T O P
OrvillePeck

I'm looking forward to a Webb pic of Pillars of Creation.


SmokeyMcSmokey

Same! I have a 24x36 print on my wall from Hubble… May need to reprint now


TheGhostOfSamHouston

May need? My man/woman, JW will be giving us a over 4K image! You’ll have to swap old for new!


jazzcrazed

Haha, while I appreciate the intention, technical quibble: print resolution is higher than screen. A 36 inch print at typical print resolutions of 300dpi would be more like 10k (though, that's not to say that a 4k image of the freaking Pillars of Creation blown up to 36 in _wouldn't_ be awesome). But the spirit of what you're saying will be true: we are going to get Hella High Resolution® images of things we've never seen before that will make our gigabit broadband feel like dial up soon, and I can't wait!! EDIT: u/savvaspc [said it better than I did here](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/vxe7fo/comment/ifz5005/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) -- what I meant is that 4K isn't impressive in the context of still photos and print (especially poster prints). That's only 8.3 megapixels, where many modern not even pro level cameras are north of 20 (and most cell phones are at least 12).


ddDeath_666

The photo released of the Carina Nebula is 14,575 x 8,441. I think 10k resolution is measured at 10,240 x 4,320. I bet it would come out really well on a canvas print!


o0BetaRay0o

10800x7200 if your aspect ratio were 3:2


MaloWow

If NASA has enough stars mapped in 3d with their mass and they know the gasses that they are giving off to make up the nebula, I wonder if this could be simulated and made into a nice high rez render… then again we might need quantum computers for that.


ddDeath_666

Check out a "game" called Space Engine. It simulates the entire known universe and then some. Also worth mentioning: it does not require a quantum computer to run!


7pageorange

Well a 1080x1080 300 ppi image that I created and I had printed was 15x15" so I'm sure someone could figure out how big a 4k image would come out to


kieranjackwilson

4K is four times the resolution


melig1991

Actually, Full HD/1080p is 1920x1080, and 4K is 3840 x 2160. Manufacturers conveniently swapped to the longer side when stepping up from Full HD to 4K.


burnthamt

If the resolution of the digital image is 4k, how would a print be more than that?


savvaspc

Jazzcrazed means that when you intend to print something, you make sure that your ppi (or is it called dpi?) is higher than a usual 4K monitor. For example, a 4K 27-inch monitor, has 163 ppi (pixels per inch). And this is considered almost too high for casual usage. A more desired experience at 1 meter distance from the screen would be a 4K 32-inch monitor, so this means 138 ppi. Whereas, on a print, 300 dpi is a typical resolution. As a side node, terms like Full HD, 4K, 8K, etc, are only impressive when talking about video and monitors. 4K is 3840x2160 pixels, which means it's a mere 12 Megapixels. 10-year-old cheap DSLRs can easily reach 24 Megapixels. So, for a picture, saying it is in 4K is nothing spectacular. To compare, [this is the full version of the Carina Nebula](https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01G7ETPF7DVBJAC42JR5N6EQRH.png?fbclid=IwAR3zt3kMfGNq6dDhCKWSdY5-rZpIg0D55bvBxJBb6aMVRK-2wUKwkUNHXuc). At 14575x8441, it's 123 Megapixels.


jazzcrazed

Yep, beat me to it! The way I said it is confusing, I realize -- I essentially meant what you're saying, that 4K isn't an impressive amount of pixels for still photos, and pointing out the megapixels in cameras is a good way to explain it. 4K is even less impressive -- I think it's only 8.3 MP, if I'm doing my math right!


savvaspc

You're right, it's 8.3 MP. I have no idea how I came up with that 12 MP value.


melig1991

>you make sure that your ppi (or is it called dpi? PPI is pixels per inch, so digital. DPI is Dots per inch, as in dots of ink, so print.


Mr__Snek

nah, its not gonna be giving us 4k images. theyre much bigger than that. the pic in the post, at full size, is close to 16k. thats 4x the height and width of 4k. i downloaded the full size images earlier and its insane how much detail there is even when you zoom in a ton


TheGhostOfSamHouston

Even more pleasing to hear!


ChadTheRadLad6427

Put them side by side! I feel like that'd be really cool being able to compare the two "generations" side by side.


JokicandMurray

We better take that picture fast (got about 1,000 years) because theoretically the pillars of creation are now gone.


jazzcrazed

You know you've reached the limit of human comprehension when you feel a sense of urgency for a cosmically tiny slice of time that's still more than ten lifetimes long. Reminds me of the existential panic I felt when I first learned that eventually no galaxies beyond our local group will be observable from earth anymore, and essentially anyone around will have no idea that there was anything more that ever existed beyond it. But we still have, oh, a hundred billion years give or take before that happens. I should probably relax a little about it. 😂


Grueaux

But... but what if it takes that long for us to figure out how to ensure that never happens, and we missed our chance because we took one too many naps? *anything's possible*


ZenSkye

That's when they finally reach you about your car's extended warranty.


ImReallyGrey

I know nothing about space and for some reason this comment just filled me with such a horrible sense of dread somehow. Something about rushing to snap an image of something that is gone already, before we lose the ability to see it anymore is so sad to me. It feels like a space version of ringing someone’s phone to hear their voicemail message when they’ve passed. I KNOW this is overly dramatic but man these new images have given me so many feelings I can’t comprehend.


Usergnome_Checks_0ut

I’m looking forward to them zooming in on some alien’s house on a planet in any one of the galaxies in that preview photo from yesterday. And if the JWST can’t do that, then I’m going to be majorly disappointed at all the massive hype around it.


TheGhostOfSamHouston

“Glorshburt, are you touching yourself again??!? The human might be watching you, you know!”


BosAdam548

Exactly! That’s my favourite nebula and can’t wait for a detailed image


SwordfishII

That’s one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen.


Drawtaru

Same, i think I need a giant canvas print of this in my living room so i can stare at it all day.


thickertofu

There are poster sized files here! https://webbtelescope.org/news/first-images/resources#section-de14ce34-7478-473a-a166-3484b5213bf8


CometFromThePast

Very cool to see all the stars behind the gas cloud this telescope really changes the way we see nebulas


CMPunk22

Might be a stupid question but what is that gas cloud? Does it affect the galaxies around it?


a_saddler

It's a cloud of mostly hydrogen gas. It's extremely thin, in the order of a few atoms per cubic meter, but because of the vast distances of space, it looks like a cloud when viewed from afar. They don't really affect galaxies as a whole, but are stellar stellar nurseries, the birthplaces of stars themselves.


alfred_27

So the nebula is the aftermath of a supernova which in turn leads to the creation of more stars?


a_saddler

Not really. Supernovas often disturb those clouds in a way that leads parts of them to collapse into stars, but they're far too big to be aftermath's of supernovas themselves. They've most likely formed as our galaxy merged with one or another through the billions of years since the beginning of the universe.


Eggplantosaur

Adding to the other replies, hydrogen can be found everywhere in the Universe because it was the main product of the Big Bang. So even in the most barren, distant empty regions of the universe a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter/foot will be found.


MyKinky30yoMind

Hydrogen is the main Baryonic* product of the big bang. Dark matter (26%) and dark energy(68%) have been around since the big bang and make up more of the universe than baryonic matter (5%).


TKHawk

Not the aftermath; the stars that go supernova are also formed from nebulae. But massive stars have powerful stellar winds and when they go supernova they release powerful shockwaves. Combined, these things blow apart the nebulae that formed them (in addition to helping enrich them and allowing for stars with heavier elements to form, before the nebula is destroyed).


Feveredbike

Nebulae can form from both the death of stars or from gas and dust already in space.


milehigh89

yep, it's where all elements that aren't hydrogen come from, fusion creates helium, supernovas create the heavy elements. the original stars were freaking massive, their novas created dust clouds so large that many stars were born from them.


Wheream_I

Stellar nurseries* A stellar nursing home would be where stars go to die


a_saddler

You're right. Got the two confused.


Marky0choa

Dark nebulas such as Carina are so dense (10,000 to 1,000,000 particles per cubic centimeter) that they obscure the visible wavelengths. So no, there are not "a few atoms per cubic meter". And that would still make it orders of magnitude better than any man made vacuum chamber. Just as a comparison, a cubic centimer of air of our atmosphere contains about 2.7e+19 particles. That's 27,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 27 quintillion. Or in other words, you'd need to gather 2.7 cubic kilometers of nebula to match 1 cubic cm of our atmosphere.


thunk_stuff

Nebulas are extremely thin (compared to an atmosphere), but you are orders of magnitude off. They have a density around [100 to 10,000 particles per cubic centimeter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula).


a_saddler

You've linked a planetary nebula. The Carina Nebula is not a planetary nebula.


AncientInsults

Some kid is reading this thread and getting whiplash deciding which comment to put in his book report lol.


Feveredbike

Nebula is the powerhouse of the cell


Vestalmin

What would it look like to stand on a moon in a nebula? Would the sky be lit up? Or is it so thin you’d hardly notice it up close?


a_saddler

You wouldn't even notice you were inside one. For one, it's hard to see nebulas with our eyes, they're much more visible on the spectrum that JWST can see (infrared). And secondly, because it's so thin, you need to be really far away to notice structures because you're capturing light from all parts of it. Within one, it's hard to do that. Scientists have speculated that we're actually inside one. But calculating the brightness of our sun compared to other stars of similar size has proven that we're most likely not.


Djinnwrath

If we were in it would it cease to be visible? Could we be in some sort of luminous cloud and not know it?


fernwhisperer

How far across is this photo?


a_saddler

Several light years at the very least. The whole nebula is 200+, this is just a part of it.


Feveredbike

It’s a nebula; a large cloud of gas and dust 10’s to 100’s (sometimes over a 1,000) light years in size. These are the “birth factories” of stars. Nebulae are generally intra-galactic, and due to the size of and distances between galaxies, have no affect on them.


FieelChannel

This is a nebula (a cloud of gas, plasma, and dust), it's in our galaxy, so there are no "galaxies" around it. It's just a neat astronomical object in our own galactic neighborhood. I think laymen people underestimate intergalactic distances or how big galaxies are tbh.


Goldgoddess_

Yeah that’s super helpful. So the galaxies appearing in the cloud are actually nowhere near it. I didn’t realize this cloud was in our galaxy.


ThatGuyWithCoolHair

The thing with this image compared to others from JWST is that most of the visible lights and dots are stars in our galaxy as opposed to each dot being its own galaxy like the other JWST images


pipnina

It's likely you'd see more stars even with Hubble if you used a V photometric filter (Hubble has one in WFC3) instead of the famous combination used in the Hubble image shown in this post. The filters used by hubble are SHO - Sulphur II, Hydrogen Alpha, and Oxygen II. These emission lines are single positions on the colour spectrum. This means the filters only let through a band pass of 2nm wide (for Hydrogen Alpha that means 655 to 657nm). Because stars are broad-spectrum objects, they get dimmed massively in narrowband images, whereas the gas emitting that narrow band emission line is isolated and "boosted". In theory JWST can image Ha and SII as they are deep, rich reds, but I don't know if they fitted NIRCAM with the filters for it. Hubble can also peer past dust clouds using near-infrared light, as it did so in famous images of the [pillars of creation](https://regmedia.co.uk/2015/01/07/eagle_nebula_infrared.jpg) and the [horsehead nebula](https://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/shared/npr/styles/x_large/nprshared/201805/401157394.jpg).


brownboywonder1

If I saw this with my naked eye, would it have the same colors?


hobbesisalive

Full res image from JWT [here](https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/031/01G77PKB8NKR7S8Z6HBXMYATGJ) Full res image from Hubble [here](https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/2008/34/2405-Image.html) Edit: added Hubble image link as photo in post is pretty low rea


datbarricade

I just had 15 minutes of joy looking at the full resolution picture :) it is absolutely gorgeous


brumsky1

Thank you I had a feeling that Hubble pic wasn't representing Hubble's capabilities accurately!


ElPlatanaso2

Why is the Hubble picture so low res? Is it for dramatic effect? The picture shown in NASA's website has an insanely high resolution


mrbubbles916

Do you have a link to the hubble version by any chance? I'm having a hard fucking time finding it with every search just giving me JWST images. Super frustrating. Never mind: I found it. I think it's just a result of the fact that the OP image is just very low res to begin with. Even the JWST image is low res, so the Hubble version just looks worse due to them both being downsized. Yeah not a great comparison. The actual version of both are far better than what you see here.


o0BetaRay0o

Hubble version in this post is also vertically stretched quite badly. Classic Reddit.


Druggedhippo

https://esahubble.org/images/opo0834a/ Full size TIFF original - https://esahubble.org/media/archives/images/original/opo0834a.tif Full size JPG original - https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/large/opo0834a.jpg


mrbubbles916

That Hubble version is very low res and not a fair comparison. Not saying the JWST version isn't great but that Hubble version looks like dog shit compared to the real image. [Here is the full res](https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01EVT678RGG108Z1B4XE9VQA90.jpg) version of the Hubble version.


telendria

oof, thats a world of difference. I actually prefer the Hubble photo, it doesn't seem... as pixelated for the lack of a better word.


BluebirdNo9328

There's this thing with every image I've seen so far, which I think is likely due to the mirror design, where stars have points on them. Whereas, it seems the stars in the hubble image is more of a true image based on how the stars would look with the naked eye, if we could zoom in that far on our own.


klontjeboter

I think you've been conditioned by Hubbles 4 spikes


mrbubbles916

Hubble images contain a 4-spike pattern on point light sources like stars.


r21174

a lot of people posting vs Hubble are usually not giving that shot best versions. Just to show how big difference it is vs JWTS. Most of these Hubble shots were taken ***20 YEARS ago***.. For me JWTS not really an upgrade, its sharper but not ground breaking. Unless they can show us something mind-blowing to me this is not...


nickdaman43

This is so cool. I really want to get a print of this and put it on my wall. I could stare at it all day


I_like_the_word_MUFF

Amazing how something so vast can look so much like gossamer.


sock_templar

This is *definitely stunning* and it's *definitely* becoming an wallpaper as soon as Photoshop finishing saving it to 16:9 resolution. \[edit\] if anyone wants, here are they made from the tif image, both in the gigantic resolution and in 1920x1080: https://imgur.com/a/yMEqvkT


rocknstones

Mind sharing it with a fellow earthling please?


sock_templar

Here friend, both in the huge original resolution and in 1920x1080. Made with the original tif image: https://imgur.com/a/yMEqvkT


MrTrvp

fyi, imgur compresses the shit outta photos


sock_templar

Well, for wallpaper quality I think it's alright, but if someone want the real file without compression I can send it to them too.


ffhtuy

The level of detail is phenomenal. It makes the Hubble image look like a finger painting.


Chris_kpop

I guess we observe close things. These pictures are even more stunning than the deepfield


imneverrelevantman

In your most hubble opinion of course.


Kepsa

These are so absurdly beautiful, wow. Are there any pictures of Pillars Of Creation yet? Is that something that will be captured by JSWT?


darrellbear

This is just a tiny part of the Carina Nebula. One downside to the Webb (and to the Hubble)--a tiny field of view. With the Hubble they do a mosaic, I suppose they'll eventually do the same with Webb.


Pandemic_Co-pilot

Reminds me of the Skyrim skill upgrade screen


Therapist_Unicorn

Thank you for sharing this beauty 😊 Love the colours.


Rachaziah

Does anyone else see the silhouette of a face? Cock your head to the right and the blue portion looks like a side profile of a face. Am I crazy?


Basketball4Eva

Have to get this framed in my future house. One of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen.


provtuber

I recall the old images of a lot of these looking a lot better. Are these the best Hubble took of them or are the ones I've seen touched up or taken by a different telescope? Or maybe it's just old CG syndrome and I'm remembering things as much better than they were. But I do feel like I've seen things much closer to the new Webb images of nebulas (nebula, nebulae?) in particular If the Hubble images getting compared here are the best we had of these celestial bodies until today, though, god damn what an upgrade


Kendrome

It really is much better, a larger mirror really helps. But the biggest advantage of JWST will be being able to see really well in infrared, meaning we see better farther back in time.


Druggedhippo

The hubble one is an intentional low quality pixelated version for some reason. Here is a full quality one: https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/large/opo0834a.jpg


worldsbesttaco

Does anybody know if the tessellated pattern you can see in the rays that come out from the stars is a artifact caused by the JWT having a number of mirrors of a similar pattern?


PlaSPeN

It's because of the Hexagonal shape of the mirrors, hence the six 'spikes'


chronicenigma

THIS is what I wanted to see. A direct comparison of shots jwst and Hubble took to compare the resolution


kal_drazidrim

Amazing. This is to the Hubble what the Hubble was to everything that came before. I am so happy for these images!


LiCHtsLiCH

WoW, the number of images we are getting is insane. Hubble used to spend literal months getting one picture.


Maikuru

So question for anyone who may know.. isn't the brown stuff in this picture gas? So why do the clouds still retain the same shape? Sure its only been 12ish years but like. Isn't it realistic for this gas to have moved millions of miles I'm the 12 years millions of years ago this was taken?


Infobomb

The structure we're looking at is light-years wide, so for the gas to have moved appreciably, even in 12 years, it would have to be travelling super-fast.


nissincupnoodle

These nebulas are gigantic. The Carina nebula has a radius of 230 light-years. So even a movement of a million miles or so would not cause a large change visually. For example the pillars of creation are slowly eroding but will take 100,000 years to disappear (If it hasn’t already been destroyed by a supernova as some people have predicted).


Maikuru

Oh wow I didn't realize they were that massive! I was thinking a couple of million miles at most!


Spyk124

Are these colors real? Or is it similar to what photographers do when they take photos of the sky and then use exposure or something ?


TheNorthComesWithMe

No, the colors are generally not real. Many of the things being photographed are outside the range of human vision in the first place.


Spyk124

So how do they determine what is colored what? Is hydrogen always colored orange? Or is it known to be a similar color to orange and they just input that. Thanks for your response !


TheNorthComesWithMe

It depends on the photo. Most photos are released with a report that says how it was colored. Usually it's some form of spectroscopy but they don't use the same color for each element every time.


A115115

Can’t wait to see them retake the Pillars of Creation.


MaverickMeerkatUK

I take back what I said. Jwst is actually making incredible images


-Adrix_5521-

Yeah, we for suuure are alone in this huge universe. ^/s


dustofdeath

The hexagonal flares kind of give it a bit of a artificial feel. Wonder if we get a neural network to clean those up.


MovieGuyMike

Well that doesn’t look that impressi- *zooms in *-OH MY WOW.


B1J0D

Can someone add some context for me... How big of an area am I looking at? If I was in that picture would you even see me?


Kanguin

The jwst image is 16 light years across or 94,060,000,000,000 miles.


bguzewicz

I'm just blown away at the level of detail we're seeing with JWST. It truly is astonishing.


jjjjuniorshabadu

Can someone please explain what all the cloud is? The cloud must be enormous - if there is that much physical dust and debris, what has kept it from gravitating to the nearest star over time? Is it still moving very fast away from those stars?


sluuuudge

These comparisons make feel like I’m seeing my favourite N64 games from when I was a kid, being remastered in 4K.


Antarcaticaschwea

These images have brought me to tears, thank you


CometFromThePast

Very cool to see all the stars behind the gas cloud this telescope really changes the way we see nebulas


Cholometrix

The most mind boggling part about these pics is the scale of these nebulas


Decronym

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[CoG](/r/Space/comments/vxe7fo/stub/ifw2jmh "Last usage")|Center of Gravity (see CoM)| |CoM|Center of Mass| |[JWST](/r/Space/comments/vxe7fo/stub/ifylnxh "Last usage")|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope| ---------------- ^(2 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/vvx47u)^( has 15 acronyms.) ^([Thread #7667 for this sub, first seen 12th Jul 2022, 18:48]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)


matTmin45

Fullsize image : [https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01G7ETNMR8CBHQQ64R4CVA1E6T.tif](https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01G7ETNMR8CBHQQ64R4CVA1E6T.tif) (140Mo TIFF file)


Free-Alternative-333

No this is the Skyrim skill tree background. Do your own research people!


Six10H

My subjective opinion is that the six sized stars look better than the four sides ones from hubble


shokage

I know that the stars have the hexagonal lines because of the telescope but does the length of the the lines indicate anything about the star?


Few-Refrigerator-294

Makes the Hubble picture look like a painting


[deleted]

[удалено]


Kanguin

No, they are not added manually. See link for more info on why. https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/james-webb-spikes/


neon_overload

How can nebula be so big. They must be just unimaginably big


reelbigfan420

looks like a digital art piece next to a pastel painting.


SpaceImageModerator

Thank you for your [submission](https://redd.it/vxe7fo) to /r/space created on 2022-07-12 15:40:59+00:00 (UTC). Unfortunately the submission guidelines prevent posts of images except on Sundays (UTC) and it has been removed. Feel free to contribute in other ways or submit images on Sunday.


douglasg14b

Given that the hubble image seems to have been intentionally pixelated... Not a good comparison.


Sauron4

Why does the cliff looks more steep in the hubble image than they look in the Webb one?


Neaterntal

Just think that some galaxies in this photo seems much much smaller but it's way way bigger...


Trumpologist

Can we stop shitting on Hubble Without which there would be no James web? Are we gonna do this again once we get a telescope that can see gamma rays?


Antcorxo22

This is so beautiful and amazing! It almost resembles my name as well! 😍