Microbehunter Microscopy Magazine Logo Banner Micrographs

Microscopy Forum

Important notice: This forum is closed for new submissions. Please visit and register at the new (much better) forum:
www.microbehunter.com/microscopy-forum | Read more here!

Lost password?
Advanced Search:

— Forum Scope —



— Match —



— Forum Options —




Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Blurred images due to camera vibration
March 27, 2012
00:48
Member
Forum Posts: 1536
Member Since:
January 16, 2012
Offline

I'm having rather severe blurring of images due to vibration caused by the camera's shutter.  My camera, an Olympus E-P1, does not have a mirror, but neither does it have a "quiet" or "2nd curtain sync" mode (as do some Canon DSLRs).  The camera body is attached to the vertical eyetube using extension tubes such that it is parfocal with the binocular eyepieces.  In order to get unblurred images, I have to use exposures shorter than 1/1000 s or longer than 1 s (or thereabouts).   All components of the microscope, including camera mechanical connections, are tight.  I tried mounting the microscope on a solid table top, and I tried setting it on a plank of wood which was isolated from the table top by packing material.  I tried bracing the camera's extension tube via clamps and  a steel rod to the wall.  I tried rotating the camera 90 degrees so the direction of the shutter movement will change.  But nothing so far worked.  Any suggestions will be very much appreciated.

March 27, 2012
14:56
Member
Forum Posts: 37
Member Since:
August 12, 2011
Offline

I use flash on my system. My suggestion is to post your question, preferably with a photo of you set-up, on PMG

http://www.photomacrography.net/

 

people there are the absolute experts of all aspects of high magnification photography.

March 28, 2012
01:30
Member
Forum Posts: 1536
Member Since:
January 16, 2012
Offline

Tony T said

I use flash on my system. My suggestion is to post your question, preferably with a photo of you set-up, on PMG

http://www.photomacrography.net/

 

people there are the absolute experts of all aspects of high magnification photography.

Thank you very much for your excellent suggestion! 

March 29, 2012
05:57
Member
Forum Posts: 1536
Member Since:
January 16, 2012
Offline

I came across the following article by Oliver (I believe): http://www.microbehunter.com/2…..icroscope/

I tried one of the suggestions in the article: supporting the camera above the phototube without a physical contact between the camera and the microscope, and my preliminary test, using exposures of 1/30 s and 1/125 s, using a prepared slide of diatoms indicates that the problem is solved completely: I never had such good results before with this camera/microscope combination.  I think it would be good to cover the gap with something very flexible (plastic cut from a sandwitch bag or something similar perhaps) to prevent dust from getting into the camera.  Light entering the gap does not appear to be a problem.

March 29, 2012
06:40
Admin
Forum Posts: 201
Member Since:
September 19, 2010
Offline

Hi,
would be interested in how you connected the camera this way. How did you support the camera (tripod?)
Oliver.

http://www.microbehunter.com – Oliver Kim Science may set limits to knowledge, but should not set limits to imagination. (Bertrand Russell)
March 29, 2012
13:33
Member
Forum Posts: 1536
Member Since:
January 16, 2012
Offline

Hi Oliver,

If I may, I will reply in a few days after I have figured out how to support it in a permanent manner.  Yesterday, I used a temporary attachment: a clamp to hold a steel rod to a bookshelf behind the microscope, then I attached a camera clamp that I had to the rod, and attached the camera to this via the tripod socket, but I was not comfortable that this temporary method was sufficiently secure.

March 29, 2012
14:39
Member
Forum Posts: 37
Member Since:
August 12, 2011
Offline

A wooden frame

camera-mount.jpg

Attachments
March 30, 2012
00:49
Member
Forum Posts: 1536
Member Since:
January 16, 2012
Offline

Tony, thank you very much for showing this.  Wonderful, meticulous design and execution, and quite in keeping with your meticulous workmanship evident in your photomicrographs, if I may say so.

March 30, 2012
01:17
Member
Forum Posts: 1536
Member Since:
January 16, 2012
Offline

Oliver, I have reworked my setup so I can leave it without worrying about the camera crashing to the floor, and below I show its current state.  It is, of course, not to be compared with Tony T's setup, but it is what I could rig up quickly with what I had.  I've ordered another camera clamp that might allow some improvement.  The piece of wood is clamped to the side of the bookshelf, and protrudes about 10 cm in front, allowing the camera clamp to be attached to it.  The camera and the microscope stage are level, but for some reason, in order for the center of the field of view of the microscope to correspond to the center of the field of view of the camera, I needed to offset the camera axis with respect to the microscope.  I have not so far been able to determine why this is so.  I would very much appreciate any suggestions regarding this.

http://i1070.photobucket.com/albums/u494/micritter/P1020086cM.jpg

To test the setup, I took a photo of a diatom (prepared slide) with a 20x objective at 3 shutter speeds: 1/25 s, 1/60 s, and 1/500 s.  To my eyes, they look alright, but I would very much like critical feedback from anyone on any aspect, but particularly on whether they show evidence of shake.  Many thanks!

http://i1070.photobucket.com/albums/u494/micritter/exp_25_60_500c.jpg

April 24, 2012
18:57
Member
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
April 22, 2012
Offline
10

The image on the right is much sharper, as it should be. If you could find a way to use flash, it would be even sharper.

 

And a suggestion, buy a couple of C clamps to replace the bar clamps. It will be a lot less likely to knock one off and break the scope.  Surprised

April 27, 2012
03:49
Member
Forum Posts: 1536
Member Since:
January 16, 2012
Offline
11

Thank you, Mitch, for your comments.  I need to get new glasses: I see little difference between the three imagesEmbarassed.  You are right also about the clamps:  I have C clamps but couldn't find themEmbarassed.  Also I am now using the bar of the upper clamp to tie the camera to it for more stability such that it is not supported only by the tripod socket, but I'll try to replace the other one with a C clamp as you suggest.

Flash: one of these days I'll try using flash. But my first aim is to get "good" images reliably rather than hit-or-miss Smile.

April 27, 2012
13:21
Member
Forum Posts: 37
Member Since:
August 12, 2011
Offline
12

It is difficult to tell at this size. Much better if you would show just a portion of each image at a much higher magnification; perhaps even at 100%. Maybe just a quarter from the center to the outside; that is a 90 degree segment rather than the full 360.

May 1, 2012
22:44
Member
Forum Posts: 1536
Member Since:
January 16, 2012
Offline
13

Thank you, Tony, for you further suggestion.  I'll redo the test (I've deleted the original files, so I cannot resize them).

Forum Timezone: Europe/Vienna

Most Users Ever Online: 149

Currently Online:
9 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

gekko: 1536

lucmonz: 393

Vasselle: 275

LKOLTON: 247

seb28: 200

The QCC: 188

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 31

Members: 593

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 2

Forums: 18

Topics: 1403

Posts: 5585

Moderators:

Administrators: Oliver (201)