Hubble Ultra Deep Field

Reason

I found that over the summer, a significantly higher rez version, but with much more chromatic noise, had been uploaded over the previous FP. I reverted but moved the new image to a different file. I present both to the community for its opinion. I do not support either but rather merely wanted to bring this issue to the attention of the FP community. Notifications: [1] [2] [3] --HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator

HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)}

• Neutral — HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm also quite neutral here. I guess 3100x3100 is already pretty high resolution, albeit not as high as 6200x6200! I'm not an astronomer, so I wonder if anyone can help identify the source of the noise. Is it due to limitations of the photographic technique or is it due to some physical effect? Papa November (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bet is that it would be related to the long exposure(s) required to pick up such distant sources. Add me to the neutral, the new version is pretty noisy, I'd be surprised if it had much more actual detail than the original. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the space between here and the subject isn't completely empty... there's plenty of dust, loose stars, planets, (at this scale) even galaxies and other miscellaneous cosmic vagrants that could get in the way. MER-C 07:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, gases should also be added, but some have speculated that the average density of intergalatic space is around a hydrogen nucleus per cubic meter, and the noise is fairly uniform. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of my question about the noise source was to establish whether the noisy picture is what the subject "really looks like". If it's just down to the long exposure time or matter exposing the subject, then it's right to remove the noise. If the deep field itself is "intrinsically noisy" in some way, then is it still appropriate to perform noise reduction? But yes, in terms of aesthetics, edit 2 looks good to me. Papa November (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That probably depends how you define the subject. In big bang, nature, physics, universe, cosmos, hubble telescope and observable universe the caption either talks about the "deepest visible light in the universe" or the "most distant galaxies in the visible universe". Light reflected from closer matter would not help illustrate the intended subject matter. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that this is simply thermal noise from the imaging chip of the telescope. Still, I wouldn't feel comfortable editing an image that has already been worked on by professional astronomers... --Dschwen 01:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existing FP appears to have had a very similar edit though. I have just done a little reading at the source. The image is a composition of 800 exposures amounting to approximately 11.3 days, zero mention on the noise source though. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace with highres. At all sizes that are used on wikipedia, that noise is invisible and so irrelevant. Downsampling always gets rid of some information. A less drastic method than downsampling is a slight noise reduction as seen in the edit. Lycaon (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with Edit 2, the noise is clearly visible and obscures detail, you probably need to adjust your monitor. A black point adjustment kills most of it without eating detail that a straight NR might. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I know that I entered this a neutral but I'm starting to lean towards retaining the current FP. The edits have improved the alternative but it still is very noisy. I do like the higher rez but we aren't studying individual galaxies but rather the net effect of a detailed view of a small region of deep space. I think the current FP better represents the HUDF on a holistic basis (it's hardly lacking in rez itself). I'm still reluctant to officially support it but I wanted to put that argument up for consideration, too.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep original FPC Since it seems that the original is the higher quality and better image. Cat-five - talk 01:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with Edit 2 - both images are noisy. The new version, however, has significantly higher resolution. Kaldari (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with Image:Hubble ultra deep field high rez edit1.jpg, a few explicitly for edit 2, one for replacement with high res and a few neutrals --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]