More Pictures
- Microworld Steve
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:34 pm
- Location: Western Kentucky
More Pictures
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.
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.
If I can't see it with my microscope, it ain't worth looking at.
Re: More Pictures
Good pictures, but I think they would look even better if they were downsized to about 2/3 or 1/2 their present size.
Re: More Pictures
Agree with gekko, a size reduction is in order.
By the way, what does "compensating for the depth of field" entail?
By the way, what does "compensating for the depth of field" entail?
Zeiss Standard WL (somewhat fashion challenged) & Wild M8
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)
Re: More Pictures
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!
Keep up the good work!
John B
- Microworld Steve
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:34 pm
- Location: Western Kentucky
Re: More Pictures
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.gekko wrote:Good pictures, but I think they would look even better if they were downsized to about 2/3 or 1/2 their present size.
If I can't see it with my microscope, it ain't worth looking at.
- Microworld Steve
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:34 pm
- Location: Western Kentucky
Re: More Pictures
I'll download to Tinypic with the next size smaller.75RR wrote:Agree with gekko, a size reduction is in order.
By the way, what does "compensating for the depth of field" entail?
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.
If I can't see it with my microscope, it ain't worth looking at.
- Microworld Steve
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:34 pm
- Location: Western Kentucky
Re: More Pictures
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.mrsonchus wrote: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!
If I can't see it with my microscope, it ain't worth looking at.
- Microworld Steve
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:34 pm
- Location: Western Kentucky
Re: More Pictures
Hopefully this is a smaller size picture.
If I can't see it with my microscope, it ain't worth looking at.
Re: More Pictures
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.
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.
Zeiss Standard WL (somewhat fashion challenged) & Wild M8
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)
Re: More Pictures
Hello
Very nice
Cordialement seb
Very nice
Cordialement seb
Microscope Leitz Laborlux k
Boitier EOS 1200D + EOS 1100D
Boitier EOS 1200D + EOS 1100D
Re: More Pictures
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 wrote:It is a smaller area of the original image, you have not reduced the overall size of the original.
Re: More Pictures
Have had another look. You are right.I think Steve has reduced the image size as was suggested and it looks better at least to my bad eyes.
I was comparing it with image # 8, should have compared it with # 7. My apologies.
Zeiss Standard WL (somewhat fashion challenged) & Wild M8
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)
- Microworld Steve
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:34 pm
- Location: Western Kentucky
Re: More Pictures
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.75RR wrote: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.
If I can't see it with my microscope, it ain't worth looking at.
- Microworld Steve
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:34 pm
- Location: Western Kentucky
Re: More Pictures
Thank you vasselle.vasselle wrote:Hello
Very nice
Cordialement seb
If I can't see it with my microscope, it ain't worth looking at.
- Microworld Steve
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:34 pm
- Location: Western Kentucky
Re: More Pictures
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.gekko wrote: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 wrote:It is a smaller area of the original image, you have not reduced the overall size of the original.
If I can't see it with my microscope, it ain't worth looking at.
- Microworld Steve
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:34 pm
- Location: Western Kentucky
Re: More Pictures
75RR wrote:Have had another look. You are right.I think Steve has reduced the image size as was suggested and it looks better at least to my bad eyes.
I was comparing it with image # 8, should have compared it with # 7. My apologies.
If I can't see it with my microscope, it ain't worth looking at.