New Digital Microscope

[Nimravis]

15 minutes ago, Mediospirifer said:

Sweet!

 

Now you just need to figure out image stacking... 

 

I don’t know what that is or what it does, but I will check into it.

[BobWill]

Someone who knows about this please help me understand what the difference is. I am ready to try something better than my $20 plugable scope too. Is it a matter of the number of pixels or is there something more to whatever makes better quality images?

[Mediospirifer]

That's when you mount your scope (or specimen) on an adjustable platform ("focus rail" for a camera; I use my stereo microscope mount for my digital scopes), so that you can take photos at several distances from the specimen.

 

You'll find that for some 3D specimens, it's impossible to get the entire piece in focus in one shot at high magnification. With image stacking, you can take a bunch of photos, each of which has a different part of the specimen in focus, and combine them using a software package like Adobe Photoshop into one image where everything is sharp. 

 

Here's a comment I found useful: LINK.

 

[Mediospirifer]

12 minutes ago, BobWill said:

Someone who knows about this please help me understand what the difference is. I am ready to try something better than my $20 plugable scope too. Is it a matter of the number of pixels or is there something more to whatever makes better quality images?

 

I'm not sure. I suspect it's partly pixels, and partly optics quality. 

 

[DPS Ammonite]

Compact digital cameras can take good up close photos. @Nimravis and @BobWilllet’s compare your image of the “20 USA” on a $20 US bill that I took with my camera with your microscopes. See my post: http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/67540-comparison-of-macro-photos-from-cameras-magnifiers/&tab=comments#comment-709702

 

Show us what your picture of “20 USA”  looks like.

 

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

Wow, those are some impressive pictures. Makes me want to get one eventually. nice job!

[BobWill]

I'm not interested in getting a camera. I want to get a better variable working-distance microscope I can use with my laptop. The $20 plugable seems grainy. The specs show it to be 2MP. Is that mega pixels? If so how many MP would it take to get better images like those with the Amscope?  It seems to have 3.5 MP but their website has it for closer to $300. Is there a less expensive way to get better microscopic images at a variable distance? You can't get a large specimen under a regular microscope if it has a small portion you want a close-up of.

[Innocentx]

14 hours ago, Nimravis said:

It works- Whoo Hooo

[Packy]

Nice, the stacking was easy just choose the group and go. How many pixels is the camera?   Packy

[Packy]

I had bought a amscope stereo trinocular, it came with a .03 mp, I could not get it  to be not blurry. Sent it back for a 10 mp, I hope to get much better photos.  The microscope was awesome, anxious to get the better camera.  This is the best I could do after using the sharpening software.  It looked way better in the eyepiece.  The photos were better with low light.  Packy

[JohnBrewer]

14 hours ago, Nimravis said:

I don’t know what that is or what it does, but I will check into it.

Amscope do have software for stacking but you will need a stage which rises and falls. Do you focus via the pc or by the camera itself?

[JohnBrewer]

18 minutes ago, Packy said:

I had bought a amscope stereo trinocular, it came with a .03 mp, I could not get it  to be not blurry. Sent it back for a 10 mp, I hope to get much better photos.  The microscope was awesome, anxious to get the better camera.  This is the best I could do after using the sharpening software.  It looked way better in the eyepiece.  The photos were better with low light.  Packy

I’ve not had any issues with my 3mp camera but it does depend on if you want to print out and what size. It’s just occurred that the stacking software may use multiple 3mp images giving a higher res. If not stacking in photoshop will. 

[Nimravis]

6 minutes ago, JohnBrewer said:

Amscope do have software for stacking but you will need a stage which rises and falls. Do you focus via the pc or by the camera itself?

By the camera itself.

[JohnBrewer]

1 minute ago, Nimravis said:

By the camera itself.

Ah, that could be problematic for stacking unless you can keep the camera steady each time you focus but you would be able to line things up in photoshop I would have thought  

[Mediospirifer]

1 hour ago, Nimravis said:

By the camera itself.

 

You need to be able to set a fixed focus, then move the camera (or the subject) closer or farther with a stage. Autofocus at the camera may not work if it consistently chooses the same feature as a focal point.

 

You also need a stage that won't move horizontally as it moves vertically (using a frame of reference where the camera is looking down at the sample). My first makeshift stage was a lab-jack; it would move sideways by tiny increments as I raised it towards the camera. This did not improve the image quality!

[Nimravis]

5 minutes ago, Mediospirifer said:

 

You need to be able to set a fixed focus, then move the camera (or the subject) closer or farther with a stage. Autofocus at the camera may not work if it consistently chooses the same feature as a focal point.

 

You also need a stage that won't move horizontally as it moves vertically (using a frame of reference where the camera is looking down at the sample). My first makeshift stage was a lab-jack; it would move sideways by tiny increments as I raised it towards the camera. This did not improve the image quality!

Thanks- looks like I will be a point and shoot guy. Lol

[Mediospirifer]

9 minutes ago, Nimravis said:

Thanks- looks like I will be a point and shoot guy. Lol

 

I have a Stereozoom microscope, and the platform for that makes an excellent stage for holding my standalone digital microscope. That would probably be tricky for yours, though. Mine is a lot smaller.

 

[scottengering]

I have just been looking into the purchase of a microscope to give me a much better view of specimens than my old 20x hand lens and came across this review of the AmScope UHM350-11-3PL. During lockdown, I bought myself an Estwing hammer and have been collecting various specimens - the largest of which is  fist sized. When 'chatting' to the adviser on the AmScope site, they said that specimens of this size were too big, because there wasn't room for focussing. I thought that the 11" articulating arm was to allow viewing of larger specimens. I didn't get an answer to this query and an e-mail is being sent to Canada for a response.

 

I was therefore wondering if an actual user, who has highly praised this tool, has any helpful feedback about limits of size of specimens. Of course, I can break these my specimens into smaller pieces (they are mainly rocks and not fossils).

 

I hope someone can advise.

 

Thanks.

 

Scott

[Tidgy's Dad]

On 1/12/2019 at 11:02 PM, Nimravis said:

This was a great purchase for $270.00 and about 1000 times better that the $20 Plugable USB Microscope that I purchased before.

 

Well, I'm absolutely delighted to have your old camera, thank you very much.

As Doren said, "Once you go micro, you never go back!" 

I wouldn't be without one now. 

[cngodles]

I've been stacking images for quite a bit now. I use an small paid app on the iPhone called Halide that allows me to maintain a camera shot in the 2X lens, and adjust focus manually. The app has an on-screen focus indicator, that basically lights up the area in focus in green. I have this aimed through a microscope lens handheld, and I slide the focus manually and take photos as I get through the specimen. Sometimes it works great, others it's somewhat ok. I then connect my phone to the computer and use Photoshop to stack the images I pull off the phone.

 

When you run the "Load Files into Stack..." script, there is an option to allow the software to auto align them as it loads them in. This fixes for any slight shaking, and for focus breathing if you are using a more professional setup. Some of the best artists typically use some sort of bellows and I believe a backwards lens in a particular setup. As for the software, I'm sure there is at least one absolutely free version out there. If someone ever makes an auto focus stacking phone app, much of the process may become obsolete.

 

I can't comment on the purpose-made USB image sensors for these scopes. I do have a scope with the third port that I can attach a DSLR to, but I've never found the photo quality through that to be comparable to what I get with just an iPhone through the lens.

 

Here are some of the stacks I've done. These would be near impossible to see with this much focus, only a slim slice would be in focus if I did not stack. All are shot handhelp with an iphone through the microscope eyepiece, with anywhere from 8 to 20 photos being taken for each one. I am usually limited by the focus range on the phone. I can go further, but then it involves changing the physical focus distance on the microscope, while holding the phone steady, as not to lose some of the focus planes I need. It's difficult, so it doesn't happen often. I've tried using a tripod or microscope phone holder, but these never seem to hold the phone correctly.

 

Microcope is the AmScope SM-4TZ-144A, which oddly enough I bought 2-3 years before I got into fossils. Turned out to be very useful for this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

############

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by cngodles