Talk:Hubble eXtreme Deep Field

Great image showing scale

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/37/image/c/

No idea how to upload, I'll leave that to someone else.

License appears to be public domain: http://hubblesite.org/about_us/copyright.php

More images: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/37/image/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.13.35 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

From the figure, the XDF appears to span ~4.7 square arc-minutes of sky; extrapolating its ~5500 galaxies, to the whole sky, implies ~175B galaxies. In comparison, the UDF observed ~10000 galaxies, in ~11 square arc-minutes, which extrapolates to 30% fewer galaxies, than seen with the extra 10 days of observing time, in the XDF. And, the HDF observed ~3000 galaxies, in ~6.25 square-arc-minutes, extrapolating to ~71B galaxies, less than half the number observed in the XDF. The following figure plots extrapolated total all-sky galaxy count (billions) vs. observing time (days):

http://s7.postimage.org/y9xe9eztn/Hubble_Surveys.png

Galaxy counts increased linearly with time, from zero (no survey), through both the HDF & HUDF; galaxy counts have only begun to saturate, and "flatten out", with the XDF; the XDF has finally begun to push Hubble to its technical limits of observing capability.66.235.38.214 (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Need a copy with improved resolution and quality

If you zoom in on the current 12.5-MB XDF image, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Hubble_Extreme_Deep_Field_%28full_resolution%29.tif and compare to this portion of the Ultra Deep Field (UDF) image (released in 2004), http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_part_d.jpg one could conclude that the XDF is inferior to the UDF. It isn't really, of course... the reduced-resolution copy on Wikimedia just makes it seem that way. 199.46.245.232 (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - I'm not an expert w/ image formats - but TIF image files (more for printing purposes?) may not be easily comparable (re resolution, file sizes, etc) w/ JPG image files (more for computer display purposes?) of the seemingly "exact" same image - seems TIF images may have larger file-sizes but contain the same (or similar) resolutions as the seemingly "exact" same image in the much smaller file-sizes in the JPG image format - may wish to compare the present TIF XDF image (2382x2078,12.54mb) w/ the JPG XDF image (2382x2078,1.4mb) I recently uploaded (and added to the Universe and Big Bang articles) - also, you may wish to compare these w/ the JPG UDF image (3100x3100,4.32mb) and/or with the "highest-resolution" version JPG UDF image (6200×6200,18.19mb) - in any case - I'll try to find a better resolution XDF image - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Brief followup - seems the present JPG XDF image (2382x2078,1.4mb) may be the best resolution released - so far - (per Official Hubble WebSite?) - seems we may have to wait a bit longer for a "massive image file (JPG/~15mb)" release? - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I checked out all the files available at http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/37/image/a/. Sadly, none of them show as much detail as http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_part_d.jpg from 2004. The 1.4-MB XDF JPG has about the same level of detail as the 12.5-MB XDF TIF; the JPG compression just makes it more convenient to download. 184.99.31.202 (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This low-resolution-picture is quite disappointing and makes not much sense. I hope a hi-res-picture will be avaiable soon, I'm looking forward to it!--User1973 (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

eXtreme

Hubble eXtreme Deep Field.BetelgeuSeginus (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Constellation

What constellation was this photo taken in?--Forward Unto Dawn 03:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, it's Fornax; I've added it to the article.--Forward Unto Dawn 03:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Hubble Extreme Deep Field (full resolution).png to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Hubble Extreme Deep Field (full resolution).png will be appearing as picture of the day on February 6, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-02-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Hubble Extreme Deep Field is an image of a small area of space in the constellation Fornax released by NASA on September 25, 2012. The successor to the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field, this image was compiled from 10 years of previous images with a total exposure time of two million seconds, or approximately 23 days.Image: NASA

Capitalization?

Can the capitalization of the article title and the text of the first paragraph be made to match? I don't want to run afoul of a WP policy on capitalization, so I am floating the suggestion but leaving the decision to someone else. thanks. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 09:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done The 'eXt' variant is more common, so I did what was necessary. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)