MicrobeHunter.com Microscopy Forum

Species should be correct.

Heine phase contrast, 200x.

Genus is correct, yes. Lovely image! How'd you make it?

Wait a minute.....

200x + image crop, right?

Nice

Heine phase contrast, 200x.

Whoops, I missed that yesterday. Still a splendid image!

Sure Squintsalot wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 22, 2022 6:26 am

Wait a minute.....

200x + image crop, right?

I would guess 100x objective + 2x PE photo eyepiece.

It's a wonderfully crisp image!

Very attractive image.

Was it post-processed to remove halos ?

Hobbyst46 wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:16 pm

Very attractive image.

Was it post-processed to remove halos ?

Yeah, background swap and some cleaning since the slide was pretty dirty.

Sure Squintsalot wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 22, 2022 6:26 am

Wait a minute.....

200x + image crop, right?

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.

Macro_Cosmos wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:40 am

Hobbyst46 wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:16 pm

Very attractive image.

Was it post-processed to remove halos ?

Yeah, background swap and some cleaning since the slide was pretty dirty.

Sure Squintsalot wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 22, 2022 6:26 am

Wait a minute.....

200x + image crop, right?

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.

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#nfk

At least on BHS, I guess other systems are similar

woyjwjl wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 24, 2022 2:24 am

The magnification of projection eyepiece, is relative to that of 10X20 eyepiece viewport, so your image magnification should be multiplied by 10 times.

That's not how that works. He's quoting optical magnification.

Macro_Cosmos wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:40 am

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.

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.

woyjwjl wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 24, 2022 2:24 am

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.
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

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.

Sure Squintsalot wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 24, 2022 6:30 pm

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.

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.

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.

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.

So I can't say that the image magnification (optical) is 10 times different, do you?

woyjwjl wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:29 am

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.

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.

So I can't say that the image magnification (optical) is 10 times different, do you?

- It will not be the same, 1.1x not 1x.
- 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.

I always appreciate it when a microscopy image has a scale bar included.

woyjwjl wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:29 am

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.

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.

So I can't say that the image magnification (optical) is 10 times different, do you?

The eyepiece's magnification is countered by your 17ishmm eyelens's demagnification.