MicrobeHunter.com Microscopy Forum

You can also access this page with: www.microscopy-forum.com
It is currently Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:31 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:33 am
Posts: 275
Location: Brisbane Aust
In this test I want to get an idea of what the optimal size is for particular subject matter. Bigger certainly shows more detail but I sense this can sometimes detract from the image by drawing the viewer away from the over-all structure. If that makes sense?

A case in point is the mosquito larvae I was observing yesterday. As an aside, when I saw these in my new tank I was put off, Mozzies in my lab! Then I saw a pipette laying on the desk and a light bulb went on in my head :)

Anyway, as I was looking over the photos of a larva head I realized there were these two aspects, the fine details and the overall structure, and depending on the image size my eye was drawn to one rather than the other. Now assuming I want to draw attention to the overall structure of a head, which of the following sizes do you think does this best.




600 pixels wide

Image


1000 pixels wide

Image


1500 pixels wide

Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:34 am
Posts: 5459
Location: Estepona
Interesting question.
I find my eye drawn to the smallest image. Probably something to do with initial assimilation of information and how much we can process to begin with.
I suppose ideally you would either post two images (one larger than the other) or be able to increase the size of the first (smaller) image by clicking on it.

It might also depend on how frightening the monster in the image is. ;)

_________________
Zeiss Standard WL & Wild M8
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:24 am
Posts: 901
Location: NorthWest England
Yes ... An interesting question indeed

Perhaps unfortunately, it is compounded by the fact that your second and third images appear [on my iPad] to be identical.

MichaelG.

_________________
Too many 'projects'


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:33 am
Posts: 275
Location: Brisbane Aust
75RR wrote:
Interesting question.
I find my eye drawn to the smallest image. Probably something to do with initial assimilation of information and how much we can process to begin with.
I suppose ideally you would either post two images (one larger than the other) or be able to increase the size of the first (smaller) image by clicking on it...


I see your point. What I was trying to achieve was a picture large enough to be comfortably viewed but not so large that the eye was drawn to the internal detail

MichaelG. wrote:
Yes ... An interesting question indeed

Perhaps unfortunately, it is compounded by the fact that your second and third images appear [on my iPad] to be identical.

MichaelG.


Yes, different screen sizes, the distance one is viewing the image from, etc, are all added factors I suppose. There is probably no rule of thumb but I thought I'd explore the idea.

I hope those larvae don't eat all my protists, there are dozens of them in the tank now, so many I have strung mosquito net over it to prevent escape.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:24 am
Posts: 901
Location: NorthWest England
For info. ... Here are [downsized for the forum] screen-grabs of your post:

Attachment:
File comment: iPad Pro 9.7" : Portrait mode
IMG_1933.PNG
IMG_1933.PNG [ 334.71 KiB | Viewed 2631 times ]


Attachment:
File comment: iPad Pro 9.7" : Landscape mode
IMG_1934.PNG
IMG_1934.PNG [ 297.22 KiB | Viewed 2631 times ]



MichaelG.

_________________
Too many 'projects'


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:42 pm
Posts: 3243
Location: Cumbria, UK
You know, this is an interesting question, one that hasn't really occurred to me before.
I think you're spot-on with your thoughts and that yes the smallest image to my eye, on a 'std' 17" laptop screen, gives me the best overall impression of the structure of the whole head.
I do have the three sizes appearing as intended on my screen. The larger two definitely do as you suggest draw the eye to the finer detail rather than the overall structure.

This has taught me something for sure - I always tend to just pick the preset on the re-sizing software that I use (AVS Image Converter) that gives an image of 1000 pixels wide, i.e. the forum's maximum. I have started to occasionally use a smaller re-size option, and your post has convinced me that this is a good way to go. Image size chosen in accord with which aspect I would like to emphasize.

Thanks for taking the trouble to post.

p.s. Your images are beautifully crisp, clear and well-balanced.
John B.

_________________
John B


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:33 am
Posts: 275
Location: Brisbane Aust
mrsonchus wrote:

Thanks for taking the trouble to post.

p.s. Your images are beautifully crisp, clear and well-balanced.
John B.


Thank you for the encouragement, I should have stated I was using a 100x combination, a 10x objective. I would usually crop it to remove the round EP silhouette but I would have lost part of the head by so doing.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:33 am
Posts: 275
Location: Brisbane Aust
coominya wrote:

I hope those larvae don't eat all my protists, there are dozens of them in the tank now


They did they DID the mongrels!!! There must have been 100 swimming around in the end and not a single protist over 10 microns. I have flushed the whole tank out and will start again. Who would have thought...


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:06 am
Posts: 243
Location: Idaho
coominya wrote:
coominya wrote:

I hope those larvae don't eat all my protists, there are dozens of them in the tank now


They did they DID the mongrels!!! There must have been 100 swimming around in the end and not a single protist over 10 microns. I have flushed the whole tank out and will start again. Who would have thought...

A couple of years ago I had some active pond water cultures in relish jars. One had the large predatory larva of some insect like a dragonfly or similar. I didn't see him hiding amongst the muck and debris at the bottom of the culture jar until he had got pretty big. He ate most of the rest of the tiny crttters in the jar.

_________________
Rick

A/O 10 Series Microstar
A/O 4 Series Microstar
A/O 4 Series Phasestar
A/O 4 Series Apostar
A/O Cycloptic Stereo
Several old monocular scopes in more or less decrepit but usable condition


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:01 pm
Posts: 2745
Yes, that is their food supply....


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Posts: 411
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
The important criterion is the subtended angle of vision, measured in degrees.

It's pretty much impossible for us to give you usable advice on what image size works best, because we have different monitor or screen sizes, different window sizes viewing Microbehunter, and are set back different distances from our screens or devices. The same image might subtend an angle anywhere from, say, 10 degrees to 60 degrees depending upon those variables.

Generally speaking if the image covers a very wide angle, we're immersed in the image and can only focus on bits. If the image just covers a comfortable viewing angle, we can both see it as a whole and explore smaller bits. Narrow angle . . . etc.

There are rules of thumb with respected to angle of vision.

Once you've got the subtended angle of vision where you want it (knowing the viewer's situation), then you'll want to fill it with enough pixels to allow both an overall good image and see some detail. The whole logic is very similar to picking a TV monitor size and pixel count based on viewing distance.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 3:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Posts: 2376
That is to some degree the rationale around the use of 5x eyepieces in the past. Since the emergence of and common usage of W.F. 10x eyepieces, the use of 5x eyepieces has all but disappeared. Most people say it is like looking down a tube but the tube sometimes, can reveal some valuable information that a wider field of view cannot show.
In earlier Spencer catalogues, they even offered a 1.5X compens eyepiece for use with their apochromats.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:33 am
Posts: 275
Location: Brisbane Aust
apochronaut wrote:
Most people say it is like looking down a tube but the tube sometimes, can reveal some valuable information that a wider field of view cannot show.

Or that a wider field draws attention away from. I noticed this trend in astronomical eyepieces, the fields got wider and wider over the years, giving wonderful views of course, but a wonderful tourist view is not always what one is after. I have to admit though, the wider field in the microscope is always a benefit when chasing protists around and around. I must buy some of that slowing solution.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited