More Pictures

[Microworld Steve]

The pictures are taken from slide #7 and the bottom slide.


Slide #7
Camera; AmScope 5.0 mp
40X

10X


Bottom slide.
5.0 mp
10X & 40X






1.3 mp








I tried to get the best pictures I could while compensating for the depth of field.

[gekko]

Good pictures, but I think they would look even better if they were downsized to about 2/3 or 1/2 their present size.

[75RR]

Agree with gekko, a size reduction is in order.
By the way, what does "compensating for the depth of field" entail?

[mrsonchus]

Nice pictures but as others have said a bit like sitting too close to the TV. Good details in the botanical sections - the woody-stem shows secondary growth similar to that seen in my earlier root sections, with rays in between the xylem vessels. The lily has the classic open 'net-like' air-containing tissue that aids bouyancy - two nice sections and a good start with the images.
Keep up the good work!

[Microworld Steve]

Good pictures, but I think they would look even better if they were downsized to about 2/3 or 1/2 their present size.

When I put these pictures on Tinypic, I used the 17" screen setting, I'll try it again with a picture using the 15" screen download.

[Microworld Steve]

Agree with gekko, a size reduction is in order.
By the way, what does "compensating for the depth of field" entail?

I'll download to Tinypic with the next size smaller.

I call compensating for the depth of field, is trying to find a happy medium with the thickness of the specimen and try to find a good focus point. Or something like that.

[Microworld Steve]

Nice pictures but as others have said a bit like sitting too close to the TV. Good details in the botanical sections - the woody-stem shows secondary growth similar to that seen in my earlier root sections, with rays in between the xylem vessels. The lily has the classic open 'net-like' air-containing tissue that aids bouyancy - two nice sections and a good start with the images.
Keep up the good work!

Thanks John, I'm still learning my equipment. I'll play around with the program for my camera and see what I can come up with.

[Microworld Steve]

Hopefully this is a smaller size picture.

[75RR]

It is a smaller area of the original image, you have not reduced the overall size of the original.
Though there is an optimum image size/fit for different screen sizes, each image also has an individual optimum size.
mrsonchus metaphor "a bit like sitting too close to the TV" is very good. Sit back a bit, the image will be sharper.
You can try this out with a family photo - it you keep increasing the size the image will eventually become fuzzy.

[vasselle]

Hello
Very nice
Cordialement seb

[gekko]

It is a smaller area of the original image, you have not reduced the overall size of the original.

I think Steve has reduced the image size as was suggested and it looks better at least to my bad eyes. I think what may be happening as that the lens associated with the 1.3 Mp camera has too much magnification, whereas the one used with the 5 Mp camera has more reasonable magnification. I go back to my original question: does the 1.3 Mp camera see only a relatively small part of the field of view seen through the eyepiece?

[75RR]

I think Steve has reduced the image size as was suggested and it looks better at least to my bad eyes.

Have had another look. You are right.
I was comparing it with image # 8, should have compared it with # 7. My apologies.

[Microworld Steve]

It is a smaller area of the original image, you have not reduced the overall size of the original.
Though there is an optimum image size/fit for different screen sizes, each image also has an individual optimum size.
mrsonchus metaphor "a bit like sitting too close to the TV" is very good. Sit back a bit, the image will be sharper.
You can try this out with a family photo - it you keep increasing the size the image will eventually become fuzzy.

With the next set of pictures I do, I'll try reducing with the program as well as when I put the pictures on TinyPic.

[Microworld Steve]

Hello
Very nice
Cordialement seb

Thank you vasselle.

[Microworld Steve]

It is a smaller area of the original image, you have not reduced the overall size of the original.

I think Steve has reduced the image size as was suggested and it looks better at least to my bad eyes. I think what may be happening as that the lens associated with the 1.3 Mp camera has too much magnification, whereas the one used with the 5 Mp camera has more reasonable magnification. I go back to my original question: does the 1.3 Mp camera see only a relatively small part of the field of view seen through the eyepiece?

Yes it does, the camera gets a small part of what I see through the eyepiece. When I have my target in the center, I have to recenter it after I put the camera in.

[Microworld Steve]

I think Steve has reduced the image size as was suggested and it looks better at least to my bad eyes.

Have had another look. You are right.
I was comparing it with image # 8, should have compared it with # 7. My apologies.