fab
Active Member
What does "more powerful" mean?
What does every home lab need?
- Thread starter jason2459
- Start date
- Tagged users None
OP
OP
jason2459
Not a paid scientist
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2015
- Messages
- 4,668
- Reaction score
- 3,197
I currently have a 5MP camera and it's nice but having higher resolution images would be nicer
Also, video @ 5MP can't keep up with the fastest moving objects I'm following very well at the highest resolution so have to reduce the video resolution to keep up better.
I'd like to get the 18MP eventually.
fab
Active Member
What is the problem? Does the video lag real time and incrementally get more and more behind? That would seem to be a data throughput problem. More pixels per image would worsen that, wouldn't it?
Also, will the cameras actually deliver optical resolutions that match the pixel counts?
A couple of issues arise. Here is my diatribe on that:
When we talk about camera resolution in terms of (Mega) Pixel counts we really are talking about the camera's digital image format not the camera's optical resolution. The image format deals with the spatial frequency that the optical image is sampled for digitization. As the image format pixel count gets larger and larger the spatial sampling approaches a limit in its ability to represent the inherent resolution in an image from a given optical lens. Eventually that limit is passed and additional pixels do not provide any more improvement in observed image resolution. So be careful that you do not fall into this hype trap. Don't go for more pixels than the camera's optics need for representing the full resolution that the optics can deliver.
The theoretically maximum image resolution a camera can deliver is determined by the diffraction limit of the lens, the lens optical quality aberrations and atmospheric effects. In microscopy atmospherics are not a practical issue. I will assume that in a reasonable quality microscope its camera lens aberration, optical quality, is also not a limiting factor on image resolution - which may not be a good assumption. That leaves the most fundamental issue of diffraction limiting. The diffraction limit of a lens is a function of its numerical aperture and of the wavelength of the light that is in the image. The red end of the spectrum, with its longer wavelengths, cannot be resolved as tightly as can the shorter wavelengths as you move across the spectrum toward the blues.
BTW in resolution, like in golf, low numbers win. Unfortunately, when we say "increased resolution" we mean lower numerical values. It would be better to say "improved resolution." Resolution is measured in units of distance. In microscopy, we are working in resolutions in the order of micrometers and below for cellular observations. That basically means that we can resolve (distinguish two real objects that are that close to each other.
The image format provides the spatial frequency that the optical image is sampled for digitization. The diffraction limit is for the resolution achievable by the optics. Images are best represented when the image format provides the right sized pixels and the right spacing between them that is matched up with the optical resolution. Fewer pixels than that fail to deliver all of the optical resolution. Too many pixels, over the limit, do not improve the image.
I found an article that actually provides a table that relates numerical aperture, magnification power, optical resolution and matched pixel size. It is embedded in a pretty good discussion covering "Digital Camera Resolution Requirements for Optical Microscopy."
http://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials/java/digitalimaging/pixelcalculator/
The table cuts off at low magnifications but the article does provide some of the theory and math behind the table, enough to extend it to the higher magnifications you are using.
fab
Also, will the cameras actually deliver optical resolutions that match the pixel counts?
A couple of issues arise. Here is my diatribe on that:
When we talk about camera resolution in terms of (Mega) Pixel counts we really are talking about the camera's digital image format not the camera's optical resolution. The image format deals with the spatial frequency that the optical image is sampled for digitization. As the image format pixel count gets larger and larger the spatial sampling approaches a limit in its ability to represent the inherent resolution in an image from a given optical lens. Eventually that limit is passed and additional pixels do not provide any more improvement in observed image resolution. So be careful that you do not fall into this hype trap. Don't go for more pixels than the camera's optics need for representing the full resolution that the optics can deliver.
The theoretically maximum image resolution a camera can deliver is determined by the diffraction limit of the lens, the lens optical quality aberrations and atmospheric effects. In microscopy atmospherics are not a practical issue. I will assume that in a reasonable quality microscope its camera lens aberration, optical quality, is also not a limiting factor on image resolution - which may not be a good assumption. That leaves the most fundamental issue of diffraction limiting. The diffraction limit of a lens is a function of its numerical aperture and of the wavelength of the light that is in the image. The red end of the spectrum, with its longer wavelengths, cannot be resolved as tightly as can the shorter wavelengths as you move across the spectrum toward the blues.
BTW in resolution, like in golf, low numbers win. Unfortunately, when we say "increased resolution" we mean lower numerical values. It would be better to say "improved resolution." Resolution is measured in units of distance. In microscopy, we are working in resolutions in the order of micrometers and below for cellular observations. That basically means that we can resolve (distinguish two real objects that are that close to each other.
The image format provides the spatial frequency that the optical image is sampled for digitization. The diffraction limit is for the resolution achievable by the optics. Images are best represented when the image format provides the right sized pixels and the right spacing between them that is matched up with the optical resolution. Fewer pixels than that fail to deliver all of the optical resolution. Too many pixels, over the limit, do not improve the image.
I found an article that actually provides a table that relates numerical aperture, magnification power, optical resolution and matched pixel size. It is embedded in a pretty good discussion covering "Digital Camera Resolution Requirements for Optical Microscopy."
http://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials/java/digitalimaging/pixelcalculator/
The table cuts off at low magnifications but the article does provide some of the theory and math behind the table, enough to extend it to the higher magnifications you are using.
fab
fab
Active Member
Did you have a particular rationale for choosing Omax over AmScope?
Can you convert your Omax microscope between brightfield and darkfield operation with a kit?
Can you convert to and from Phase Change microscopy with a kit?
Do you know if these answers are the same for the AmScope microscopes?
fab
Active Member
Looks like there is a pretty good argument for LED illumination over Halogen in the article I cite here:
LED vs HALOGEN – Which Microscope to Choose?
https://terencemichaellabs.wordpress.com/ledvshalogenmicroscopes/
From what I read, it sounds like the world of microscopy is going through the same upheavals we have gone through in aquarium lighting, as we have slowly moved away from metal hallide to LEDs. Microcopy illumination seems to be migrating away from various forms of expensive and dangerous lighting technologies to LEDs.
OP
OP
jason2459
Not a paid scientist
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2015
- Messages
- 4,668
- Reaction score
- 3,197
Didn't want to quote all the above but
Video streaming noted by the manufacture is limited to lower resolution on the 5mp top mount I have now and when I do try to up the resolution the video gets choppy. At the resolution it supports fast moving objects get blurry. I notice their 18mp supports a higher resultion for both images and video.
I went with Omax based on reviews about customer support which was slightly higher then on the Amscope or at least more positive ones. I also had some interaction with them and they were quick to respond.
Both seem to have about the same quality of mechanics and lenses. I know Omax has a lot of accessories which include the darkfield and phase contrast kits that will fit my scope along with many different digital camera options. I'm not sure about Amscope there. I was just impressed with CS and upgrade options for a decent price.
I went with LED to reduce heat and not effect what I'm looking at. As I'm mostly looking at things in solution in the 10-100micron range and wanting to see them active and study their behavior and ID them. I'm watching for several hours and don't want evap or baking to occure. Evap already starts happening by the end. My old one was tungsten and this led is a big welcome.
There is a kholer kit I can get but I'm primarily looking at high magnifications and don't need the light to be spread out evenly. I need the opposite with more pinpoint light and reduced iris.
But the darkfield and even better the phase contrast kit would be very helpful at what I'm trying to see.
Video streaming noted by the manufacture is limited to lower resolution on the 5mp top mount I have now and when I do try to up the resolution the video gets choppy. At the resolution it supports fast moving objects get blurry. I notice their 18mp supports a higher resultion for both images and video.
I went with Omax based on reviews about customer support which was slightly higher then on the Amscope or at least more positive ones. I also had some interaction with them and they were quick to respond.
Both seem to have about the same quality of mechanics and lenses. I know Omax has a lot of accessories which include the darkfield and phase contrast kits that will fit my scope along with many different digital camera options. I'm not sure about Amscope there. I was just impressed with CS and upgrade options for a decent price.
I went with LED to reduce heat and not effect what I'm looking at. As I'm mostly looking at things in solution in the 10-100micron range and wanting to see them active and study their behavior and ID them. I'm watching for several hours and don't want evap or baking to occure. Evap already starts happening by the end. My old one was tungsten and this led is a big welcome.
There is a kholer kit I can get but I'm primarily looking at high magnifications and don't need the light to be spread out evenly. I need the opposite with more pinpoint light and reduced iris.
But the darkfield and even better the phase contrast kit would be very helpful at what I'm trying to see.
Last edited:
120reefkeeper
Reef keeping with Military Precision!
What does every home lab need?
Someone who knows how to use the equipment. Lol
Someone who knows how to use the equipment. Lol
Kungpaoshizi
Valuable Member
OP
OP
jason2459
Not a paid scientist
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2015
- Messages
- 4,668
- Reaction score
- 3,197
And that's the beauty of science. Anyone that wants to can learn at some level. Chemistry kits used to be so very popular to give kids. To bad that's been replaced with things like....
Oh wait I just found a Pokemon. What was I saying?
OP
OP
jason2459
Not a paid scientist
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2015
- Messages
- 4,668
- Reaction score
- 3,197
Back on track with lab equipment for a second.
Safety equipment and someone brought up a good point about the eye flushing station. I don't have one of those but I do have an eye flushing kit and a sink near by. Also, splash goggles, nerile gloves, respirator mask, apron, long sleaves, shoes.
Safety equipment and someone brought up a good point about the eye flushing station. I don't have one of those but I do have an eye flushing kit and a sink near by. Also, splash goggles, nerile gloves, respirator mask, apron, long sleaves, shoes.
In that spirit, another very important item in its own right: A lab notebook.
Breadman03
Valuable Member
Home lab=kids (even visiting)=lockable door or cabinets for those things which shouldn't be secured by pico mobile digits with erratic platforms (little hands running about).
Lionfish Lair
Renee
