Various Spiral bacteria at high framerates(1400+)

[Topcode]

Above are some spiral shaped bacteria at 40x mag objective, no additional optics, ~1450fps, 60x slowed down, bin2, with a swift m10T, and E3ISPM09000KPB. One of the gifs loops forwards then backwards. Some color adjustments applied.

[charlie g]

Thanks, topcode, can you show a few images of your setup? What sort of water sample, from what source did you collect these protists? What illumination permits: " 1400+ high framerates" ?

Again, thanks for this microscopy. charlie g

[Topcode]

Thanks, topcode, can you show a few images of your setup? What sort of water sample, from what source did you collect these protists? What illumination permits: " 1400+ high framerates" ?

Again, thanks for this microscopy. charlie g

Yeah here is an image of the setup(placed on bed so you dont see all the junk on my desk), Its a relatively basic scope, just some Plan achromats, and probably average in terms of cameras. The water was just collected from a pond, and then sat on a window sill for 2 days or so. I am not sure if they are protists though, the larger guy is 5-6 micron long, I should probably have mentioned, this is a HEAVILY cropped fov, 1/20th of the vertical size of the sensor is used. The only change I had to make to illumination, was swinging the diffuse filter out of the way. This does decrease the numerical aperture quite a bit though, it concentrated most of the light to the lesser angles, and creates much less even fields, so its only useful in select circumstances. Most of the heavy lifting in terms of high speed is being done by the camera, It has a very strong dynamic range, decent sized pixels, and the support for binning not only increases sensitivity, but the frame rate too, It can reach over 2k fps, at min vertical height, but by that point you are just seeing a tiny sliver of vision, so i stick to around 1450fps for a nice even 60x slower than realspeed, when played back at 24fps, while still having some vertical resolution to play with.

[Alexander]

You are confusing exposure time with frame rate.

[DonSchaeffer]

I can't see a full image--just a small preview and no motion.

[Topcode]

You are confusing exposure time with frame rate.

No? The framerate means that roughly 1450 frames were captured every second, exposure time was about 60 microseconds by my recollection.

I can't see a full image--just a small preview and no motion.

Hmm, they are all relatively small (<20mb) gif files, maybe try to open them in a new tab?

[Alexander]

You are confusing exposure time with frame rate.

No? The framerate means that roughly 1450 frames were captured every second, exposure time was about 60 microseconds by my recollection.

How could you expose 1450 times 60 milliseconds in one second?

[charlie g]

Thanks for the setup details and images, topcode.

Only if the fancy strikes you, 'metachronal beat' of rotifer coronal cilia 'wheels' would be sweet with your high framerate application, so too would the waves of coordinated bands of cilia on many protozoa.

Regarding the spiraling /undulating large dark protists..many large ..huge bacteria are encountered in freshwater pond samples. I sense those dark organisms are large bacteria. thanks, charlie guevara

[Topcode]

You are confusing exposure time with frame rate.

No? The framerate means that roughly 1450 frames were captured every second, exposure time was about 60 microseconds by my recollection.

How could you expose 1450 times 60 milliseconds in one second?

Microseconds, not milliseconds.

[Alexander]

Your camera and its USB connection would not do 100 FPS.

[Topcode]

Your camera and its USB connection would not do 100 FPS.

[citation needed]
Here, ill provide mine.

Here are the specs for the camera series I have from the manufacturer http://www.touptek.com/product/showprod ... =en&id=288
we can clearly see the model of camera I have listed as an IMX533
here are sony specs for the IMX533 https://www.sony-semicon.com/files/62/p ... _Flyer.pdf
The frame rates clearly match up, at bin 2 full sensor we have 120 fps on both, and that's what I get full sensor.
You clearly aren't looking at a full sensor image though(which i clarified before you commented), in fact you are looking at a crop of the in camera roi, full width, 1/20th height. Their spec sheets don't go that far, but very clearly they go close.
Lets do the math, 8bits*2.25million*120 = 2.16gbit
wow, usb 3.0 has 5gbit/second, so it can easily handle that
lets do the math for full res, wow, it required 2.9gbit at the 40fps that we get from the touptek specs(and from when i use full res)
Lets do the math for the gifs that i provided here, which uncropped has 113088 pixels
8bits*113088*1450 = 1.3gbit
wow, so in every case we are not at all limited by the cable.
and based on the manufacturers specs, the sensor checks out. In fact, im almost always reporting a lower FPS than the sensor can do because i believe there is some onboard processing from touptek that slows it down a bit.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about, and that's perfectly fine, whats not fine is you pretending like you know stuff that you simply don't. I do not appreciate you accusing me of lying about my cameras capabilities, ESPECIALLY when i had already provided the model which you could have easily looked up and verified.

[Alexander]

The quoted specs of your touptek camera say "Ultra-fine Color hardware Color Enginne ensuring high frame rates(Up to 15 frames for 20M Resolution);"

15 frames is a bit away from 1450 frames. Do the math how low you must go with resolution to achieve 1450 fps.

And yes, I don't know what I am speaking about.

[Topcode]

The quoted specs of your touptek camera say "Ultra-fine Color hardware Color Enginne ensuring high frame rates(Up to 15 frames for 20M Resolution);"

15 frames is a bit away from 1450 frames. Do the math how low you must go with resolution to achieve 1450 fps.

And yes, I don't know what I am speaking about.

Yes, for a 20mp camera, it would be 15 frames/s. I don't know if you noticed but neither these gifs, nor my cameras full resolution are 20mp. They are crops from 113 kilopixels 2x2 binned ROI

[Alexander]

Cropping does not increase frame rates. Cameras doing 1000 fps are sold at prices far beyond everything Touptek has on offer.

And yes, I don't know what I am speaking about.

[Topcode]

Cropping does not increase frame rates.

yes, its the roi set to 1488x76(100% of the horizonat resolution at bin2, and 1/20th of the vertical resolution at bin2) that increases the framerate, not the cropping of the horizontal distance. This is because of the way cameras are driven, speed through vertical lines is the limiting factor, meaning you normally see a thin line in slow motion. For example, if you have ever watched a video from the slow mo guys on youtube, you will notice that they reduce the vertical lines used, in order to increase framerate.

Cameras doing 1000 fps are sold at prices far beyond everything Touptek has on offer.

You have a very outdated view of camera technology. Maybe like, 15 years ago, sure.
But you can refer to the sony specs for the sensor here, which go up to an roi reaching 1015fps https://www.sony-semicon.com/files/62/p ... _Flyer.pdf
And in terms of consumer cameras well, the nikon 1 series from 2011 offered 1200fps, at a very low but usable resolution.

[Alexander]

It is time to give up on this. Stay with your believe.

[Topcode]

Only if the fancy strikes you, 'metachronal beat' of rotifer coronal cilia 'wheels' would be sweet with your high framerate application, so too would the waves of coordinated bands of cilia on many protozoa.

Funny you should mention that, I did do rotifers a while back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss9C0PtJkpA
Since rotifers are a good bit bigger, I had to pull the framerate back to just 930fps, at 40x slower than realtime. Youtube compression also kinda screwed me over a bit.

[charlie g]

Thanks again, topcode. charlie g

[Chas]

I did do rotifers a while back.

After you posted that, I had a quick go with a mobile phone (480 fps) hand held over the eyepiece and it slowed the wave down nicely.
I was using much less than 3W of light at the time and yet it still, sort of, worked
So; thanks!