I'm fairly excite tbqhfam
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
I'm fairly excite tbqhfam
I'm fairly excite tbqhfam
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
>infrared
>full color
>trust me goy, this is what it really looks like.
same toxic, harmful government scientists who say that influenza magically vanished without a trace and who say that nuclear power is totally unsafe for civilian use, but perfectly ok for military use. same ones who happily waste everyone else's money and cause inflation and then act like they don't understand the connection between their waste and the value evaporating out of private citizen's savings. economic math mystifies them, but they claim total understanding of much more mathematically complicated physics
They have been hyping this thing up for awhile now, it is an improvement on the Hubble and will likely not be that noticable if you don't compare the two side by side.
Whether or not it produces crisp images is beyond the point. It will not and cannot produce real color photographs. All images produced by JWST are mapped into our visible spectrum, with colors chosen arbitrarily.
>All images produced by JWST are mapped into our visible spectrum, with colors chosen arbitrarily.
Imagine getting upset over that.
>Muh technicality
I'm not upset at the color mapping, false color is a perfectly valid tool for visualizing images outside the visible spectrum.
But to call such images "full color" is deliberately misleading the public. There is no good reason for it, just condescension. They think people can't handle false color imaging so they pretend it's real color imaging instead. They left themselves enough wiggle room to claim they're technically not lying, since they said "full-color" instead of "true color", but it's plainly misleading since the range of colors used to produce a false color image is completely arbitrary, chosen by whoever is processing the image according to their subjective whims.
Unlike you, most people out there didn't turn astrophotography into one of their special interests. Ergo, saying: 'Look, we've got full-color pictures of fancy stars, galaxies and shiieeettt' is the most normies will care about.
>Unlike you, most people out there didn't turn astrophotography into one of their special interests.
I didn't. I've spent maybe a few hours of my life spread across years reading about it.
>Ergo, saying: 'Look, we've got full-color pictures of fancy stars, galaxies and shiieeettt' is the most normies will care about.
This is the condescension. You seem to think it's better to deliberately mislead people for their entertainment than to calmly state the truth plainly for laymen to understand. False color imaging is not too hard for normal people to understand; they've all seen the Predator movies, they know how FLIR works. We're not talking about pages of equations, the premise of false imaging is simple enough for anybody to understand if you bother to explain it.
But no, don't explain anything. Don't bother trying to educate people because education is too good for them. Entertain them instead. Get them excited. Get their adrenaline pumping then send them into the commercial break and sell them product. The American television methods applied to science communication is surely the way to go!
>You seem to think it's better to deliberately mislead people for their entertainment than to calmly state the truth plainly for laymen to understand.
You don't have your priorities straight if you think that misleading people about full-color vs. infrared-color photos constitutes a serious or even a grave act of lying, especially in light of all the things we are actually being misled about.
>The American television methods applied to science communication is surely the way to go!
Science has been commericalized a long time ago. Everything science does, it does because someone thinks you can make money of it or they think that it will result in something else that you can make money with.
>misleading people about full-color vs. infrared-color photos constitutes a serious or even a grave act of lying,
It literally does.
>priorities
aka "it's not really lying if it's lying for a good reason"
Bullshit.
Almost no astronomical images are true colour. A huge number of Hubble images use infrared bands, the famous ultra deep field is half infrared. And many of those that are really visible use narrowband filters, which are also nothing like the Human eye response. The Pillars of Creation is such an image. And you know what? Nobody is crying over this, no one cares. These are just as much photographs as any visible image, there is no difference in the way color images are made.
no astronomical images are true colour.
Yes, I am aware of that. My point is this: you think I might not be aware of that because the general public is broadly not aware of it. This is because the general public has been generally mislead about the nature of these images by condescending science communicators.
Nobody has been misled. If you look on the HST webpages it tells you exactly what filters were used. The only one confused is you. They said "full color" not "true color". They highlighted this because many morons believe that you somehow cannot make color images out of IR data and it must be colored by artists. In fact it's the same process and is just as valid.
>They said "full color" not "true color".
Full color is bullshit because the range of colors chosen for false color imagery is arbitrary. You can map any range to any other range; any false color image could be a "full color" image if the person processing the image chose to make it so.
When they say "full color" they're making a deliberate choice to not say false color, because know many people will confuse "full color" with true color and find that more exciting. They are choosing to mislead for entertainment rather than educating.
>Full color is bullshit because the range of colors chosen for false color imagery is arbitrary.
It's also arbitrary in normal photography. Channing the saturation and white balance are pretty common steps. Before digital you had films with different sensitives and properties. Not to mention optical filters.
>because know many people will confuse "full color" with true color and find that more exciting.
This is just a made up argument based on nothing but supposition. Anything can be branded "misleading" if you deliberately misunderstand what they say and then claim it's intentional.
>It's also arbitrary in normal photography
Laymen who aren't photographers understand normal photography to have an intuitive mapping to the visible spectrum. Green trees look green on normal well lit full color photographs. Because this is generally true in photography, using the term "full color" to describe false color images is misleading.
>Laymen who aren't photographers understand normal photography to have an intuitive mapping to the visible spectrum.
And yet they've also seen an x-ray image of teeth or bones and they didn't shit themselves. X-rays made visible by some sort of devil magic. People have also seen thermal images either on TV or in person, they commonly use pseudocolour which is even less like true color. But real people don't struggle with this.
>Green trees look green on normal well lit full color photographs.
Oh look, a haram image. Better complain to the color police.
>And yet they've also seen an x-ray image of teeth or bones and they didn't shit themselves.
Proving that they can handle the premise of false color photography. There is no need to misrepresent it to dumb it down for people, yet that's what OP's article does.
So you think the images are fine. Great. You also accept that they didn't actually say true color. So they didn't misrepresent anything, you just feel it could be misunderstood by some fictional third party. Great argument.
>So you think the images are fine
Of course, and I never insinuated otherwise.
>You also accept that they didn't actually say true color. So they didn't misrepresent anything
It is misleading. They simply could have said "false color" but they shied away from that because they think people couldn't handle that and prefer to mislead those people instead of educating them.
Full color is a simpler way of saying it's imaging in all its bands, idk why you're so upset over it.
Have you ever been diagnosed with autism?
>Have you ever been diagnosed with autism?
You're just as much of a sperg as he is and you're being just as pedantic. Perhaps you are on the spectrum?
I'm serious, normal people don't get this worked up over minor semantic differences
Most people don't try to excuse deliberate deception as "minor semantic differences."
What's the difference between blue and red?
>pilpul
You're upset and deflecting because your brain grew wrong, get off the internet and have sex or something
>insults with no pretext of even having an argument
You're the one raging about deception and pilpul when people engage with you in earnest. You don't want a discussion or an argument, you want to be angry about something and to soak in self righteousness
So show the different possible variation of colorways on these hot new joints
Move your hue slider around. Any value you choose will be as equally valid as the others.
>When they say "full color" they're making a deliberate choice to not say false color, because know many people will confuse "full color" with true color and find that more exciting.
I find it more likely that people would confuse 'false colour'with 'artist's impression'.
But the reality is that all 'true' colour is something that your mind simulates for your perceptive system, it's just a spectrum showing different wavelengths in relation to each other.
I think most people take that for granted.
Agreed but it's a tabloid and they always lie
Is there any hint what color things might be judging from the frequencies you can detect them at?
Do all blue things, if viewed in infrared or what have you, have similar infrared reflection frequencies? Is there some pattern or proportion?
Yes, there is, false color images dont have to be completely arbitrary, since most light redshifts in a predictable manner it's possible to reverse it in principle.
I was saying does the frequency of of EM waves going up and down the spectrum have any kind of musical like 12 tone octave situation going on. Or then again is the notion of color at all absolutely human centric and entirely arbitrary?
Not that the idea of color is not real and does not exist, just that humans experience if color is entirely dependent on their bio make up, and bio and robots can be made that just as validly percieve the wave lengths we see as red; as blue?
I'm saying like visible light waves are frequency (just making numbers up for sake) 50, 51, 52, 53.....
For however it goes, yellow, orange, red, blue,
And then there are frequencies 100, 101, 102,103 .. that have similar proportional relation?
Regardless, the human eye brain mind system is so complex; it could be that there are universal chemistry bio laws that certain molecules reacting with visible light frequency produces the possible visualization of red, but that such molecule biological mechanics could be in an array with others so the initial red signal is sent down paths that interact with other chemical reactions and change the initial signal
Yes homie it does, redshift is predictable and can be corrected for if you know the relative distance of the object and you can in principle false-color to what it WOULD look like if you were looking at it from close by.
so the same as any camera then, even the one on your phone?
Pretty sure the larger mirrors would give it a much greater resolution when looking at more distant objects
> who say that nuclear power is totally unsafe for civilian use
It is.
You know how gasoline and styrofoam make napalm?
Imagine if the napalm had the power of a nuclear bomb.
Governments wouldn’t be so quick to let gasoline proliferate right?
This is the exact dilemma nuclear power is in.
Most of the public wouldn’t actually mind nuclear power I think.
But there’s a big campaign to make people afraid of course.
As well as government roadblocks to stop anyone from making them as a freelancer, without permission.
So the only place you could build a plant is where the government has given a clear green flag for plant development, has access to money, and is able to brush off any other country or civilians that might interfere. So basically China.
This is why the Chinese have been doing such a major of build out over there for nuclear power.
However, they recently announced they would also be expanding their nuclear arsenal pretty substantially.
Right after that huge plant build up.
Hmm what a coincidence.
It's only a matter of re-phasing the wavelengths. Infrared is on the same spectrum as light.
Why is this so hard to understand?
you can obtain color information from inferior optical telescopes, and combine it with the resolution of the infrared telescope.
in fact, this is what video files do. they have a high resolution black and white image (luminance), and they have low resolution color data (chroma).
Its cameras are monochromatic fa.m
>full-color photos from JWST
Not "full-color". False color.
JWST does not collect light in the visible spectrum, it cannot produce real color photographs. The colors in the images they will show are arbitrary mappings of IR frequencies to visible frequencies.
Are there any true colour images of nebula anywhere? No? If so, wow, in a way, we've not seen space truly yet.
Is it possible to create an even better space telescope that can map even more of the universe or are we close to the limit of possibility with the James Webb?
You can always have more aperture.
Aperture how big the lens is? The iris? And/or the mirror array?
So if they made the aperature twice as large as jwst, then how far would it see?
the ELT is going to mog Webb anyway. and putting telescopes in space is so 20th century when the future will be earth sized arrays
Really? Show some of the deepest images taken from earth bound telescopes
>Really? Show some of the deepest images taken from earth bound telescopes
Come on come on come on come on do it do it do it do it
Depends what you count as deep. Here is one example from an instrument called MUSE on the VLT. It doesn't look that impressive until you appreciate that MUSE is not a just a simple camera like ACS on Hubble, it is an integral field spectrograph. It is not just taking a picture, it is in fact obtaining spectra for every galaxy in the field simultaneously. This allows one to measure very accurate distances and even things like the rotation of galaxies. The MUSE Ultra Deep Field even revealed galaxies which were too faint for to be detected by Hubble, even with a much longer exposure time. It also revealed huge hydrogen halos around galaxies, which are completely invisible in the Hubble imaging with its coarse filters. It's blurrier but it contains much more information. Note this is without adaptive optics.
The deepest ground based images can't really be posted here because they're huge. Hubble's imagers are only 16 megapixels each, whereas ground based cameras extend to gigapixels.
Here is some cutouts of one contender for the deepest fields, from a survey called UltraVISTA. A wider section of the image is available in the like below but it's half a GB. UltraVISTA covers an area about 400 times larger than the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, it is an infrared image. The most distant galaxies currently known were detected using this image. These galaxies are so distant they are invisible to Hubble.
https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1213/
I hope they stick to both, I'd love both ultra massive space and ground telescopes.
you're not too hot on reading comprehension are you, the big ones arent completed yet.
There are still big ones that exist on Earth yea? Bigger than jwst?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_Telescope
this thing has the highest resolution of any telescope
Ok great. Make sure there isn't a pop tart wrap in the shot this time. THX NASA <3 <3 <3 #SCIENCE
>this thread
STEM majors would really benefit from basic communications courses
Hurr
You at the top.
Who the heck makes these cringy pictures?
Ummm, sweaty? They're called maymays, and they're made by the guy at the top.
>Le more stars and galaxies in slightly better resolution.
Wow so excited