does anyone else not like james webb pictures? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 08:36:15 pm
content: I have been studying photographs taken by the JWST and I gotta say they lose my interest pretty quick.The hubble pictures are interesting to me. The infrared content of the JWST just makes me lose interest, it looks like boringNASA needs to get better visible to get those government dollars

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 09:03:31 pm
content: So? Don't shut your eyes.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 09:14:49 pm
content: Really? Is that boring?https://science.nasa.gov/missions/webb/nasas-webb-provides-another-look-into-galactic-collisions/Sure the images shown there are reconstructed, they aren't what you would see with your naked eye and require some significant processing, but that's still not that boring and that still comes from actual data, it's not hallucinated pictures. That I know of.Any decent image of space past a certain distance requires a lot of processing anyway, even when taken with purely optical telescopes in the visible light spectrum, otherwise all you can see is fuzzy spots. Pretty much.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 09:36:35 pm
content: But it's not the Horsehead Nebula, so it's boringBy the way, a rather weird choice of forum section to post this in

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 10:16:05 pm
content: I want to know why its not interesting. I think it has something to do with computer image processing, or maybe I just don't like NIR.I thought I could spend hours looking at them, but actually I just want to see more hubble.

author: Benta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 10:21:06 pm
content: So where's the project here?

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 10:23:24 pm
content: fix the picturesits kind of like making the cat interested in a computer, i just don't know whats wrongit functions as a good star counting machine, but not a good telescope, IMO

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 10:28:02 pm
content: Maybe just use some generative AI to turn those boring images into fascinating stuff.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 10:32:24 pm
content: I think thats the problem, trying to guess what the visible is from the IR makes it look bizzareTheir not kidding when they say its not a replacement.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 10:34:31 pm
content: 'interesting' is in the eye of the beholder.If it's the quality of the telescope images you are complaining about, as opposed to the content of the telescope images, then that comes down to the improved hardware onboard JWST, not necessarily image processing.Think of it like comparing CRT vs. LED/LCD displays. Some content just looks better on CRT.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 10:36:37 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on October 06, 2024, 10:32:24 pmNo, it's not a problem. You can obtain the raw IR data and map it to your own personal colour rendering balance preferences.Also bear in mind that there is no science to be gained from the false colour images, hence, the person doing the colour rendering is only doing it for the benefit of the public.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 10:39:51 pm
content: its not good for seeing what space would actually look like if your proposing we need to guess at filtersI have a feeling it won't generate as much interest in space, unless your obsessed about counting starsI sure hope NASA has another optical one planned

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 10:43:06 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on October 06, 2024, 10:39:51 pmUmmm it's infrared..... space would actually look invisible to the naked eye.....Essentially the guess is more about, "what would humans see if they could see infrared?" And there is definitely no way around guessing that!

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 10:44:38 pm
content: yeah ok because someone would think I meant 'see vacuum' for some strange reason

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 10:51:11 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on October 06, 2024, 10:44:38 pmNot at all. Have you ever used a FLIR camera to look at hot components on a circuit board? Now try that with your naked eyes.... you won't see a thing.

author: Kim Christensen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 10:51:47 pm
content: Interesting that you mentioned Hubble.Look into "Hubble's Law" and you'll see that the further a galaxy/star is from us, the more redshifted it's light will be. So it makes sense that the objects James Webb was designed to observe would be in the infrared and the images would need to be processed for us to "see" them.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 10:56:12 pm
content: what gets me the most is that its even more useless information when its that far away. They seem to be focusing on the stuff that is not even remotely imaginable to get to. I don't see it as a improvementI think it would be smart to look for somethinggreen. In the desert your ass is dead unless you find something green. Blue sounds good but it will just be ammonia. All this early universe stuff is like a ouija board for astronomers

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 11:07:33 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on October 06, 2024, 10:56:12 pmGet to? As in human space travel??? That is an extremely narrow minded view of the large discipline of astronomy & astrophysics.Science doesn't have to have immediate utilitarian application.And science has nothing to do with preference utilitarianism i.e. "liking pictures".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_utilitarianism

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 11:10:33 pm
content: The IR imaging here is to study the structure of the universe, not to make images in “true color”.Similarly, the “Chandra” satellite makes images from x rays, not visible light.

author: Kim Christensen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 11:13:18 pm
content: I think it's a bit like showing a kid some electronics you've been working on. The kid says, "How boring..." because there are no flashing lights, moving objects, or interesting things to see on the PCB. James Webb is more about the data it supplies to scientists than pretty pictures for you and me.Webb can characterize the atmosphere of Earth-sized exoplanets. So that's very interesting to me even if it's too far to ever reach.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 11:15:17 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on October 06, 2024, 10:56:12 pm

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 11:32:58 pm
content: JWST has four key goals:to search for light from the first stars and galaxies that formed in the universe after the Big Bangto study galaxy formation and evolutionto understand star formation and planet formationto study planetary systems and the origins of lifeIf your telescope goals are different, perhaps you should list them instead of complaining.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2024, 11:33:15 pm
content: Even in conventional photography, some people like false-color infrared images: a matter of taste.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 07, 2024, 06:04:50 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on October 06, 2024, 08:36:15 pmIs this meant as a parody of what my mechanical boss thinks of my work?

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2024, 12:41:58 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on October 06, 2024, 08:36:15 pmYeah, damn right! I demand that infrared gets visible right now!

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 07, 2024, 01:15:20 pm
content: I think everything from space is mostly coloured in for us isn't it? Unless it's something close like a planet in our solar system.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2024, 10:57:27 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on October 07, 2024, 01:15:20 pmIndeed!If anyone was familiar with the colour pictures of blue Neptune and green Uranus, you will need to update your knowledge with these new true colour images:https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/04/world/neptune-uranus-new-color-images-scn/index.html

author: EPAIII
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2024, 10:11:38 am
content: Beat me to it. Yes, the purpose of the space telescopes is to advance science, to advance our knowledge of the universe. We did not spend those millions of dollars just to make pretty pictures. And yes, those pretty pictures that have been made were not the true colors. The colors were enhanced or totally changed to allow some observation to be more easily made.The true beauty in the photographs is in the knowledge they provide.If you are just looking for pretty images there are many sources, many of them are free on the internet. Here's just one:https://windows10spotlight.com/OK, two - the picture of the day:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_PageQuote from: TimFox on October 06, 2024, 11:10:33 pm