MicrobeHunter.com Microscopy Forum

I just purchased this HA2307 HDMI industrial camera, and I thought I'd share my experience.

The camera was purchased from eBay titled: 14MP 1080P Industry C-mount Digital HDMI USB Video Microscope Camera Zoom Lens.

Before I go any further I have to say that if you are looking for a camera that you can just plug into the laptop and control it like the EOS utility, this is not what you are looking for.
However, it didn't take much testing to really fall in love with it.


Camera and .5x snoot

The one I bought came with
14MP Digital Microscope Camera.
AC adapter
Remote control
USB cable
HDMI cable
.5x reduction lens that fits a standard 23.3 mm occular tube and comes with 2 adapters to 30mm and 30.2mm


Camera assembled

Camera atop microscope

There is a 3.5” cdrom with the driver and software that will setup on your computer. Also a number of documentation files and a URL to download better copies of the documentation and other drivers for multiple products.

It came from China. Normally I shy away from purchasing from outside the USA or at least several other countries I'm afraid to send money to. The stated delivery time was about six weeks out, but the unit actually arrived in four weeks.

The packaging was the minimum required to throw it out of a second story window and survive. Mine looked as if it had been defenestrated at least twice on the trip. Much to my surprise, however, all arrived intact and functioning.

The first thing I tried, was plugging the usb into my laptop and starting the included application. This resulted inn an image, but I couldn’t see any menus or get a white balance. However one of the apps on the cd is a measuring program. I still have to explore this and figure out a few other features, but I have had fun learning to use it.

After reading what documentation came with it, and laughing at some of the machine translations, it seemed certain that the camera needed to be plugged into an HDMI monitor in order to see the menus and camera options. The camera also requires a mini SD card of 32Gb max. And it wont even see one that is larger that this.

Using an HDMI monitor gives you access to the camera controls, and can be accessed from the buttons on the back of the camera.
The menus are relatively intuitive, and I discovered that after I set an exposure, I like to set the menu on white balance and leave it there when closed. Select 1 button white balance because I will be using it a lot depending on what I am captruring.
I soon developed the habit of white balancing each shot as I composed.


8” HDMI monitor

Now the nice things.

The resolution is nearly twice that of my Canon EOS 7D and doesn't sit atop the microscope like a weight just looking for some momentum.

There is no mirror flipping back and forth to create vibration, and the remote control makes it possible to pop the shutter or capture video without touching the camera or even the table.

The rub is having to take the memory card out and using an adapter to read it into the computer to upload pictures, but I can endure the inconvenience for these results.


Safrinin-O


Vitamin C


Tylenol

I will publish some video on the forum when I can.

I still can't figure out how to get rid of the time stamp. I need to frame so as to leave room to crop it out.
Over all I am getting images close to what I see in the oculars. And I couldn't realistically expect more.

I'm happy with the purchase.

Hope this helps someone who is trying to decide about this camera

Radazz

OK, so I got this in here twice and can't get rid of one of them.
Please excuse me and can the moderator fix this?
Jim

The rub is having to take the memory card out and using an adapter to read it into the computer to upload pictures

Congratulations.
Since there is a USB cable to laptop and software, why the card reader? Can't the software acquire pictures and transfer files?

... and a URL to download better copies of the documentation ...

This does look a very interesting camera
... Could you please share that URL

Thanks
MichaelG.

[

MichaelG. wrote:

... and a URL to download better copies of the documentation ...

This does look a very interesting camera
... Could you please share that URL

Thanks
MichaelG.

Michael, notwithstanding you want to find where you can get one, this is essentially the same camera written about in Balsam Post, July 2017, Issue 116, pages 37-41.

Mike

photomicro wrote:[

MichaelG. wrote:

... and a URL to download better copies of the documentation ...

This does look a very interesting camera
... Could you please share that URL

Thanks
MichaelG.

Michael, notwithstanding you want to find where you can get one, this is essentially the same camera written about in Balsam Post, July 2017, Issue 116, pages 37-41.

Mike

Thanks for that reminder, Mike ... but, what I was asking for was the link to download the better documentation.
Apologies if that was included in the Balsam Post: I admit I have not yet checked.

MichaelG.

MichaelG.
Here are the links on the disk.

User Manual Download link:

http://www.hayear.com/list/?15_1.html


http://www.facebook.com/aihome

https://twitter.com/hayeartec

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfiDPN ... 3E_7YUz_Jw

https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/sxxaTB

I've only tried the first one.

I didn't check if someone else reviewed it first eiter

Here is a data sheet.

Radazz wrote:MichaelG.
Here are the links on the disk. ...

Thanks for this.

MichaelG.
.

Edit: Unfortunately the User Manual link returns a '404' error
[ for me, today ... maybe better tomorrow ? ]

Your follow-up post is therefore most welcome.

I hoped that this was an updated link to the full User Manual:
http://download.hayear.com/content/?129.html
... but it appears not.

Hobbyst46 wrote:

The rub is having to take the memory card out and using an adapter to read it into the computer to upload pictures

Congratulations.
Since there is a USB cable to laptop and software, why the card reader? Can't the software acquire pictures and transfer files?

I hope I’m allowed a little room for humor. I’d have to be pretty picky for this to be a show stopper
Actually I choose between a couple of computers for processing so the little adapter is the best solution for me.
Incidentally, I tried reading the card with the included adapter which then plugs into a card reader, and it demanded a format, but when I used an adapter that was just a slot on one end and a usb spade on the other, it’s fine in any computer.

Very interesting, thanks for the overview. Your photos look very good, and the price is certainly attractive. The .5x relay lens looks just like the one on the Amscope camera on my inspection scope at work.
I'll be very interested in your further adventures with this camera.
CE

Yes, CE, it is exactly the same as the amscope MA500.
One big difference between this camera and the amscope is the HA 2307 has it’s own power supply, and not susceptible to RF from the microscope power supply.
This was making lines across the image.
Also this one is nearly twice the resolution.
Jim

I looked at these but did you work out the real resolution?

Hobbyst46 wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:11 am

Since there is a USB cable to laptop and software, why the card reader? Can't the software acquire pictures and transfer files?

Quoting from page_1 of the linked User Manual

4. Full HD HDMI output, output frequency is 720P, 60Hz.
5. Driver free. 1080P@30fps HD USB video output.

To the best of my understanding [5] is all that the USB output offers.

MichaelG.

Glot wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:29 am

I looked at these but did you work out the real resolution?

According to the spec: it's a 1/2.3 inch sensor, 14MP

How could that be twice the resolution of a 16mp Canon EOS 7D with APS-C sensor?

david_b wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:53 pm

Glot wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:29 am

I looked at these but did you work out the real resolution?

According to the spec: it's a 1/2.3 inch sensor, 14MP

How could that be twice the resolution of a 16mp Canon EOS 7D with APS-C sensor?

You might want to look through this article by Charles Krebs: http://krebsmicro.com/relayDSLR/relayoptics1.html

Particularly the Nyquist Theorem and pixel size

75RR wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:38 pm

david_b wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:53 pm

Glot wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:29 am

I looked at these but did you work out the real resolution?

According to the spec: it's a 1/2.3 inch sensor, 14MP

How could that be twice the resolution of a 16mp Canon EOS 7D with APS-C sensor?

You might want to look through this article by Charles Krebs: http://krebsmicro.com/relayDSLR/relayoptics1.html

Particularly the Nyquist Theorem and pixel size

I have read the article. Are you saying that a 1/2.3 14mp industrial camera has twice the resolution of a 16mp APS-C DSLR?

david_b wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:53 pm

Glot wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:29 am

I looked at these but did you work out the real resolution?

According to the spec: it's a 1/2.3 inch sensor, 14MP

How could that be twice the resolution of a 16mp Canon EOS 7D with APS-C sensor?

I suspect that it is either this sensor, or an update of same: Note the date
https://news.panasonic.com/global/press ... _sender_en
https://industrial.panasonic.com/conten ... 10PA_E.pdf

Compare the pixel size with that of the Canon ... That’s what determines the resolution.
[ suitable optics permitting, of course ]

MichaelG.

MichaelG. wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:50 pm

david_b wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:53 pm

Glot wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:29 am

I looked at these but did you work out the real resolution?

According to the spec: it's a 1/2.3 inch sensor, 14MP

How could that be twice the resolution of a 16mp Canon EOS 7D with APS-C sensor?

I suspect that it is either this sensor, or an update of same: Note the date
https://news.panasonic.com/global/press ... _sender_en
https://industrial.panasonic.com/conten ... 10PA_E.pdf

Compare the pixel size with that of the Canon ... That’s what determines the resolution.
[ suitable optics permitting, of course ]

MichaelG.

Assuming for a moment you are correct and px size determines resolution - and comparing the real estate:
1/2.3 sensor size is 6.17x4.55mm = 28.07sq.mm - typically found in smaller budget compact cameras
APS-C (Canon) is 22.2x14.8mm = 328.56 sq.mm.
Given that the number of px is roughly the same, the px size of the industrial camera must be much smaller.
[That's without taking into consideration yet the further loss of information from the cheap 0.5x relay lens]
How could it have twice the resolution of the Canon?

david_b wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:10 am

(a)
Assuming for a moment you are correct and px size determines resolution -

(b)
Given that the number of px is roughly the same, the px size of the industrial camera must be much smaller.

(a) How very kind of you, David

(b) Quite so ... Did you look at the datasheet ?

MichaelG.
.

N.B. The resolution of the sensor isn’t the only important thing; there are many other factors to consider: ... but it is what you were specifically questioning.

MichaelG. wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:45 am

david_b wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:10 am

(a)
Assuming for a moment you are correct and px size determines resolution -

(b)
Given that the number of px is roughly the same, the px size of the industrial camera must be much smaller.

(a) How very kind of you, David

(b) Quite so ... Did you look at the datasheet ?

MichaelG.
.

N.B. The resolution of the sensor isn’t the only important thing; there are many other factors to consider: ... but it is what you were specifically questioning.

Yes I looked at the data sheet and the one and only mention of resolution is, "Panasonic will start mass production of a new MOS image sensor (MN34110) for digital cameras, a diagonal 7.7 mm (1/2.33-inch type) sensor with 14 megapixel effective resolution, in December 2011 and continues to develop various types."
Which doesn't tell me anything.

I am well aware that there are other important factors in image quality, but resolution was specifically mentioned in the original post, so that's why I'm questioning how the resolution of a tiny 1/2.3" sensor can be twice that of the APS-C DSLR which has more, larger pixels.

I'm also aware that my 34mp industrial camera with its .5x relay comes nowhere near resolving as much detail as my 21mp full frame DSLR.

I haven't had an answer, apart from a vague reference to Nyquist Theorem and a datasheet.

david_b wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:51 pm

Yes I looked at the data sheet and the one and only mention of resolution is, "Panasonic will start mass production of a new MOS image sensor (MN34110) for digital cameras, a diagonal 7.7 mm (1/2.33-inch type) sensor with 14 megapixel effective resolution, in December 2011 and continues to develop various types."
Which doesn't tell me anything.

Oh dear !!
You have evidently looked at the Press Release [first link]
... But have you actually looked at the Data Sheet [second link]

Hint: it includes the pixel dimensions ... which is why I posted it.

MichaelG.

MichaelG. wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:20 pm

david_b wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:51 pm

Yes I looked at the data sheet and the one and only mention of resolution is, "Panasonic will start mass production of a new MOS image sensor (MN34110) for digital cameras, a diagonal 7.7 mm (1/2.33-inch type) sensor with 14 megapixel effective resolution, in December 2011 and continues to develop various types."
Which doesn't tell me anything.

Oh dear !!
You have evidently looked at the Press Release [first link]
... But have you actually looked at the Data Sheet [second link]

Hint: it includes the pixel dimensions ... which is why I posted it.

MichaelG.

Oh dear, yes I looked at that too. It gives a px dimension of 1.4 microns against 4.3 microns for the APS-C Canon.
Clearly hints are not enough. I'm afraid I need it spelled out.

I've been a little perplexed while following this thread. The idea that resolution depends primarily on pixel size is the idea that's causing me problems. I admit that "primarily" has not been explicitly stated, but seems to be implicit in the arguments. If carried to extremes this would imply that the best resolution can be achieved with a one (giant) pixel sensor. Resolution surely depends primarily, in most cases, on pixel density - the greater the number of pixels per unit area of image the greater the ability to distinguish between adjacent, discrete, image details. Having said that, the smaller the pixel size, the lower the signal to noise ratio and probably the higher the crosstalk between pixels (the latter being speculation on my part), which will impact to some extent on resolution. So the smaller the pixels the lower the "quality" of the image. At some point, with increasing pixel density and consequent decreasing pixel size, the impact of noise on resolution will, presumably, outweigh the benefits of increased pixel density, but that is unlikely to be the case with practical sensors.

Now all of the above doesn't impact on the conclusion of the argument in this case - that the APS-C sensor with 16Mpx must surely give improved resolution compared to a 14Mpx 1/2.3 sensor. It's just the reasoning I'm questioning.

Am I out to lunch on this??
Tom W.

The pixel size should be 3 or 4 times smaller that the projected size of the object you are trying to capture.

See link and the extract below: https://www.lumenera.com/blog/understan ... microscopy

please note that when they say: "largest possible pixel size required to fully resolve the smallest visible detail of an object" they mean that anything bigger will not work!

Calling it 'higher resolution' without qualifiers is potentially confusing, since you would use the appropriate relay optics for each sensor.

david_b wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:35 pm

Oh dear, yes I looked at that too. It gives a px dimension of 1.4 microns against 4.3 microns for the APS-C Canon.
Clearly hints are not enough. I'm afraid I need it spelled out.

O.K. ... Now that we’re on the same page, and also noting the others’ comments.

The problem seems to be that you had conflated the digital resolution of the sensor with the analog resolution of the whole system: It is important to understand the distinction ...

• The sensor has an actual physical structure; typically an array of square ‘picture elements’ [known as pixels] which you can see with a suitable microscope. This is a ‘given’ and obviously it determines the native resolution of the sensor.

• The optical image will also have a resolution: But that is to do with Airy disks, contrast, and such.

The quality of your final final image is a product of both the digital and analog aspects, and the challenge is either (a) to optimise the optics to best suit a particular sensor, or (b) to choose the most appropriate sensor for the available optics.

N.B. There are also many quality variations in other aspects of sensor design, but let’s get the resolution side of things sorted first.

MichaelG.

75RR wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:13 pm

The pixel size should be 3 or 4 times smaller that the projected size of the object you are trying to capture.

See link and the extract below: https://www.lumenera.com/blog/understan ... microscopy

please note that when they say: "largest possible pixel size required to fully resolve the smallest visible detail of an object" they mean that anything bigger will not work!

So, the smaller the object you wish to capture, that is, the higher the resolution you want, the smaller the pixel size required. Or equivalently, and perhaps more appropriately, for a given sensor size the higher the pixel density you need. But, as stated in the quote, ideally you shouldn't use a smaller pixel than necessary, because the image quality will be degraded somewhat by increased noise. Like everything else in life, it's a trade-off. But the primary factor affecting resolution is not pixel size in the sense of "the bigger the pixel the better", but pixel size in the sense of "the greater the pixel density the greater the resolution (in principle)". Greater pixel density, for a given sensor, implies smaller pixels. The resolution of a 16 Mpx APS-C sensor is better than that of a 14 Mpx 1/2.3 sensor, ASSUMING THEY ARE BOTH CAPTURING IDENTICAL IMAGES", because it has more pixels. The quality of the resulting image, which will affect resolution slightly, and will definitely impact on the aesthetics of the image, will be better from the APS-C sensor because it has bigger pixels. The larger the size the resulting images are displayed at, the more obvious the difference will be.

I may have misread MichaelG's posts, and I suspect he knows all of the above better than I do, but they read to me as if they were making the "bigger pixel -> better resolution" argument, which could be misleading for some readers.

So the trick is to use a pixel density which is sufficient to match the resolution of the equipment supplying the image to the sensor, but not much greater than that. What that means in practice will, of course, depend on that equipment.

I think
Tom W.

But the primary factor affecting resolution is not pixel size in the sense of "the bigger the pixel the better", but pixel size in the sense of "the greater the pixel density the greater the resolution (in principle)". Greater pixel density, for a given sensor, implies smaller pixels.

Did you look at the link? You seem determined to hold on to pixel density.

I would suggest you calculate the pixel size you need and find a sensor that will supply it.

The pixels on my 'old' 12 MP Olympus E-P2 are 4µm x 4µm

Have a look at this interactive link: https://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials/m ... resolution

See how objective NA, magnification and the area of the field of view you cover affects required pixel size.

Hi 75RR
I think the misunderstanding is because I used an unfortunate term, pixel density, since it implies pixels/mm^2, or some such, whereas I was using it the sense of "number of pixels/sensor". That's because I'm an idiot. The intent was to get around the issue of different sized sensors needing different sized pixels when dealing with identical images. The pixel sizes will be different, but the number of pixels per sensor will be the same.

But I'm still not sure that we're on the same page. You suggest that one should calculate the pixel size you need and find a sensor that will supply it. But the pixel size needed depends on the size of the sensor, so you need to first decide what size sensor you will be using, then calculate the pixel size you need for that size sensor, then find a sensor of that size that will supply it. The size of sensor you choose to use will, of course, be predicated by the relay optics, or vice versa, in order to capture the desired image area. Are we agreed on that?

Regards
Tom W.