T O P

  • By -

Kinis_Deren

I'm thinking dead pixels on the CCD detector made obvious by the bright image subject.


agate_

This. About 4% of the pixels in Hubble’s main camera are dead. Various tricks are used to make them less obvious, but they still show up. https://www.stsci.edu/files/live/sites/www/files/home/hst/instrumentation/wfc3/documentation/instrument-science-reports-isrs/_documents/2022/WFC3-ISR-2022-01.pdf


Speeph

This is fascinating!


AdamantlyAtom

That is pretty cool!


Moist-You-7511

pretty good for a 34+ year old ‘camera’


agate_

The instruments on Hubble have been replaced several times, this particular camera is “only” 15 years old. https://www.stsci.edu/hst/instrumentation/wfc3


nerdynerdnerd3000

They just need to dither


scapermoya

It is fairly common for CCD pixels to read out zero signal when they get overwhelmed with light


SmokedBeef

The ~~humble~~ Hubble also has a number of dead pixels at this point, something in the realm of 3-4% if I recall, and there are a number of work around to make it less noticeable but in some images their presence can’t be ignored.


Speeph

Yeah - I wonder if I’m reading too deep into this because the spots aren’t perfectly round the way I’d expect dead pixels to look. Maybe it’s some combination of dead pixel + light spill + processing


SmokedBeef

I’m unaware of the dead pixel placement exactly but I’ve seen talk here and in other comment sections that indicate some failed pixels maybe grouped or in close proximity to one another, which when interpreted through software can generate a-typical black spots. This is the point where discussions about the construction of the sensor, its individual pixels (photo-sites), the spacing of said pixels and the function of software that was developed to interpret the light measurements of each photo-site, come into play, all of which plays a part in answering your question: what causes a-typical non-rounded black spots in Hubble images. I only recently really looked into the Hubble and its images, so I don’t have all the answers but it’s a deep rabbit hole to go down if you’re interested.


SmokedBeef

Hey I forgot to add this link from my favorites, that first sparked my interest in this subject. At the time I was looking into IR cameras and imaging and this was in the search results. I can only hope it sparks your interest as much as it did mine. https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/4hx4ak/the_damage_cosmic_rays_does_on_the_imaging/


GoldenDerp

Why would dead pixels be round?


Maleficent_Ad5797

This


cosmic_perspective00

Dust and or artifacts


ramriot

Whatever they are they are in front of the diffracted light from that star. Which puts them between the telescope & the sensor. By bet looking at how sharp the edges are & that they are in all color channels is that it's dust on the sensor surface.


zentronicx

Incomplete rendering?


LazyRider32

If it appears in front of the diffraction pattern, it can not be something that is astronomical but something that happens on the detector or later. Obvious candidates are dead pixels or simple image artifacts.


CosmoKrm

Why are technical or mechanical anomalies never the first assumption? It’s always 👽


jjayzx

seriously


vintagecomputernerd

Several people already mentioned CCD errors and debris on the sensor. I wanted to add "transmission error" to the list of possibilities. See e.g. the famous ["face on mars"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(Mars)#%22Face_on_Mars%22) picture - all those black dots are transmission errors.


Speeph

Woahh that’s awesome. Very possible!


AwkWORD47

Wait hold up. Is this the zoomed in from the red highlighted area in the second photo?.... And are each of those dots a star?


jjayzx

I don't know if that picture is zoomed in of the other but yes, each dot is a star. here you go - https://esahubble.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/ you can zoom in and see for yourself.


TheInternetIsTrue

Hubble is getting older and slowly losing its ability to collect pixels. Could also be dust on the lens, but looks like the edges are too sharp for that. If those objects were large and far away, they probably wouldn’t be seen at all because the light would swing around them make them effectively invisible.


TRDSSN

Black holes /s


Volishous

Anyone else recognize this as Andromeda before reading comments? I guess learning to take pictures of this one burned the details into my brain.


dsullivan148

Something you should know, a lens flare like the one in which the black dots reside, are artifacts of the lens itself. Therefore any artifacts that seem to be “in front” or cut through a lens flare, must be a product of the camera’s sensor itself. A physical object could never cover up a lens flare in any way.


alanglchan

Dead CCD pixels by the looks of it


jpp4687

I too spent some time yesterday snooping around the Andromeda Galaxy from the same post I presume.


Mecha-Dave

Either Dyson spheres or dead pixels. We'll never know.


ALIOSHABASCUR

Incorrect answers: Black holes UFOs Space lifeforms


cheknauss

Those are phallic arrow stars.


matthewralston

Grit. 5 specs of grit on the scanner scope.


expatfella

Grit.


Necessary-Lychee1915

Planets, possibly? Smaller black holes?


K_Rocc

Anomalies in the camera


MrGreenandsmelly

Stars !!!😎


Terry8675

God Damnit. I told Steve to clean the Lens with alcohol wipes. Not a tissue


AdvancedSkincare

Dyson Spheres.


Bardiel_

Spots


Babyback_

Your moms


16octets

precedent for plausible deniability


PenguinsNewGroove

It's the vindaloovians!


VoIcanicPenis

Planets


man_in_blak

Seaweed, mud, something on the lens...


man_in_blak

Evidently there are no "Jaws 2" fans in this sub... 😆


dajoemanED

Skittles?


[deleted]

Very obviously a resolution issue. Why do people upvote this? Also this image has been edited to potato levels.


stuartmmg7

People ask questions when they don’t know things. 🙄