first microscope

[cris]

it's my first time here, so, forgive me if do something wrong.
I would like to know, if with those cheap usb microscope, and with a backlight, i could see some diatoms or paramecium, also, I've been trying to modify it with a laser pointer lens, to magnify the image even more, if anyone could help me, I would appreciate it
edit: if anyone have some idea about using laser lens to make a somehow better scope. about the power of the USB one i have, it can reasonably zoom in up to 100um
(idk how to calculate the "x" magnifying value)
thanks for your patience

[dtsh]

Assuming we are both thinking of the same devices, I suspect that's a bit much to expect from one of the usb microscopes. I would be surprised if one could get more than 100x out of one and still have a reasonable image. That said, I haven't actually tried as I don't own one. At what I expect are the working magnifications, you would probably be able to see unicellular life, but I would be surprised if you could see it in any significant detail.

[microcosmos]

The USB microscopes are often used by stamp collectors. The issue I have with them (other than the optics) is that the digital images they produce have very low dynamic range so the highlights are all blown out and many of the actual details of the sample are lost. The colours are also off. This happens even at low magnifications.

But maybe there are usb microscopes with good image quality, I’m not sure.

[PeteM]

Here's a better way to get excellent images at an affordable price.

First, buy the cheapest used microscope you can find with a proper lamp, condenser, mechanical stage, and a decent focus mechanism. It could be an old monocular scope, since you'd apparently be OK with the single "eye" of a cheap USB scope. Cost might be $50 or so for an older but beautifully built scope, if you can find something locally.

This will give you a lamp and a condenser - important for good image quality. By playing a bit with the condenser you can do oblique, darkfield, and other methods to get contrast. Not too hard to add simple polarization as well. Plus, you'll have a nice stage for holding and positioning specimens and a way of getting good focus. All things that are missing with a USB magnifier.

It would be nice, if instead of just a 10x and 40x objective your scope has a 20x objective.

Then, buy a $20 cell-phone holder and use the camera on your phone for images. This will likely have about 10x the quality and resolution of a cheap USB camera, and allow you to store pictures and even do some processing.

[MicroBob]

Hi Chris,
these USB microcopes are almost never used by amateur microscopists as there are more versatile and satisfying options. But in case you already have one you can take a few first steps into microscopy with it. The resolution is not high so it is more suitable for low power work, objects that only need moderate magnification. As has been mentioned these cameras will have little dynamic = difference between brightest and darkest discernible point. So it will help to have a soft, diffuse lighting without harsh shadows.

Bob

[cris]

Assuming we are both thinking of the same devices, I suspect that's a bit much to expect from one of the usb microscopes. I would be surprised if one could get more than 100x out of one and still have a reasonable image. That said, I haven't actually tried as I don't own one. At what I expect are the working magnifications, you would probably be able to see unicellular life, but I would be surprised if you could see it in any significant detail.

seeing any bacteria would be weasome,but if i could see it splitting in two(ik it takes some hours), even without too much detail

[cris]

Here's a better way to get excellent images at an affordable price.

First, buy the cheapest used microscope you can find with a proper lamp, condenser, mechanical stage, and a decent focus mechanism. It could be an old monocular scope, since you'd apparently be OK with the single "eye" of a cheap USB scope. Cost might be $50 or so for an older but beautifully built scope, if you can find something locally.

This will give you a lamp and a condenser - important for good image quality. By playing a bit with the condenser you can do oblique, darkfield, and other methods to get contrast. Not too hard to add simple polarization as well. Plus, you'll have a nice stage for holding and positioning specimens and a way of getting good focus. All things that are missing with a USB magnifier.

It would be nice, if instead of just a 10x and 40x objective your scope has a 20x objective.

Then, buy a $20 cell-phone holder and use the camera on your phone for images. This will likely have about 10x the quality and resolution of a cheap USB camera, and allow you to store pictures and even do some processing.

basically, i have neither money nor access to a reliable used goods buying and selling site (like ebay), but I've been trying to gather some laser lenses in an arrangement to magnify the image of microscope, or a cell phone as the case may be, to get a more reasonable
image

[dtsh]

Assuming we are both thinking of the same devices, I suspect that's a bit much to expect from one of the usb microscopes. I would be surprised if one could get more than 100x out of one and still have a reasonable image. That said, I haven't actually tried as I don't own one. At what I expect are the working magnifications, you would probably be able to see unicellular life, but I would be surprised if you could see it in any significant detail.

seeing any bacteria would be weasome,but if i could see it splitting in two(ik it takes some hours), even without too much detail

You might be able to see large plant cells, some of the larger microorganisms such as nematodes, tardigrades, copepods, rotifers, some algae and diatoms, and other larger single-celled organisms, but I expect the chance of seeing bacteria at all are zero. Bacteria tend to be incredibly tiny and hard to see in detail even with a good compound microscope.
Still, there are a lot of interesting bits of life one might see when they look.

[cris]

Assuming we are both thinking of the same devices, I suspect that's a bit much to expect from one of the usb microscopes. I would be surprised if one could get more than 100x out of one and still have a reasonable image. That said, I haven't actually tried as I don't own one. At what I expect are the working magnifications, you would probably be able to see unicellular life, but I would be surprised if you could see it in any significant detail.

seeing any bacteria would be weasome,but if i could see it splitting in two(ik it takes some hours), even without too much detail

You might be able to see large plant cells, some of the larger microorganisms such as nematodes, tardigrades, copepods, rotifers, some algae and diatoms, and other larger single-celled organisms, but I expect the chance of seeing bacteria at all are zero. Bacteria tend to be incredibly tiny and hard to see in detail even with a good compound microscope.
Still, there are a lot of interesting bits of life one might see when they look.

got it, i dint expected to really see anything that weasome with it anyways. and what about making my own scope/modify the one i have with some common laser lens?

[dtsh]

got it, i dint expected to really see anything that weasome with it anyways. and what about making my own scope/modify the one i have with some common laser lens?

My understanding of optics is too limited to be of much use in that sort of speculation. There are others here who have considerable skill and understanding though, perhaps some of them might be of assistance.
Knowing the characteristic of the lenses you are considering will help.It might help if you share some details about what you have currently and what you're trying hoping to achieve.

If nothing else, there's always the old ways. I've hand ground some optics and the process itself is incredibly simple, the materials are usually not difficult to obtain, and many of the testing methods are low tech. I suspect it will be easier to source something already manufactured for the task, as has already been mentioned.

[cris]

got it... I'm going to study a bit about optics, and later I'll probably post another topic
thank you for the help

[DonSchaeffer]

Digital cameras magnify about 40 times, about like a stereo microscope. You can see some larger ciliates with them, but as very tiny dots. For microbes you really need a compound microscope.

[smollerthings]

Bacteria tend to be incredibly tiny and hard to see in detail even with a good compound microscope.

Bacteria's size are highly variable. Most are small, some are visible with naked eye!

https://www.microscopemaster.com/bacter ... allery]/0/

[MicroBob]

Smartphone cameras are quite good today. To enable them for macro work the lens of a CD or DVD drive can be installed in front of the camera. A drop of water, held in a hole in a piece of sheet metal, does the same. For stong magnifications small, nearly round lenses are right.

[cris]

Smartphone cameras are quite good today. To enable them for macro work the lens of a CD or DVD drive can be installed in front of the camera. A drop of water, held in a hole in a piece of sheet metal, does the same. For stong magnifications small, nearly round lenses are right.

I've tried it, it works good, but i can't see any individual cells

[smollerthings]

Do you know foldscope?

https://wecaptech.com/

I think it would work better than the electronic microscope your have.