Theoretical Resolution: Am I close?
-
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2022 3:44 pm
Theoretical Resolution: Am I close?
Finally picked up a 0.01mm Zeiss slide scale to calibrate various fields of view on my Optiphot.
In looking at an old microprocessor at 1000x, epi illuminated using a 100x Dry objective (210mm NA=0.90), I calculate a theoretical resolution of 0.29 microns, or 29 nanometers for visible light at around 500nm. The image is projected directly onto an APSC sensor, from the objective. In the following image, I think I'm seeing around 30 nanometers at the edges of the tiniest holes (vias?):
Am I doing this right? Is this as good as it's going to get? Am I really seeing a resolution that's close to the theoretical for my system?
In looking at an old microprocessor at 1000x, epi illuminated using a 100x Dry objective (210mm NA=0.90), I calculate a theoretical resolution of 0.29 microns, or 29 nanometers for visible light at around 500nm. The image is projected directly onto an APSC sensor, from the objective. In the following image, I think I'm seeing around 30 nanometers at the edges of the tiniest holes (vias?):
Am I doing this right? Is this as good as it's going to get? Am I really seeing a resolution that's close to the theoretical for my system?
-
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:51 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: Theoretical Resolution: Am I close?
Um, 0.29um = 290nm if that helps.
In principal, you could improve the theoretical resolution slightly by using monochromatic blue light e.g. wavelength of 415nm would give about 230nm at NA = 0.90
Louise
In principal, you could improve the theoretical resolution slightly by using monochromatic blue light e.g. wavelength of 415nm would give about 230nm at NA = 0.90
Louise
A Nikon CF plan 20x; A Swift 380T; A DIY infinity corrected focus rail system with a 40x/0.65 Olympus Plan, a 10x/0.30 Amscope Plan Fluor, and a 20x/0.75 Nikon Plan Apo
Re: Theoretical Resolution: Am I close?
From the picture, it is difficult to determine that the vias spacing is 290 nm.
Can you narrow down the Ratio Scale?
Can you narrow down the Ratio Scale?
Micrographers from China, thanks to the forum for providing a platform for exchange
-
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2022 3:44 pm
Re: Theoretical Resolution: Am I close?
Details, details, details....I sure wouldn't want to owe you money.
Anyway, 290nm isn't anywhere near the theoretical resolution of this system, or is it? Maybe an order of magnitude difference is to be expected? But is there a difference between the theoretical resolution of epi-illuminated vs diascopic illuminated systems? Does it even vary depending on the illumination technique?
I was looking at the thickness of the circumferences of the smallest vias, not the spacing between them. I did make a sub 10 micron scale, and it does look like those are about one quarter to one third micron thick, though now that I think about it, that's probably not the best way to "see" the best resolution this system is capable of.
Re: Theoretical Resolution: Am I close?
I just made a picture to show what is called the "Riley Judgment"
Translation:At 0.2 microns, it should be 1/4 of the eyepiece scale.
Translation:At 0.2 microns, it should be 1/4 of the eyepiece scale.
Micrographers from China, thanks to the forum for providing a platform for exchange
-
- Posts: 6325
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Re: Theoretical Resolution: Am I close?
The Rayleigh Criterion, which includes the 1.22 constant to accomodate distortion between two point sources gives a more realistic 340nm at .90.
-
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2022 3:44 pm
Re: Theoretical Resolution: Am I close?
I looked up "Riley Judgement" and only found court cases. The rest might as well have been all Chinese. But it looks like you're doing what I'm doing: roughly measuring the thickness of a single high-contrast line, as opposed to measuring the visible separation between two very close lines.
Thanks. My goal is to better understand this and make sure I don't confuse coincidence for knowledge.apochronaut wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 10:04 amThe Rayleigh Criterion, which includes the 1.22 constant to accomodate distortion between two point sources gives a more realistic 340nm at .90.
Re: Theoretical Resolution: Am I close?
“Rayleigh Criterion” Forgive my English.Sure Squintsalot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:23 pmI looked up "Riley Judgement" and only found court cases. The rest might as well have been all Chinese. But it looks like you're doing what I'm doing: roughly measuring the thickness of a single high-contrast line, as opposed to measuring the visible separation between two very close lines.
Thanks. My goal is to better understand this and make sure I don't confuse coincidence for knowledge.apochronaut wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 10:04 amThe Rayleigh Criterion, which includes the 1.22 constant to accomodate distortion between two point sources gives a more realistic 340nm at .90.
Rayleigh Criterion is knowledge.
https://www.olympus-lifescience.com.cn/ ... maperture/
Micrographers from China, thanks to the forum for providing a platform for exchange