http://www.botany.utexas.edu/facstaff/f ... o/h125.pdf
.
- 4E874783-236B-4689-BF08-22A9D54BB76D.jpeg (88.99 KiB) Viewed 1317 times
Perhaps “the rest of us” can learn something from this whilst waiting for the big Lottery-win.
MichaelG.
Submicron imaging : 1998 style
Submicron imaging : 1998 style
Having seen the capability [and complexity] of some astonishing modern systems, it was refreshing to read this, from 1998
http://www.botany.utexas.edu/facstaff/f ... o/h125.pdf
. .
Perhaps “the rest of us” can learn something from this whilst waiting for the big Lottery-win.
MichaelG.
http://www.botany.utexas.edu/facstaff/f ... o/h125.pdf
. .
Perhaps “the rest of us” can learn something from this whilst waiting for the big Lottery-win.
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
Re: Submicron imaging : 1998 style
Yes that was nice
We are so lucky today to have a digital camera and image processing software for little money - they're so powerful indeed. The "sharpening" button is no joke.
Confocal laser can wait a little more.
We are so lucky today to have a digital camera and image processing software for little money - they're so powerful indeed. The "sharpening" button is no joke.
Confocal laser can wait a little more.
Re: Submicron imaging : 1998 style
I was particularly intrigued by the mention of improved focussing [human interaction] gained by assigning false colour to a specific grey level.
The facility is available on broadcast quality cameras, and also on this little monitor: https://youtu.be/JwrwsjO7Cww
but … can anyone recommended a [cheap] software solution to enable this on a live greyscale feed from a microscope camera ?
MichaelG.
The facility is available on broadcast quality cameras, and also on this little monitor: https://youtu.be/JwrwsjO7Cww
but … can anyone recommended a [cheap] software solution to enable this on a live greyscale feed from a microscope camera ?
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
Re: Submicron imaging : 1998 style
For photo cameras, "focus peaking" is one edition of this method.
On Canon, the free software Magic Lantern does this contour highlighting in red or blue. Canon own EOS utility, doesn't do that. Nikon probably does, and other brands may have it. Almost all cameras with live view autofocus (all mirrorless) are based on this principle - but not obvious that they'll show it on the computer in live view.
There are too some app for the phone.
For fixed microscope cameras: Helicon does it (not free) ; ImageJ, free, but not sure if it does it in live view; well, for sure it can, but may need some effort to set it up.
ToupView, seems not. Sorry I know very little of microscope live view software (use Canon EOS utility for live + ImageJ etc offline)
Edit: just tried on ImageJ; yes, but the live view with "webcam capture" is horrible
On Canon, the free software Magic Lantern does this contour highlighting in red or blue. Canon own EOS utility, doesn't do that. Nikon probably does, and other brands may have it. Almost all cameras with live view autofocus (all mirrorless) are based on this principle - but not obvious that they'll show it on the computer in live view.
There are too some app for the phone.
For fixed microscope cameras: Helicon does it (not free) ; ImageJ, free, but not sure if it does it in live view; well, for sure it can, but may need some effort to set it up.
ToupView, seems not. Sorry I know very little of microscope live view software (use Canon EOS utility for live + ImageJ etc offline)
Edit: just tried on ImageJ; yes, but the live view with "webcam capture" is horrible
Last edited by patta on Tue Jul 13, 2021 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Submicron imaging : 1998 style
Thanks for the link, Michael !
Enjoyable reading.
Several points in the article caught my attention.
1. They used a 100X1.25 objective for darkfield. Apparently without iris, so the NA was still 1.25. The condenser was Ultracondenser, 1.2/1.4 oil. I personally have tried the same condenser model and a really early, iris-less 100x1.25 achromate objective. These yielded darkfield, though just on the verge. A more modern 100x1.3 planapo objective (without iris or funnel stop) would have failed to yield DF. Which exactly was their objective, who knows.
2. They reinforced their lab floor with concrete against vibrations. They mention that it was important, but - to what extent ? what would have happened without it ?
3. Their diatoms were mounted in Canada balsam, so of probably low contrast to start with. How significant were their DIP, had they acquired and used diatoms in a high-RI resin instead ?
Enjoyable reading.
Several points in the article caught my attention.
1. They used a 100X1.25 objective for darkfield. Apparently without iris, so the NA was still 1.25. The condenser was Ultracondenser, 1.2/1.4 oil. I personally have tried the same condenser model and a really early, iris-less 100x1.25 achromate objective. These yielded darkfield, though just on the verge. A more modern 100x1.3 planapo objective (without iris or funnel stop) would have failed to yield DF. Which exactly was their objective, who knows.
2. They reinforced their lab floor with concrete against vibrations. They mention that it was important, but - to what extent ? what would have happened without it ?
3. Their diatoms were mounted in Canada balsam, so of probably low contrast to start with. How significant were their DIP, had they acquired and used diatoms in a high-RI resin instead ?