Monocular vs Binocular/Trinocular imaging question

Here you can discuss everything related to taking light micrographs and videos.
Post Reply
Message
Author
cpsTN
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:14 am
Location: Murfreesboro, Tennessee USA

Monocular vs Binocular/Trinocular imaging question

#1 Post by cpsTN » Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:27 am

If you imaged through a monocular scope, wouldn't you get a higher percentage of light (100%) over a trinocular tube or even one ocular of a binocular scope (w/o trinoc) that would be 50%, or is the convenience of a trinoc worth the trade? Also good for share viewing, right?
Charles Sands
Murfreesboro, TN 37129

MICROSCOPES:
AO 110
...objectives, infinity:
10x plan #1021
45x achro #1116
50x plan, oil iris #1016
100x plan, oil #1024

Amscope SE305, Stereo
...objectives: 1x, 3x
...EPs: 5x, 10x, 15x

User avatar
Oliver
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:57 pm
Location: Austria
Contact:

Re: Monocular vs Binocular/Trinocular imaging question

#2 Post by Oliver » Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:31 pm

If you want to do much photography, then the convenience (in my opinion) of a trinocular outweighs many other considerations. If you want to capture fast moving organisms, then light plays a much more important role, but if you observe static specimens, then it really does not matter if your exposure time is 0.2 seconds or 1 second (the less light the longer the exposure time needed). Modern microscope cameras are quite sensitive anyway and from my experience a lack of light has never been an issue (unless you need really fast exposures, in which case I recommend micro-flashing).

It also depends on the maginification you work most with and the power of the light source. So it is not only the trinocular tube that should be considered, but also other factors. Again, I personally do not feel like setting up a camera every time I use the microscope. I want to observe and when I like to take a picture, I want to be able to take it quickly and hassle-free, without having to replace the eyepieces with the camera, and for These situations a trinocular head is really practical. Make it dependent on the question if you want to take lots of pictures or not.

Oliver
Image Oliver Kim - http://www.microbehunter.com - Microscopes: Olympus CH40 - Olympus CH-A - Breukhoven BMS student microscope - Euromex stereo - uSCOPE MXII

User avatar
charlie
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:34 pm
Location: Oregon, WI USA

Re: Monocular vs Binocular/Trinocular imaging question

#3 Post by charlie » Sat Dec 26, 2015 3:58 pm

cpsTN wrote:If you imaged through a monocular scope, wouldn't you get a higher percentage of light (100%) over a trinocular tube or even one ocular of a binocular scope (w/o trinoc) that would be 50%, or is the convenience of a trinoc worth the trade? Also good for share viewing, right?
Although Oliver answered your query quite nicely, I had to comment on the sharing part. The only sharing that I have read of was on this board when someone said the children decided that a binocular was so two of them could observe at once. (Ya gotta love kids; then they grow up!) :-) Sorry that i cannot recall who said that and give proper credit.

cpsTN
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:14 am
Location: Murfreesboro, Tennessee USA

Re: Monocular vs Binocular/Trinocular imaging question

#4 Post by cpsTN » Sat Dec 26, 2015 9:31 pm

charlie wrote:
cpsTN wrote:If you imaged through a monocular scope, wouldn't you get a higher percentage of light (100%) over a trinocular tube or even one ocular of a binocular scope (w/o trinoc) that would be 50%, or is the convenience of a trinoc worth the trade? Also good for share viewing, right?
Although Oliver answered your query quite nicely, I had to comment on the sharing part. The only sharing that I have read of was on this board when someone said the children decided that a binocular was so two of them could observe at once. (Ya gotta love kids; then they grow up!) :-) Sorry that i cannot recall who said that and give proper credit.
The "sharing" part was meant to mean that you could observe directly while showing others a live image at the same time. Also, I've seen trinocular tubes on Stereo scopes. Even though these are on stereo scopes, they would show only two-dementional images, right?
Charles Sands
Murfreesboro, TN 37129

MICROSCOPES:
AO 110
...objectives, infinity:
10x plan #1021
45x achro #1116
50x plan, oil iris #1016
100x plan, oil #1024

Amscope SE305, Stereo
...objectives: 1x, 3x
...EPs: 5x, 10x, 15x

User avatar
zzffnn
Posts: 3200
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:57 am
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: Monocular vs Binocular/Trinocular imaging question

#5 Post by zzffnn » Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:49 am

For sharing view, a teaching head/attachment (all tubes are angled) is much easier to use than a vertical trinocular (whose vertical tube is really only used for camera).

Vertical trinocular tube of a dissecting macroscope will show only two-dementional images.

cpsTN
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:14 am
Location: Murfreesboro, Tennessee USA

Re: Monocular vs Binocular/Trinocular imaging question

#6 Post by cpsTN » Sun Dec 27, 2015 12:30 pm

zzffnn wrote:For sharing view, a teaching head/attachment (all tubes are angled) is much easier to use than a vertical trinocular (whose vertical tube is really only used for camera).

Vertical trinocular tube of a dissecting macroscope will show only two-dementional images.
I understand sharing the way you mean, with heads that allow multiple people to view specimens directly. All I mean is that people can see what the "observer" is seeing without having to be at the scope eyepiece.
Charles Sands
Murfreesboro, TN 37129

MICROSCOPES:
AO 110
...objectives, infinity:
10x plan #1021
45x achro #1116
50x plan, oil iris #1016
100x plan, oil #1024

Amscope SE305, Stereo
...objectives: 1x, 3x
...EPs: 5x, 10x, 15x

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Monocular vs Binocular/Trinocular imaging question

#7 Post by apochronaut » Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:07 pm

So called teaching heads or teaching attachments are used because a video connection cannot show the same level of detail that optical viewing does. If a professor or clinician needs to show a specific detail to a fellow, or student they need to be sure that the other person has the same view and is essentially on the same page. That cannot be assured with a video connection.
The vogue for using a video attachment in addition to the eyepieces was pioneered as a sales gimmick by the live blood analysis industry. In this scenario the practitioner uses the microscope to view the sample but points out the details of the ravaged blood and their assessment to the patient on a video monitor , which often shows a poorly resolved version of the sample. It is enough however, to often convince the patient , who feels empowered that they were allowed to see their own live blood and all it's nasty goings on and participate in choosing the treatment protocol. Tens of thousands of such setups have been sold going back into the 1980's when the connection was black and white and analogue.

cpsTN
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:14 am
Location: Murfreesboro, Tennessee USA

Re: Monocular vs Binocular/Trinocular imaging question

#8 Post by cpsTN » Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:28 pm

From years of videoing the Moon, I am all too aware of the "why can't I see 'this' in the video" effect. All I was originally stating was some 'silver lining' view of loosing some light with the video head. Everyone seems to be overthinking what I meant. It's like I went out for a beer (I don't drink) and everyone with me is telling me the history and composition of what I'm drinking. I don't mind this at all, but it wasn't my point. Now, I really can't wait for my 5MP camera to be here on Tuesday, the 29th.
Charles Sands
Murfreesboro, TN 37129

MICROSCOPES:
AO 110
...objectives, infinity:
10x plan #1021
45x achro #1116
50x plan, oil iris #1016
100x plan, oil #1024

Amscope SE305, Stereo
...objectives: 1x, 3x
...EPs: 5x, 10x, 15x

User avatar
zzffnn
Posts: 3200
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:57 am
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: Monocular vs Binocular/Trinocular imaging question

#9 Post by zzffnn » Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:22 pm

cpsTN wrote:
zzffnn wrote:For sharing view, a teaching head/attachment (all tubes are angled) is much easier to use than a vertical trinocular (whose vertical tube is really only used for camera).

Vertical trinocular tube of a dissecting macroscope will show only two-dementional images.
I understand sharing the way you mean, with heads that allow multiple people to view specimens directly. All I mean is that people can see what the "observer" is seeing without having to be at the scope eyepiece.
Some camera with HDMI connection to TV allows you to do that. But speed may not be fast enough and detail level may not be as good as eyepiece view.

cpsTN
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:14 am
Location: Murfreesboro, Tennessee USA

Re: Monocular vs Binocular/Trinocular imaging question

#10 Post by cpsTN » Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:41 pm

zzffnn wrote:
cpsTN wrote:
zzffnn wrote:For sharing view, a teaching head/attachment (all tubes are angled) is much easier to use than a vertical trinocular (whose vertical tube is really only used for camera).

Vertical trinocular tube of a dissecting macroscope will show only two-dementional images.
I understand sharing the way you mean, with heads that allow multiple people to view specimens directly. All I mean is that people can see what the "observer" is seeing without having to be at the scope eyepiece.
Some camera with HDMI connection to TV allows you to do that. But speed may not be fast enough and detail level may not be as good as eyepiece view.

Yea. Done that too, years ago - with composite video. HDMI wasn't available then.
Charles Sands
Murfreesboro, TN 37129

MICROSCOPES:
AO 110
...objectives, infinity:
10x plan #1021
45x achro #1116
50x plan, oil iris #1016
100x plan, oil #1024

Amscope SE305, Stereo
...objectives: 1x, 3x
...EPs: 5x, 10x, 15x

Post Reply