[Taxacom] [EXT] More on camera/microscope

Sun May 23 10:35:41 CDT 2021

The device mentioned will be fine if a quick, low magnification image 
for the web is desired, such as a live insect on a plant. It will be 
terrible if higher magnifications are wanted because the depth of field 
will be so shallow that most of the image will be out of focus and with 
the restriction that both the specimen and the camera must be absolutely 
still. One can take multiple images for focus stacking using Helicon 
Focus, Zerene Stacker or other software. Doing so means that the 
specimen and the camera cannot move at all so the setup has to be locked 
down somehow, thus making it no longer a hand held device.

Megapixels matter and the more you have the better because it allows you 
to crop and refine the image for publication. For example, if you use 
your pixel editor (e.g., GIMP or commercial software) to sharpen the 
image, the results are much better in higher pixel count images.

If the accurate shape of specimen images is required (e.g., for 
morphometric measurements) then one could ask whether the images are 
flat field. This is something I've struggled with on the old M5 scopes, 
which take great images but have aberration both in shape and in 
chromatic. Newer microscopes, Leica in my case, are flat field and their 
more expensive fluorite lenses are apochromatic (little chromatic 
aberration). The description doesn't mention flat field or lens type.

If you already have a microscope but don't have the adapter, look on 
Ebay for a side mount adapter for your microscope and an attachment for 
whatever digital camera you already have. This won't be as cheap as the 
device mentioned so this depends on the aims of the project; this device 
doesn't look like anything that will produce professionally useful 
images. If the quick, low magnification image is the aim, most people 
already have one in their pocket: modern smart phones can take high 
pixel count images and can focus up to a few inches in good light. For 
professional results, however, having a fixed system is actually quicker 
to use since the specimen can be placed under the scope, even  live 
ones*, and a series of images can be taken that are easily sent to a pc 
for editing and arrangement.

I personally don't like it being locked into the the commercial 
Apple/Win software ecosystem but I'm probably in the minority here. I 
worry that the device will only work with their software, which is 
likely to be buggy and hard to use. I, however, don't know anything 
about Q-focus.

cheers

Buz

*many arthropods are reversibly anesthetized with clove oil - I study 
aquatic isopod crustaceans and it works nicely and the specimen recovers 
when I refresh the water. One of the isopod images (/Caecidotea/) on my 
website was taken of a live specimen.

-- 
George D.F. (Buz) Wilson, Ph.D.
Saugatuck Natural History Laboratory, LLC
website: https://www.snhlab.com/
publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/George-Wilson-12
email: gdfw at SNHLab.com

On 5/23/21 10:15 AM, Mary Barkworth via Taxacom wrote:
> John (or anyone else), if you purchase one, please share your comments either via Taxacom or, if you prefer, with anyone who asks. Consider this an ask!
>
> Mary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of John Grehan via Taxacom
> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 8:06 AM
> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: [EXT] [Taxacom] More on camera/microscope
>
> Since my last posting on this I had some helpful feedback which led me to an option without a traditional microscope at all. Instead it's a microscope/camera all in one. See:
>
> https://www.amscope.com/cameras/digital-microscopes/q-scope-80200-p-8mp-200x-handheld-usb-microscope-with-polarizer.html
>
> Other than needing an electronic device to see the view (no problem with
> that) it would seem to have the necessary capability  with 10x - 50 x (more than my current microscope) and a 200 x.
>
> Looking again on the web I found the following regarding camera megapixels:
> "A general rule is that a print requires 300 pixels per inch (one megapixel equals 1 million pixels). So an 8 x 10 print would need 2,400 pixels x
> 3,000 pixels for a total area of 7.2 million pixels, or 7.2 megapixel camera"
>
> At present his particular camera is going for $189 which is within my budget and I could return it if it does not work out.
>
> In my case I am usually generating images that are not full page so I am guessing that 5-8 MP cameras would easily provide for my needs, although whether a 1.3 MP camera would be sufficient for smaller (relative to page
> size) to meet my needs is still up in the air.
>
> The idea of dispensing with a microscope altogether is also a bit of a leap for me, but if a camera/microscope does the job then it would work for me.
>
> John Grehan
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of USU. If this appears to be a USU employee, beware of impersonators. Do not click links, reply, download images, or open attachments unless you verify the sender’s identity and know the content is safe.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.