Pleurosigma sp. diatom
-
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:20 am
- Location: 192.0.0.1
- Contact:
Pleurosigma sp. diatom
Species should be correct.
Heine phase contrast, 200x.
Heine phase contrast, 200x.
Re: Pleurosigma sp. diatom
Genus is correct, yes. Lovely image! How'd you make it?
Cheers,
Kurt Maurer
League City, Texas
email: ngc704(at)gmail(dot)com
https://www.flickr.com/photos/67904872@ ... 912223623/
Kurt Maurer
League City, Texas
email: ngc704(at)gmail(dot)com
https://www.flickr.com/photos/67904872@ ... 912223623/
-
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2022 3:44 pm
Re: Pleurosigma sp. diatom
Wait a minute.....
200x + image crop, right?
200x + image crop, right?
Re: Pleurosigma sp. diatom
Whoops, I missed that yesterday. Still a splendid image!Heine phase contrast, 200x.
Cheers,
Kurt Maurer
League City, Texas
email: ngc704(at)gmail(dot)com
https://www.flickr.com/photos/67904872@ ... 912223623/
Kurt Maurer
League City, Texas
email: ngc704(at)gmail(dot)com
https://www.flickr.com/photos/67904872@ ... 912223623/
-
- Posts: 2790
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Pleurosigma sp. diatom
I would guess 100x objective + 2x PE photo eyepiece.
It's a wonderfully crisp image!
Re: Pleurosigma sp. diatom
Very attractive image.
Was it post-processed to remove halos ?
Was it post-processed to remove halos ?
-
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:20 am
- Location: 192.0.0.1
- Contact:
Re: Pleurosigma sp. diatom
Yeah, background swap and some cleaning since the slide was pretty dirty.
No real cropping, the diatom filled the frame diagonally, 43.128mm, 100x objective and 2x projection eyepiece, which implies the frustule was around 215.64um long.
Re: Pleurosigma sp. diatom
Forgive me for being outspoken. The magnification of projection eyepiece, is relative to that of 10X20 eyepiece viewport, so your image magnification should be multiplied by 10 times. http://www.alanwood.net/olympus/photo-e ... s.html#nfkMacro_Cosmos wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:40 amYeah, background swap and some cleaning since the slide was pretty dirty.
No real cropping, the diatom filled the frame diagonally, 43.128mm, 100x objective and 2x projection eyepiece, which implies the frustule was around 215.64um long.
At least on BHS, I guess other systems are similar
Micrographers from China, thanks to the forum for providing a platform for exchange
-
- Posts: 2790
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
-
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2022 3:44 pm
Re: Pleurosigma sp. diatom
By my reckoning (Photoshop measuring tools), the dark line on the frustule perimeter is 0.150 micron, or 150 nanometers wide. That's some pretty good optics.Macro_Cosmos wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:40 amNo real cropping, the diatom filled the frame diagonally, 43.128mm, 100x objective and 2x projection eyepiece, which implies the frustule was around 215.64um long.
-
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:20 am
- Location: 192.0.0.1
- Contact:
Re: Pleurosigma sp. diatom
Look up on the difference between objective magnification, eyepieces, and total magnification.woyjwjl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 2:24 amForgive me for being outspoken. The magnification of projection eyepiece, is relative to that of 10X20 eyepiece viewport, so your image magnification should be multiplied by 10 times.
photo-eyepieces-nfk-image-sizes.gif
http://www.alanwood.net/olympus/photo-e ... s.html#nfk
At least on BHS, I guess other systems are similar
If I project the image onto an outdoor theatre screen, it does not make it 100,000x.
If you are lazy like me, just strictly use optical magnification. Objective magnification*projection eyepiece*optovar, simple.
At the centroid valve, I measured around 30um wide and counted the stria, around 22 along 15um, so 44/3 gives about 15 across 10um. Maybe this is a P. hippacampus diatom. P. angulatum has 18-22 striation along 10um.Sure Squintsalot wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 6:30 pmBy my reckoning (Photoshop measuring tools), the dark line on the frustule perimeter is 0.150 micron, or 150 nanometers wide. That's some pretty good optics.
Re: Pleurosigma sp. diatom
I say this because in olympus BHS, the micrometer images taken with a photographic eyepiece (0.3X3.3) and a 10x eyepiece are exactly the same.Macro_Cosmos wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 12:27 am
Look up on the difference between objective magnification, eyepieces, and total magnification.
If I project the image onto an outdoor theatre screen, it does not make it 100,000x.
If you are lazy like me, just strictly use optical magnification. Objective magnification*projection eyepiece*optovar, simple.
So I can't say that the image magnification (optical) is 10 times different, do you?
Micrographers from China, thanks to the forum for providing a platform for exchange
-
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:20 am
- Location: 192.0.0.1
- Contact:
Re: Pleurosigma sp. diatom
- It will not be the same, 1.1x not 1x.woyjwjl wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:29 amI say this because in olympus BHS, the micrometer images taken with a photographic eyepiece (0.3X3.3) and a 10x eyepiece are exactly the same.Macro_Cosmos wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 12:27 am
Look up on the difference between objective magnification, eyepieces, and total magnification.
If I project the image onto an outdoor theatre screen, it does not make it 100,000x.
If you are lazy like me, just strictly use optical magnification. Objective magnification*projection eyepiece*optovar, simple.
So I can't say that the image magnification (optical) is 10 times different, do you?
- I have no idea but I do not care what the eyepiece produces, I go strictly by objective magnification, regardless.
- Image magnification is different, I think you are confusing yourself.
-
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2022 3:44 pm
Re: Pleurosigma sp. diatom
I always appreciate it when a microscopy image has a scale bar included.
-
- Posts: 2790
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Pleurosigma sp. diatom
The eyepiece's magnification is countered by your 17ishmm eyelens's demagnification.woyjwjl wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:29 amI say this because in olympus BHS, the micrometer images taken with a photographic eyepiece (0.3X3.3) and a 10x eyepiece are exactly the same.Macro_Cosmos wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 12:27 am
Look up on the difference between objective magnification, eyepieces, and total magnification.
If I project the image onto an outdoor theatre screen, it does not make it 100,000x.
If you are lazy like me, just strictly use optical magnification. Objective magnification*projection eyepiece*optovar, simple.
So I can't say that the image magnification (optical) is 10 times different, do you?