You built a camera that takes pics of objects that will never ever be seen in first hand, ever. It’s a great waste of resources but if your a visually oriented person enjoy…. I live in the Here, Now…
Yes, WOW! Great job Joe. Since 12.25.2021, I've been wondering about image processing. Joe is an interface between deep space sensors and the human eye. What a great job.
Counting stars by candlelight eh? Where's the spiral light of Venus? Its lucky for us that you have friends who's heads are full of sparkling clover and they're willing to share it with us, thanks Christian!
They're all dim but there's one that's really bright! Of course, it's just a foreground star :) Interestingly, Webb will never observe Venus because pointing toward it would warm up the telescope, and that would be bad :)
Outstanding video series. It’s reassuring to see that Joe and Alyssa’s processes are very similar to mine, especially with Photoshop. I am curious since the video is a year old, how are they using the new tools, such as spectophotometric color calibration and AI tools.
Good stuff. Pixel insight is neat. Photoshop with math and expressions. Much easier to be sure everything is based predictably on the raw numbers to get to a clean plate from which to then do the artsy bits and cleanup. Lots and lots of cleanup and knowledge of what to clean up. Very easy to remove or distort something that should be there and vice versa. Also I did a bit of math in my head and if it's right, JWST's exposure for one quadrant of one filter is 1/2 hour. (30minx4x6filters=12hrs) 30 minutes exposure and getting enough 13 billion year old light to resolve those super distant galaxies. Now that's what you call sensitive.
Thanks a lot for this. I'm sure that Joe spend more time on Pixinsight and I would love to see more. For example I would have replace the Masked BKG EQ in photoshop with a Dynamic Background extraction in Pixinsight. Also a Deconvolution in Pixinsight would have been a more mathematical approach than the APF R Plugin.
Is there any where to get the processed versions of Webb photos in a lossless format (e.g TIFF or even PNG)? The main NASA site seems to only have JPEGs, which is a shame.
RE: Persistence. How does he know what parts of the image are artifacts of the instrument and what are real? I assume this is more a question of access than a question of technical ability. When he finds an unwelcome blob on a star beam, he can just ask someone. He has access to operators and data mungers who can tell him those are artifacts.
A lot of it is knowledge of how the camera works, which has been known since testing and during calibration. And yes, Joe does have access to the instrument scientists who know the detectors very well :)
Holy Humongous Files👀👀👀Bigger Than Hubbles,I Use PixInsight As Well As Gimp,This Is Soo Different Than Processing Hubbles,Thank You Christian For A NASA Guide Along,God Bless,Stay Safe,and Clear Skies❤️🙏🏻🌏🔭✨
8:37 pay close attention. This is what Webb sees, the light is so faint our human eye balls can't see. We have technology that can extract light our limited eyeballs fail to capture (like microscopes) . Joe is showing us how they process the Webb data to make it usable for our wittle eyeballs. Questions Dba?
Also Dba, please don't limit yourself by saying these images are not real. Take some time to research why Webb was built, how it was built and why it was sent via Ariane 5 rocket past the moon. Then you may understand the crazy science & engineering behind Webb’s ability to show us the incredible universe 🌌.
What worries me is these people are producing these images with photo shop 🙄 Surely the info should be received & shared as is. Not tweeked to look pretty so we don't know how well they represent the real appearance of the object
Firstly, the uncalibrated sensor data don't tell the "truth" either, they represent the "perception" of the sensor. Secondly, these kind of images are produced to be looked at and enjoyed by humans. As a layman, this kind of processed image gives me a good impression of what is out there. Seeing noise and sensor-introduced color imbalances doesn't really help me with anything. Thirdly, if you wish to do some scientific image analysis the raw data are there for you to use. So what harm is done by publishing processed images like these? (I mean, aside from giving flat earthers and space deniers some reason to state that all space images are just a big lie 🙂)
🔴Learn how NASA processed the Carina Nebula: ua-cam.com/video/1QPJd2Fl6i4/v-deo.html
Hello my Friend.....guess we're spending 45mins eatting breakfast today/ Thanx for early upload
Hope you enjoy, and a good morning to you as well!
Answering these fundamental questions about "false color" astronomy images is an extraordinary service. Thank you.
Because they have no idea. And will never be seen or experienced in reality….
You built a camera that takes pics of objects that will never ever be seen in first hand, ever. It’s a great waste of resources but if your a visually oriented person enjoy…. I live in the Here, Now…
Yes, WOW!
Great job Joe.
Since 12.25.2021, I've been wondering about image processing.
Joe is an interface between deep space sensors and the human eye.
What a great job.
ThIs is a fantastic lesson by Joe and a wonderful insight into processing Webb's images. Thank you both!
Thanks a lot for your channel and nasa team in this video for their contribution.
Sweet Jebus 😳, i shat myself halfway through the walk through. Had to pause the video to change my shorts. Fantastic video Lanchpad! Yaaaaa!
lol, you're certainly welcome and sorry about the shorts.
Counting stars by candlelight eh? Where's the spiral light of Venus? Its lucky for us that you have friends who's heads are full of sparkling clover and they're willing to share it with us, thanks Christian!
They're all dim but there's one that's really bright! Of course, it's just a foreground star :) Interestingly, Webb will never observe Venus because pointing toward it would warm up the telescope, and that would be bad :)
I like those types of videos. Very practical. Thank you
Cool! I’m trying something a little different.
Outstanding video series. It’s reassuring to see that Joe and Alyssa’s processes are very similar to mine, especially with Photoshop. I am curious since the video is a year old, how are they using the new tools, such as spectophotometric color calibration and AI tools.
When I do astrophotography and got images difficult to calibrate, I restart again taking another session 😅🤦🏻 great job thanks for sharing.
Good stuff. Pixel insight is neat. Photoshop with math and expressions. Much easier to be sure everything is based predictably on the raw numbers to get to a clean plate from which to then do the artsy bits and cleanup. Lots and lots of cleanup and knowledge of what to clean up. Very easy to remove or distort something that should be there and vice versa.
Also I did a bit of math in my head and if it's right, JWST's exposure for one quadrant of one filter is 1/2 hour. (30minx4x6filters=12hrs) 30 minutes exposure and getting enough 13 billion year old light to resolve those super distant galaxies. Now that's what you call sensitive.
excellent
Very Good
For those who are into this kind of thing
Thanks so much! This is awesome!
aaaaagh this is MARVELOUS!!!
After being removed from the X-Men Wolverine used his computer skills to land a job at NASA
Great work!
Thanks a lot for this. I'm sure that Joe spend more time on Pixinsight and I would love to see more. For example I would have replace the Masked BKG EQ in photoshop with a Dynamic Background extraction in Pixinsight. Also a Deconvolution in Pixinsight would have been a more mathematical approach than the APF R Plugin.
Symply Thank you❤️
Yay!
Is there any where to get the processed versions of Webb photos in a lossless format (e.g TIFF or even PNG)?
The main NASA site seems to only have JPEGs, which is a shame.
Hi Adam, if. you go to webbtelescope.org or esawebb.org, you'll find full res versions in both TIFF and PNG. 👍
@@LaunchPadAstronomy Oh that's perfect, exactly what I was looking for. Thanks very much Christian!
RE: Persistence. How does he know what parts of the image are artifacts of the instrument and what are real? I assume this is more a question of access than a question of technical ability. When he finds an unwelcome blob on a star beam, he can just ask someone. He has access to operators and data mungers who can tell him those are artifacts.
A lot of it is knowledge of how the camera works, which has been known since testing and during calibration. And yes, Joe does have access to the instrument scientists who know the detectors very well :)
Holy Humongous Files👀👀👀Bigger Than Hubbles,I Use PixInsight As Well As Gimp,This Is Soo Different Than Processing Hubbles,Thank You Christian For A NASA Guide Along,God Bless,Stay Safe,and Clear Skies❤️🙏🏻🌏🔭✨
*Me using windows paint* I bet I can make one look better.
Jokes aside he seems to know that editing program by heart
lol! Yeah, Joe really knows his stuff.
Wow.
😍
This is woooowww
And heres me thinking Joe Pasquale was a squeaky voiced Pillok!
It would be interesting to know what quality of monitor he uses and if it's professionally calibrated.
wen you said ,looks so natural.it's not natural at all it's just the operator interpertation.of the original image
God Jesus really 😳
So what does Webb see? It sounds like all the images we've seen isn't real
Oh they're quite real, my friend. The only limitation is that we cannot see the colors of infrared so we use the colors our eyes can see.
8:37 pay close attention. This is what Webb sees, the light is so faint our human eye balls can't see. We have technology that can extract light our limited eyeballs fail to capture (like microscopes) . Joe is showing us how they process the Webb data to make it usable for our wittle eyeballs. Questions Dba?
Also Dba, please don't limit yourself by saying these images are not real. Take some time to research why Webb was built, how it was built and why it was sent via Ariane 5 rocket past the moon. Then you may understand the crazy science & engineering behind Webb’s ability to show us the incredible universe 🌌.
What worries me is these people are producing these images with photo shop 🙄
Surely the info should be received & shared as is. Not tweeked to look pretty so we don't know how well they represent the real appearance of the object
Firstly, the uncalibrated sensor data don't tell the "truth" either, they represent the "perception" of the sensor.
Secondly, these kind of images are produced to be looked at and enjoyed by humans. As a layman, this kind of processed image gives me a good impression of what is out there. Seeing noise and sensor-introduced color imbalances doesn't really help me with anything.
Thirdly, if you wish to do some scientific image analysis the raw data are there for you to use.
So what harm is done by publishing processed images like these? (I mean, aside from giving flat earthers and space deniers some reason to state that all space images are just a big lie 🙂)
Well, now you know how to download the data from MAST and see it in it's raw format 👍
@@LaunchPadAstronomy true. I just need to make the effort 😉
@@hubertheiser applying calibration factors is fine. They are doing much more than that.
@@pobinr O really? Guess I have to watch that video again...😮