MicrobeHunter.com Microscopy Forum

You can also access this page with: www.microscopy-forum.com
It is currently Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:12 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 10:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 2:04 pm
Posts: 20
Hello,
If you were given complete control over microscope (using dslr camera) and objective design except for the absolute aperture size of the objective, what would you change to increase the depth of field at the magnification given by a 40x objective ?
Thanks


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:24 am
Posts: 521
Location: NorthWest England
So far as I am aware you have only two viable choices:

1. Stacking of several digital images
or
2. Analogue 'light sheet' imaging which involves a long exposure.

MichaelG.
.

P.S. [2] was mainly used at 'macro' magnifications, and is probably impractical at 40x.

P.P.S. ... Here is a description:
https://www.mccrone.com/mm/constructing-a-scanning-light-photomacrography-system/
and, for completeness, the 1968 Patent is here:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=3398634A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19680827&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

_________________
Too many 'projects'


Last edited by MichaelG. on Thu May 03, 2018 11:29 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 10:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm
Posts: 965
manu de hanoi wrote:
Hello,
If you were given complete control over microscope (using dslr camera) and objective design except for the absolute aperture size of the objective, what would you change to increase the depth of field at the magnification given by a 40x objective ?
Thanks

see:
https://www.microscopyu.com/microscopy- ... h-of-focus
for an explanation of the mathematical link between magnification, NA and depth of field.

_________________
Zeiss Standard GFL+Canon EOS-M10


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 12:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 2:04 pm
Posts: 20
is there nothing that can be done by changing lenses diameters and distances while keeping the aperture diameter and magnification?

I tried light sheet, on 4 and 10x it isnt super usefull because the depth of field is enough for stacking software. On x40 (stopped down) I didnt get enough light through and also got some artifacts (the light was coming only from one side, one side was too bright and the other too dark)
Attachment:
2018-04-18-23.40.02 ZS retouched.jpg
2018-04-18-23.40.02 ZS retouched.jpg [ 78.85 KiB | Viewed 868 times ]


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm
Posts: 965
What is your specimen?

_________________
Zeiss Standard GFL+Canon EOS-M10


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 2:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 2:04 pm
Posts: 20
Hobbyst46 wrote:
What is your specimen?

ant head, it is reflective, because the light moves with the Z axis , the overexposed speckle on the ant facing the light also spreads...


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 2:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm
Posts: 965
manu de hanoi wrote:
Hobbyst46 wrote:
What is your specimen?

ant head, it is reflective, because the light moves with the Z axis , the overexposed speckle on the ant facing the light also spreads...

IMHO, this object is not transparent, so it is better photographed under top illumination, light coming from above. You might achieve it with a LED ring around the objective. And why use x40 objective for such a large object? am I missing something?

_________________
Zeiss Standard GFL+Canon EOS-M10


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 2:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 2:04 pm
Posts: 20
Hobbyst46 wrote:
manu de hanoi wrote:
Hobbyst46 wrote:
What is your specimen?

ant head, it is reflective, because the light moves with the Z axis , the overexposed speckle on the ant facing the light also spreads...

IMHO, this object is not transparent, so it is better photographed under top illumination, light coming from above. You might achieve it with a LED ring around the objective. And why use x40 objective for such a large object? am I missing something?

top & side light works fine on ants. The point is to try to get the best magnification possible. Got better results with x10 side illuminated (but not light sheet) here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6044


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:24 am
Posts: 521
Location: NorthWest England
manu de hanoi wrote:
is there nothing that can be done by changing lenses diameters and distances while keeping the aperture diameter and magnification?

Except as already mentioned ... The short answer is that 'Depth of Field' and 'Resolution' are mutually exclusive in light optics.

MichaelG.

_________________
Too many 'projects'


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 12:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:33 am
Posts: 258
Location: Brisbane Aust
I get a little bit more by stopping down the condenser diaphragm, have to turn the lamp up to compensate.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 7:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Posts: 2127
In high resolution DF, the objective must be stopped down, either with a funnel stop or an iris. For this reason DF can give surprising depth of field, as well as surprising resolution.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 7:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:24 am
Posts: 521
Location: NorthWest England
apochronaut wrote:
In high resolution DF, the objective must be stopped down, either with a funnel stop or an iris. For this reason DF can give surprising depth of field, as well as surprising resolution.

"Surprising resolution" I happily accept ... but surely that resolution can never exceed the resolution provided by the full-aperture configuration of the same objective design.

Please correct me if you can demonstrate the error in my belief.

MichaelG.

_________________
Too many 'projects'


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 10:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Posts: 2127
In my own diascopic microscopy, I use DF, Phase Contrast Bright L, Bright M, Dark L, Dark M, B-Minus L , B-MInus M, COL, Oblique and BF. Additionally I have used offset filters, and various conformations of gradient filters. Each has it's value for specific specimens and DF , is no less valuable than any of the others. It is particularly useful where inclusions occur in very small specimens and helps to resolve very small details in some specimens where no other technique can. When aqueous samples are flowing, the depth of field that it provides is quite informative and useful in providing a better overview of the processes going on in the sample as well, as the structures.
Certain samples do not benefit from the use of DF and in such cases, choosing another illumination technique is advisable but DF microscopes, which were originally called " the super microscope" do render fine details in certain samples very well indeed. I don't find DF all that useful for lower resolution microscopy...N.A.s below about .90. It's just pretty to look at.

High resolution DF is a tricky technique to use and master. Equipment needs to be very clean, precise and the illumination high and well focused. High N.A. apochromat objectives make a difference because chromatic aberration is the enemy of DF.......that's why the better oil DF condensers are reflecting condensers.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:11 am
Posts: 376
MichaelG. wrote:
apochronaut wrote:
In high resolution DF, the objective must be stopped down, either with a funnel stop or an iris. For this reason DF can give surprising depth of field, as well as surprising resolution.

"Surprising resolution" I happily accept ... but surely that resolution can never exceed the resolution provided by the full-aperture configuration of the same objective design.


Hi Michael,
as far as I know the outer light rays of the light cone contribute more to the resolution than the inner light rays. A DF condenser provides just these outer rays.

Bob


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 1:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm
Posts: 965
@MichaelG
@MicroBob

The very simple theoretical Raleigh criterion for resolution is R = 1.22xLambda/(NA_condenser+NA_objective), where Lambda is the wavelength.
Supposing my condenser is of NA=1.4, and my objective is of NA=1.0(immersion), with iris.

1. Brightfield, using UNOILED condenser but OILED objective=> R_bf=1.22xLambda/(~1.0+1.0)
2. Darkfield, using OILED condenser AND OILED objective, but iris stopped down to 0.6, => R_df=1.22xLambda(~1.4+0.6)

thus R_bf is approximately equal to R_df - if the same Lambda applies!!.
All that is theory only. Other factors probably play a role in reality.

_________________
Zeiss Standard GFL+Canon EOS-M10


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 1:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:24 am
Posts: 521
Location: NorthWest England
MicroBob wrote:
MichaelG. wrote:
apochronaut wrote:
In high resolution DF, the objective must be stopped down, either with a funnel stop or an iris. For this reason DF can give surprising depth of field, as well as surprising resolution.

"Surprising resolution" I happily accept ... but surely that resolution can never exceed the resolution provided by the full-aperture configuration of the same objective design.


Hi Michael,
as far as I know the outer light rays of the light cone contribute more to the resolution than the inner light rays. A DF condenser provides just these outer rays.

Bob

A very fair point, Bob ... But ...
[please forgive me if I am being excessively literal] I am aware of no method by which the resolution of a good objective can be increased by introducing aperture stops of any shape, size or position. [caveat: Yes, a bad objective can probably be made to perform less badly].

This thread started with the question of what might be done to improve depth of field; and it has now developed into a discussion of the trade-off between d-o-f and resolution. ... I currently remain convinced that it is impossible [except in the context of focus stacking] to increase d-o-f without decreasing resolution.

I would, of course, be delighted if someone could demonstrate that I am wrong !

MichaelG.

_________________
Too many 'projects'


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:11 am
Posts: 376
Hi Doron,
I can imagine that this theory only applies to filled light cones to full extent. With a hollow cone there is much light with high n.a. and little light with low n.A. This might increase the actual "weighted n.a.".
Apart from that it's always nice when practice prooves theory right - but life is not always nice! 8-)

Bob


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 2:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Posts: 2127
Why would you need to stop the objective down to .6? A DF condenser with an upper N.A. of 1.4, would have a lower N.A. of around 1.2. To obtain a dark background, one would require reduction of the N.A. of not less than about .90, possibly higher.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:33 am
Posts: 76
Thread gravedigger here,

One of the things I read referring to misunderstanding the resolution of objectives is that the true NA is only achievable with lighting such as extreme oblique, darkfield or COL. The reason as I understand it is that the initial lens NA is measured using a anaxial light source which can then use higher order diffraction bands for full resolution. If using standard brightfield with Kohler for instance, you are using an axial cone of light with fewer interfering diffraction bands available, also stopping down the condenser a little for increased contrast. Combined, these can effectively halve the stated resolution.

I believe that diffraction interference determines visibility and standard brightfield is poor in this respect, so in reality, darkfield should be highest on reaching true NA as it's all diffracted light with col and oblique following.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll try to dig up the original paper.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests


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