Brian May. James May is the Top Gear guy.
To be fair I’ve never seen them in the same place at the same time.
Damn ! Of course it’s Brian May.
I’m going to fire my proof reader.
That’s excellent. good find.
Concur, thank you
This is what the word “awesome” was intended for.
Where is the rest of that image coming from? It seems significantly lower detail than the hubble comparisons, which makes the Webb images more dramatic, but I’m not sure what I’m comparing it to.
I’m pretty sure that is coming from one of the full sky survey scopes. The background can be set to anything, so whoever built this visualization would have made the choice.
I’m going to guess that it’s from the second data release of the Gaia space telescope:
Apologies if this has been asked but watching images on TV they appear to travel through the universe in the images in 3D fashion. Is this something people can click on and experience?
The same images on the NASA web site?
when I click on the images on NASA site they’re just flat pictures.
I just watched this week’s NOVA on the JWST, and it had footage like that. If that’s what you mean, I’m pretty sure it was all CGI created for the show, not by NASA. It was probably based on JWST images, but it is not “real.”
While we were watching the NOVA episode, my wife asked me if the images they have released are true colors. I told her that since it is an IR instrument they must be processed to resemble “real” colors, but that’s my assumption. Can anyone tell us more about that and maybe point to what unprocessed images look like?
that’s what I was looking for. I think it’s a great way to visually display distance. Otherwise it’s just another picture of a bunch of galaxies.
Answering my own question by doing a little Googling, which I should have done before posting.
It’s a sort of poorly-defined question. One answer is just that it would appear black, since you can’t see IR. Another is that it would just appear grayscale, since ultimately that’s what the sensor output is: an array of individual values that vary between 0 and some maximum.
It’s completely up to whoever is processing the results to choose how the colors map to things we can see. In many cases, no such processing will be done, because the scientists doing the work don’t need to see pretty pictures. In other cases, there may be a tradeoff between making something pretty vs. something more scientifically useful.
The JWST has several instruments and each one captures a number of different wavelengths. The NIRCam for instance has filters for something like a few dozen wavelengths. So even for the same object, you could have different results depending on which filters were chosen in the first place.
(I haven’t read your link above, but hopefully it confirms what I said 
)
It does, thanks, and sorry to ninja the answer to my own question.
Every “big science” (fixed ground observatories or orbiters like Hubble) images have all been shot in black and white through filters to isolate specific wavelengths. For decades. The result of 3 or so filtered black and white exposures are mapped to specific color ranges “we” can see and composited together to make a colorized image. Every Hubble photo you’ve seen since 1993 has been done this way. Webb is no different.
You are correct. As the good Dr. says, being IR the ‘true colors’ would be black since the human eye can’t detect that. However, when Dr. Becky was pointing out all the filamentous structure in the Southern Ring nebula she mentioned that the blueish areas were shorter wavelength – hotter – than the reddish areas further out.
Dr Becky would have referred to the notes attached to the image. There’s no standard that blue or red or whatever in a released image is a hotter or shorter or whatever wavelength. I’m sure there’s conventions of sorts, but any research group can map an image’s wavelengths as they prefer to whatever color ranges.