, color shifting in case you are looking at non-visible wavelengths and so on. The JWST is so interesting especially because it can see wavelengths that we can not. If you want to take issue with something then I'd save my anger for the cameras that no longer show you what you are looking at, not for a scientific instrument doing exactly what it is meant to do and adaptations to show the output to the general public.

gitaarik 3y ago

Why would you get frustrated with that? It's not a bug, it's a feature. If we are only allowed to study the visible light spectrum, we would be missing out on a lot of valuable information. Edit: and what is misleading about it? You have to understand how the image is made. But I think NASA is making that clear, even more with the article you linked. What should NASA do otherwise? Not share these images with the public? That doesn't sound like something nice and helpful.