Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
Would attaching the smartphone adapter or camera adapter to one of the eyepiece of the binocular head provide the same quality as attaching the same to the trinocular head ?
Or is there any inherent difference in the tri. head which makes it more sensible for videography?
Or is there any inherent difference in the tri. head which makes it more sensible for videography?
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
In most trinocular heads there's a prism or the like that diverts the light path through the camera port rather than to the eyepieces, in such a setup you get the full intensity of the light to the camera. With a bino head you will typically get a 50/50 split of the available light so the camera will receive half the light; so it will work, but you will be more limited with the available light intensity compared to a trinocular, but that may not be a problem.
I have some monocular heads I use for imaging since it's a single light path; may be an option depending on what instrument you have if a trinocular is unobtainable and you find the binocular insufficient.
I have some monocular heads I use for imaging since it's a single light path; may be an option depending on what instrument you have if a trinocular is unobtainable and you find the binocular insufficient.
-
- Posts: 6314
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
There is also the practical aspect of the two set ups. Using a trinocular head allows you to view through the binocular eyepieces, either simultaneously or selectively as well as photo. It is very convenient compared to handicapping the binocular head with a camera or phone.
An optical view is a first generation view. A digital view is a second generation view, so except in rare instances with very high grade equipment or possibly some physical disability, an optical view provides more information, even if only used to compose photos.
An optical view is a first generation view. A digital view is a second generation view, so except in rare instances with very high grade equipment or possibly some physical disability, an optical view provides more information, even if only used to compose photos.
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
I had the same question a while ago... Eventually you'll want a trinocular head if you like doing photo/video on microscopes, but you can get nice videos through a binocular. I wouldn't invest much money into that. Save for a trino and do some DIY meanwhile
Not easy, or not possible to set up the camera perfectly, as the weight you can put on is limited. As for smartphones I don't know.
Not easy, or not possible to set up the camera perfectly, as the weight you can put on is limited. As for smartphones I don't know.
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
It might depend on the specific binocular scope. I have a 1940s dissecting scope. The lenses of the pair of objectives are not perpendicular to the stage, so the image captured by each is slightly blurred along the left or right edge. Our brains combine the images into a sharp 3d image. A camera, of course, captures just one. The solution for the dissecting scope is to tilt the stage or specimen so it is perpendicular to the chosen camera/objective path.
(I might have learned about this elsewhere in the forum.)
I’ve no idea regarding how the path is split through a binocular compound microscope, except I read that it is nice to have control over diversion of light to a camera port. A poor scope might always send, say, 25% or 50% of light to the camera. As mentioned above.
(I might have learned about this elsewhere in the forum.)
I’ve no idea regarding how the path is split through a binocular compound microscope, except I read that it is nice to have control over diversion of light to a camera port. A poor scope might always send, say, 25% or 50% of light to the camera. As mentioned above.
-
- Posts: 607
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 1:19 pm
- Location: Devon UK.
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
It's easy to get pulled along spending a small fortune that we don't all have spare.
A phone camera on a binocular head can be very economical and effective. Phone clamps for telescopes are a way of keeping the budget down.
Yes a trinocular head is nice to have but then there is the connecting hardware and getting it all to focus and choosing a camera that is better than the 50mp cameras now included on some realistically priced phones.
If it's the subject and image quality that count trinocular conversion with a camera that is better than a phone
is likely to cost more than the original setup.
I'm only suggesting to keep it real, I picked up a near new/barely used Euromex scope with a trinocular head for under £300 that only needed setting up and some residue cleaning from the plan phase objectives. New cost on their credit card was over £1100,I see they are nearer £2k now.
A phone camera on a binocular head can be very economical and effective. Phone clamps for telescopes are a way of keeping the budget down.
Yes a trinocular head is nice to have but then there is the connecting hardware and getting it all to focus and choosing a camera that is better than the 50mp cameras now included on some realistically priced phones.
If it's the subject and image quality that count trinocular conversion with a camera that is better than a phone
is likely to cost more than the original setup.
I'm only suggesting to keep it real, I picked up a near new/barely used Euromex scope with a trinocular head for under £300 that only needed setting up and some residue cleaning from the plan phase objectives. New cost on their credit card was over £1100,I see they are nearer £2k now.
- blekenbleu
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:55 pm
- Location: South Carolina low country
- Contact:
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
Some (many?) trinocular scopes end up with photo relay lenses that mismatch aberration corrections wanted by objectives,
resulting in image artifacts which may (or not) be corrected by image processing.
Meanwhile, eye pieces are typically matched to objectives, from which smartphones can capture high quality images, e.g.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16211
resulting in image artifacts which may (or not) be corrected by image processing.
Meanwhile, eye pieces are typically matched to objectives, from which smartphones can capture high quality images, e.g.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16211
Metaphot, Optiphot 1, 66; AO 10, 120, EPIStar, Cycloptic
-
- Posts: 6314
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
I would question the flatness of field and field coverage obtainable through a phone camera and not everyone has a high end smartphone camera. My mirrorless 24mp camera cost very little, in fact less than little and is transferable to any microscope I have that I care to photograph through. The coupling is universal to all the photo tubes. It captures full visual fields with corner to corner sharpness, while pretty faithfully representing even planapo performsnce.
A lot of confusion exists regarding photo optics. If an eyepiece exists that provides a perfectly corrected flat field in the system, then a photo optic does.
A lot of confusion exists regarding photo optics. If an eyepiece exists that provides a perfectly corrected flat field in the system, then a photo optic does.
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
Some smart phones might be too smart. My phone bounces from lens to lens when I try to align it with the eyepiece. And I’ve yet to identify a setting to disable this. Higher tech, higher expense, isn’t always better.
I’m determined to get a phone camera to work, however. My interest in microscopes is a combination of trying to capture images through an antique or vintage scope as much as what can I observe and learn through the scope.
It would be great to learn about others’ success or failure using different devices. I sometimes wonder if a very cheap used digital camera or tablet is the solution.
I’m determined to get a phone camera to work, however. My interest in microscopes is a combination of trying to capture images through an antique or vintage scope as much as what can I observe and learn through the scope.
It would be great to learn about others’ success or failure using different devices. I sometimes wonder if a very cheap used digital camera or tablet is the solution.
-
- Posts: 607
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 1:19 pm
- Location: Devon UK.
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
I'm not trying to make waves, it's just fair to say that it's a lot to learn from the O/P question to anything like the images they will be hoping for.
My £140 recent Motorola has a 50mp camera and takes 4k video. Things have moved on to the point that they will challenge a dedicated camera for results.
I don't own a microscope camera or got as far as a YouTube account but I view results on an 10 year old 55" 1080 plasma TV to see if they are ok.
It's always excellent to see the sharing and contributions here.
My £140 recent Motorola has a 50mp camera and takes 4k video. Things have moved on to the point that they will challenge a dedicated camera for results.
I don't own a microscope camera or got as far as a YouTube account but I view results on an 10 year old 55" 1080 plasma TV to see if they are ok.
It's always excellent to see the sharing and contributions here.
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
The appropriate used digital camera of the all-in-one variety may well be a superior afocal option, particularly if it allows manual control of exposure and other settings. But it would need to be small and light and have a reasonable view screen, all of which the smart phone gives you by default.J_WISC wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 1:08 pmSome smart phones might be too smart. My phone bounces from lens to lens when I try to align it with the eyepiece. And I’ve yet to identify a setting to disable this. Higher tech, higher expense, isn’t always better.
I’m determined to get a phone camera to work, however. My interest in microscopes is a combination of trying to capture images through an antique or vintage scope as much as what can I observe and learn through the scope.
It would be great to learn about others’ success or failure using different devices. I sometimes wonder if a very cheap used digital camera or tablet is the solution.
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
A dedicated camera app for your phone might be the answer. I have the Open Camera app. A second hand mobile phone with only one lens might also help? Camera sensor size is one of the main limitations of using a smartphone camera, but most phones have very similar sensor sizes. I am using a Samsung Note 4.J_WISC wrote:
Some smart phones might be too smart. My phone bounces from lens to lens when I try to align it with the eyepiece. And I’ve yet to identify a setting to disable this. Higher tech, higher expense, isn’t always better.
Interesting the comments here on the 1st generation being able to provide more detail. For a beginner like me, I have a mono head and the smartphone attached more often them not, and you can get really nice results.
I have way too many floaters in my eyes to make viewing higher magnifications without a camera fun, so I like using the mobile as a display.
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
I looked up the Open Camera app, and it seems to offer more control over an Android smart phone's functions than I knew was possible, apparently including manual control of exposure (of course, the particular smartphone would need to allow the control). I'm not advocating for using a smart phone afocally rather than a DSLR with a trinocular port; but for someone who is not set up with a DSLR but who already has the smartphone, it can work quite well. I have two DSLR's that I use with various microscope through their trinocular ports; but I was frankly surprised at the quality of some of the images I was able to get using my older Samsung Note 5 smartphone through an eyepiece.xioz wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:08 amA dedicated camera app for your phone might be the answer. I have the Open Camera app. A second hand mobile phone with only one lens might also help? Camera sensor size is one of the main limitations of using a smartphone camera, but most phones have very similar sensor sizes. I am using a Samsung Note 4.J_WISC wrote:
Some smart phones might be too smart. My phone bounces from lens to lens when I try to align it with the eyepiece. And I’ve yet to identify a setting to disable this. Higher tech, higher expense, isn’t always better.
Interesting the comments here on the 1st generation being able to provide more detail. For a beginner like me, I have a mono head and the smartphone attached more often them not, and you can get really nice results.
I have way too many floaters in my eyes to make viewing higher magnifications without a camera fun, so I like using the mobile as a display.
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
Have you tried touching the screen for + 1 second with the camera app running? That is the usual gesture to turn off auto focus and exposure, it might as well work for your issue. Once you do that, moving the finger up or down gesture manage the exposure. (I don't know if what I just wrote sounds right in English )J_WISC wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 1:08 pmSome smart phones might be too smart. My phone bounces from lens to lens when I try to align it with the eyepiece. And I’ve yet to identify a setting to disable this. Higher tech, higher expense, isn’t always better.
I’m determined to get a phone camera to work, however. My interest in microscopes is a combination of trying to capture images through an antique or vintage scope as much as what can I observe and learn through the scope.
It would be great to learn about others’ success or failure using different devices. I sometimes wonder if a very cheap used digital camera or tablet is the solution.
-
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2021 3:01 am
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
If you get a trinocular scope, make sure it is ''infinite'' system. This way you will receive maximum results if you are projecting through a mirror-less sensor without a lens mounted on the camera or any other intermediate optics in-between.
If you get a binocular ''160'' microscope and decide to use a phone camera, for better results I would recommend one with wide field oculars. An iphone is also ideal as camera cause somehow it renders the images better when it comes to colors and details.
Be careful what u're buying, it is a lot of hit and miss out there, especially with the Swift Stellar Pro line. I recommend new generation optics instead of second hand old scopes like a 40 year old Zeiss. Those are extremely well build indeed but quite expensive in parts and upgrades.
If you get a binocular ''160'' microscope and decide to use a phone camera, for better results I would recommend one with wide field oculars. An iphone is also ideal as camera cause somehow it renders the images better when it comes to colors and details.
Be careful what u're buying, it is a lot of hit and miss out there, especially with the Swift Stellar Pro line. I recommend new generation optics instead of second hand old scopes like a 40 year old Zeiss. Those are extremely well build indeed but quite expensive in parts and upgrades.
- blekenbleu
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:55 pm
- Location: South Carolina low country
- Contact:
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
Practically, following live subjects in video can be easier using binocular eyepieces unencumbered by a camera,
with focus and stage controls "more naturally" accessible.
All trinocular heads are not equal; some have no option to fully remove beam splitters from photo port path.
Minimizing glass between objectives and camera sensor typically minimizes flare and maximizes photons,
which should maximize image contrast and and signal-to-noise.
A single binocular eyepiece receives less than half of useful photons available from objectives.
Being at an angle may provoke camera sag and misalignments that are less problematic with vertical photo ports.
Some microscope objectives want corrections provided only by eyepieces,
and some trinocular ports require improvisation to use those eyepieces,
then still want a camera lens for afocal capture.
Real image artifacts cannot be predicted by generalities; careful setup and testing counts more, e.g.
viewtopic.php?p=51117#p51117
Metaphot, Optiphot 1, 66; AO 10, 120, EPIStar, Cycloptic
Re: Can the same videography quality be achieved from a binocular head compared to a trinocular head?
I assume therefore that your setup is afocal? Can you show details of your coupling? I'd love to have a universal coupling for a mirrorless camera, already having the camera.apochronaut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 12:50 pmMy mirrorless 24mp camera cost very little, in fact less than little and is transferable to any microscope I have that I care to photograph through. The coupling is universal to all the photo tubes.
Steve