Taxacom: digital camera issue
John Grehan
calabar.john at gmail.com
Thu Aug 15 13:40:06 CDT 2024
Thanks Les, that's good to know about. If the microscope has a zoom lens,
does that mean that one cannot change focus as definitive steps for
stacking?
John
On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 1:21 PM Leslie Watling via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> I would also note that you can do digital stacking manually with a program
> such as Helicon Focus, available from helisoft.com. The Lite version,
> adequate for most of our usual needs as described by John, is US$55.
>
> The program does the stacking using one of several methods that you choose.
> Its input is a series of images taken manually at a progression of focus
> stops on the microscope. Those can be as short or as long as you like or,
> more likely, as usual in my case, the vertical distance between one image
> and another varies. I usually try for 10 or more images. The results
> generally are pretty good.
>
> Of course, as noted by Tony Rees, the more pixels you have the better the
> stacking outcome is going to be. Well, as long the microscope itself will
> deliver a sharp image to the camera sensor.
>
> The software driving the camera can also be cheap and deliver lousy images.
> I had a 3.3 MP camera a long time ago and the software that came with it
> produced images that had the look of being shot through a gauze curtain.
> Since I had some grant money, I invested a lot in some more sophisticated
> software and the images were beautiful. So that can be another thing to
> watch out for, though with today's 20 MP cameras that may not be much of an
> issue.
>
> Best,
> Les
>
>
>
> Les Watling
> Professor Emeritus
> School of Life Sciences
> University of Hawaii
>
> Professor Emeritus
> School of Marine Sciences
> University of Maine
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 1:00 PM <taxacom-request at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> > Daily News from the Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > When responding to a message, please do not copy the entire digest into
> > your reply.
> > ____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: digital camera question (John Grehan)
> > 2. Re: digital camera question (Tony Rees)
> > 3. RES: digital camera question (Paulo Buckup)
> > 4. Re: digital camera question (John Grehan)
> > 5. Re: digital camera question (Tony Rees)
> > 6. Re: digital camera question (John Grehan)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 14:30:51 -0400
> > From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: Re: Taxacom: digital camera question
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > CADN0ud0MzRf-ox6iWgwbZZrXRhBRr0EGtpqNnXQPdj0EARwf2w at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > I've now had some off list feedback that is addressing the resolution
> > issues.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 10:46?AM John Grehan via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Hope someone on Taxacome has microscope camera expertise that can help
> me
> > > with a question concerning digital camera capability meeting
> publication
> > > needs. I am looking at buying a 'cheap' (less than $1,000 US)
> dissecting
> > > microscope and digital camera through Amscope. They have cameras
> ranging
> > > from 1 to 20 megapixels, but I have no idea how that relates to dpi
> where
> > > publications usually require at least 300 dpi. Can anyone clue me in on
> > how
> > > to know what megapixel size will likely work to give me a sharp enough
> > > image for publication? Currently looking at a 5 megapixel camera which
> > > brings the setup well within my limits whereas 10 megapixel goes just
> > over.
> > > Any enlightenment much appreciated. I am a total moron when it comes to
> > > digital camera tech.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > John Grehan
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi4igA8Hg%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442489878971%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=It4UgH5QoZWjU%2FBx%2F7b3AS3ZWcYGqUhTIKYqkC5VP2g%3D&reserved=0
> > (use the 'visit archived web site'
> > > link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > >
> > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> > > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi0_Gzny5%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442489878971%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rmIXDr1obJCKWGHw44rvfHHiNUZJNcf6oV1WVsmytss%3D&reserved=0
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> > >
> > > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 37 years,
> 1987-2024.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi4igA8Hg%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442489878971%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=It4UgH5QoZWjU%2FBx%2F7b3AS3ZWcYGqUhTIKYqkC5VP2g%3D&reserved=0
> > (use the 'visit archived web site'
> > link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 05:05:52 +1000
> > From: Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> > To: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: Re: Taxacom: digital camera question
> > Message-ID:
> > <CABEjCKNTsNsZkrN1D6znMK1z7BorO71spcFNvzMHoRJxx_rN=
> > g at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > I am not necessarily up with all the research on the subject, but from my
> > microscopy lab experience in days gone by, taking images with a 35mm
> camera
> > is basically equivalent to somewhere around 12 MP digital images. This is
> > borne out by e.g.
> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAnalogCommunity%2Fcomments%2Fl79tkt%2Fwhats_the_effective_megapixel_resolution_of_35mm%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi-BbrTRC%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442489878971%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=874oqi7a%2BU4YudjguC9OiPvBcak1NEXlOOdLQ8kGS2E%3D&reserved=0
> > where one respondent says: "Depends on a lot of factors including film
> > speed, film quality, developer/development technique (if B&W), scan
> > method. Generally rule of thumb is that a high-quality [35mm] film stock
> > is capable of about 8-15 MP in perfect conditions."
> >
> > Now this may not be achievable in practice using a [comparatively
> cheaper]
> > dissecting microscope where the optics of the microscope may not be the
> > ultimate in quality (you get what you pay for, to a degree), also
> critical
> > focus may only be achievable on a particular focal plane. So maybe you
> > could revise this down a bit and say that 5-8 MP might be acceptable in
> > this instance.
> >
> > This would give you the equivalent of a fairly sharp 35mm image (e.g. ISO
> > 50 slide film, higher ISO would of course be less sharp) which should be
> > adequate for most purposes, e.g. a 5x7 inch print at 300 dpi requires
> 3.15
> > MP, same at 600 dpi (sharper) requires 12.6 MP (calculation via
> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scantips.com%2Fcalc.html__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi-mrgLEy%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442489878971%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5ZoJxpNkjDfBXAGbk3nemGwewUzN8j9yvjuPWjJ24bc%3D&reserved=0
> > ) so somewhere between these 2 is
> > probably best (sharper is of course better, plus it is always good to
> have
> > a little resolution in hand).
> >
> > These presume that the object you want to reproduce fills the frame of
> the
> > sensor. There might be an argument (especially with dissecting
> microscopes)
> > for taking the image at a lower magnification (for greater depth of
> field)
> > and then enlarging (cropping) just part of the frame to give you the
> > desired result. However for every 2x decrease in magnification /
> cropping,
> > you will need 4x the megapixels to get back to your starting point (same
> > image size on reproduction).
> >
> > Hope this helps, it is indeed an interesting topic.
> >
> > Regards - Tony
> >
> > Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmiw3JvK12%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442489878971%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XaAc4K3MBvIuqWCSnpe3NiHcQ3jubWD99ynrjwTVq6I%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 at 04:31, John Grehan via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I've now had some off list feedback that is addressing the resolution
> > > issues.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 10:46?AM John Grehan via Taxacom <
> > > taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hope someone on Taxacome has microscope camera expertise that can
> help
> > me
> > > > with a question concerning digital camera capability meeting
> > publication
> > > > needs. I am looking at buying a 'cheap' (less than $1,000 US)
> > dissecting
> > > > microscope and digital camera through Amscope. They have cameras
> > ranging
> > > > from 1 to 20 megapixels, but I have no idea how that relates to dpi
> > where
> > > > publications usually require at least 300 dpi. Can anyone clue me in
> on
> > > how
> > > > to know what megapixel size will likely work to give me a sharp
> enough
> > > > image for publication? Currently looking at a 5 megapixel camera
> which
> > > > brings the setup well within my limits whereas 10 megapixel goes just
> > > over.
> > > > Any enlightenment much appreciated. I am a total moron when it comes
> to
> > > > digital camera tech.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > John Grehan
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi4igA8Hg%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442489878971%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=It4UgH5QoZWjU%2FBx%2F7b3AS3ZWcYGqUhTIKYqkC5VP2g%3D&reserved=0
> > (use the 'visit archived web site'
> > > > link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > >
> > > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> > > > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi0_Gzny5%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dSn2Oq0UPJXa%2FX%2BJFhcN9C22%2BP2%2F0BkRCjIV5PGoQZA%3D&reserved=0
> > > > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > > taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> > > >
> > > > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 37 years,
> > 1987-2024.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi4igA8Hg%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=re5D%2BCfLqfaL%2BAJmSe13cElgGFQKQMuFJAgnjnXm6eo%3D&reserved=0
> > (use the 'visit archived web site'
> > > link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > >
> > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> > > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi0_Gzny5%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dSn2Oq0UPJXa%2FX%2BJFhcN9C22%2BP2%2F0BkRCjIV5PGoQZA%3D&reserved=0
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> > >
> > > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 37 years,
> 1987-2024.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 19:17:18 -0300
> > From: "Paulo Buckup" <buckup at acd.ufrj.br>
> > To: "'John Grehan'" <calabar.john at gmail.com>, "'taxacom'"
> > <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: Taxacom: RES: digital camera question
> > Message-ID: <000001daee97$bb645c80$322d1580$@acd.ufrj.br>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Hi John,
> > To achieve 300 dpi, each square inch in the final page requires
> > 90,000 pixels. So, a full letter size page (or equivalent in PDF)
> requires
> > over 8 megapixels. Allowing for some loss caused by cropping blank space
> > around your specimen, you need at least a 10 megapixel camera for a full
> > page image.
> > Keep in mind that if you do any resizing or rotation of the final
> > image, the relationship between the pixels in the original camera sensor
> > and
> > the final image is lost, and the quality is severely reduced. So, if you
> do
> > rotating or resizing in photoshop you will need a 40 megapixel camera to
> > avoid individual pixel blurring.
> > In my experience the "cheap" microscope cameras do not meet
> > traditional publication requirements (but will be accepted for
> publication
> > in open access journals by careless editors, mostly because PDFs are only
> > evaluated using monitors that have a resolution way below the 300 dpi
> > standard).
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Paulo Buckup
> > Museu Nacional, UFRJ
> > Brazil
> > -----Mensagem original-----
> > De: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu] Em nome de John Grehan
> > via
> > Taxacom
> > Enviada em: quarta-feira, 14 de agosto de 2024 11:45
> > Para: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Assunto: Taxacom: digital camera question
> >
> > Hope someone on Taxacome has microscope camera expertise that can help me
> > with a question concerning digital camera capability meeting publication
> > needs. I am looking at buying a 'cheap' (less than $1,000 US) dissecting
> > microscope and digital camera through Amscope. They have cameras ranging
> > from 1 to 20 megapixels, but I have no idea how that relates to dpi where
> > publications usually require at least 300 dpi. Can anyone clue me in on
> how
> > to know what megapixel size will likely work to give me a sharp enough
> > image
> > for publication? Currently looking at a 5 megapixel camera which brings
> the
> > setup well within my limits whereas 10 megapixel goes just over.
> > Any enlightenment much appreciated. I am a total moron when it comes to
> > digital camera tech.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi4igA8Hg%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=re5D%2BCfLqfaL%2BAJmSe13cElgGFQKQMuFJAgnjnXm6eo%3D&reserved=0
> > (use the 'visit archived web site'
> > link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu For list
> > information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi0_Gzny5%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dSn2Oq0UPJXa%2FX%2BJFhcN9C22%2BP2%2F0BkRCjIV5PGoQZA%3D&reserved=0
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 37 years, 1987-2024.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 21:33:44 -0400
> > From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > To: Paulo Buckup <buckup at acd.ufrj.br>
> > Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: Re: Taxacom: digital camera question
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > CADN0ud0BR_xAQ2xmb6y_dUevuc3dPn3M12x8-CYnxzXHBdon8g at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Thanks Tony and Paulo, as well as an off-line respondent. It looks like I
> > will be able to afford up to 18 megapixels. As for the microscope - yeah,
> > you get what you pay for. But there is no way I can afford what I see in
> > university or museum facilities. But right now I have a microscope that
> is
> > over 50 years old (Kyowa - Japan) and used a small hand held digital
> camera
> > which sometimes produced some barely adequate images. So at least I will
> > now be better off to some degree. Through the kindness of a couple of
> > university and museum colleagues I have been able to get stacked images
> for
> > some important dissections.
> >
> > Cheers, John
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 6:17?PM Paulo Buckup <buckup at acd.ufrj.br> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi John,
> > > To achieve 300 dpi, each square inch in the final page requires
> > > 90,000 pixels. So, a full letter size page (or equivalent in PDF)
> > requires
> > > over 8 megapixels. Allowing for some loss caused by cropping blank
> space
> > > around your specimen, you need at least a 10 megapixel camera for a
> full
> > > page image.
> > > Keep in mind that if you do any resizing or rotation of the
> final
> > > image, the relationship between the pixels in the original camera
> sensor
> > > and
> > > the final image is lost, and the quality is severely reduced. So, if
> you
> > do
> > > rotating or resizing in photoshop you will need a 40 megapixel camera
> to
> > > avoid individual pixel blurring.
> > > In my experience the "cheap" microscope cameras do not meet
> > > traditional publication requirements (but will be accepted for
> > publication
> > > in open access journals by careless editors, mostly because PDFs are
> only
> > > evaluated using monitors that have a resolution way below the 300 dpi
> > > standard).
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Paulo Buckup
> > > Museu Nacional, UFRJ
> > > Brazil
> > > -----Mensagem original-----
> > > De: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu] Em nome de John
> Grehan
> > > via
> > > Taxacom
> > > Enviada em: quarta-feira, 14 de agosto de 2024 11:45
> > > Para: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > > Assunto: Taxacom: digital camera question
> > >
> > > Hope someone on Taxacome has microscope camera expertise that can help
> me
> > > with a question concerning digital camera capability meeting
> publication
> > > needs. I am looking at buying a 'cheap' (less than $1,000 US)
> dissecting
> > > microscope and digital camera through Amscope. They have cameras
> ranging
> > > from 1 to 20 megapixels, but I have no idea how that relates to dpi
> where
> > > publications usually require at least 300 dpi. Can anyone clue me in on
> > how
> > > to know what megapixel size will likely work to give me a sharp enough
> > > image
> > > for publication? Currently looking at a 5 megapixel camera which brings
> > the
> > > setup well within my limits whereas 10 megapixel goes just over.
> > > Any enlightenment much appreciated. I am a total moron when it comes to
> > > digital camera tech.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > John Grehan
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi4igA8Hg%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=re5D%2BCfLqfaL%2BAJmSe13cElgGFQKQMuFJAgnjnXm6eo%3D&reserved=0
> > (use the 'visit archived web site'
> > > link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > >
> > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu For
> list
> > > information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi0_Gzny5%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dSn2Oq0UPJXa%2FX%2BJFhcN9C22%2BP2%2F0BkRCjIV5PGoQZA%3D&reserved=0
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> > >
> > > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 37 years,
> 1987-2024.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi4igA8Hg%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=re5D%2BCfLqfaL%2BAJmSe13cElgGFQKQMuFJAgnjnXm6eo%3D&reserved=0
> > (use the 'visit archived web site'
> > link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:06:04 +1000
> > From: Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> > To: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: Re: Taxacom: digital camera question
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > CABEjCKP6eic0mnLUkR74HuAyK3bASqoptP1-9nDyjRaKufeksQ at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Of course it depends on how big you would like to be able to print your
> > results - e.g. at 300 DPI, a 1 MP image (approx.) would still print up to
> > about 4 x 3 inches, a 4 MP image up to about 8 x 6 inches, and a 8 MP
> > image up to about 12 x 9 inches before quality falls off... For many
> > journal plates, they would be a composite of smaller images than (say)
> 10 x
> > 8 inches, so small files would still get you there. On the other hand if
> > you want something to go on the cover of "Nature" at large size, or just
> to
> > create an archive of high quality images, large is definitely better!
> >
> > I was intrigued enough by this topic to look further into the old
> > chestnut of "film vs digital" in which, as alluded to above, I believed
> > that up to around 12 MP, 35mm film beat digital, and above that, the
> other
> > way around (unless you go up to medium format etc.). I did a little test
> to
> > see at what point quality loss became visible on a scanned - actually
> > digitised with a micro 4/3 format, 20 MP resolution Olympus mirrorless
> SLR
> > - 30 year-old slide, taken probably at 100 ISO in good light outdoors -
> > copy put up at
> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AMaritime_Museum_*2B_James_Craig_1990.jpg__%3BJQ!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi5JWoO4T%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZOTvyQRSnDiT6ctIXZTRfqSLyToMORwozhMh6S99yE4%3D&reserved=0
> > , So, I digitised this at 20 MP including some of the slide mount; after
> > cropping the latter off, I was left with 4,908 ? 3,234 pixels (15.9 MP).
> I
> > then down sampled this to 2 smaller sizes and enlarged a small portion of
> > each image to see when quality loss would kick in. The answer seems to be
> > that 8 MP is a little visibly worse than 16 MP, and 4 MP definitely
> worse,
> > at least when "pixel peeping", see detailed enlargement comparison at
> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fpostimg.cc%2F2V6Rxtn9__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi3cI38DL%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SpddVyx3%2Bt5pIfvrfi45j5YoQzg9NmQjWVtatJx%2FyYs%3D&reserved=0
> > . So this tells me that maybe 16 MP of digital
> > may well be needed to equate to a good slide (transparency), for those of
> > us ancient enough to use this as a yardstick; however that may of course
> > not be necessary unless you wish to print to very large sizes (would
> equate
> > to 16 x 12 inches in this example).
> >
> > Apologies if the above is too much of a diversion for some, however in
> the
> > overall context of "how much resolution is enough" for digital images I
> > thought it might have some value...
> >
> > Regards to all - Tony
> >
> > Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmiw3JvK12%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UOqV9OMpND0oE%2Fxq5TRuPSAyYbKN08J%2FeIEIiJk3O9Q%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 at 11:34, John Grehan via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Tony and Paulo, as well as an off-line respondent. It looks
> like I
> > > will be able to afford up to 18 megapixels. As for the microscope -
> yeah,
> > > you get what you pay for. But there is no way I can afford what I see
> in
> > > university or museum facilities. But right now I have a microscope that
> > is
> > > over 50 years old (Kyowa - Japan) and used a small hand held digital
> > camera
> > > which sometimes produced some barely adequate images. So at least I
> will
> > > now be better off to some degree. Through the kindness of a couple of
> > > university and museum colleagues I have been able to get stacked images
> > for
> > > some important dissections.
> > >
> > > Cheers, John
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 6:17?PM Paulo Buckup <buckup at acd.ufrj.br>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi John,
> > > > To achieve 300 dpi, each square inch in the final page
> requires
> > > > 90,000 pixels. So, a full letter size page (or equivalent in PDF)
> > > requires
> > > > over 8 megapixels. Allowing for some loss caused by cropping blank
> > space
> > > > around your specimen, you need at least a 10 megapixel camera for a
> > full
> > > > page image.
> > > > Keep in mind that if you do any resizing or rotation of the
> > final
> > > > image, the relationship between the pixels in the original camera
> > sensor
> > > > and
> > > > the final image is lost, and the quality is severely reduced. So, if
> > you
> > > do
> > > > rotating or resizing in photoshop you will need a 40 megapixel camera
> > to
> > > > avoid individual pixel blurring.
> > > > In my experience the "cheap" microscope cameras do not meet
> > > > traditional publication requirements (but will be accepted for
> > > publication
> > > > in open access journals by careless editors, mostly because PDFs are
> > only
> > > > evaluated using monitors that have a resolution way below the 300 dpi
> > > > standard).
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Paulo Buckup
> > > > Museu Nacional, UFRJ
> > > > Brazil
> > > > -----Mensagem original-----
> > > > De: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu] Em nome de John
> > Grehan
> > > > via
> > > > Taxacom
> > > > Enviada em: quarta-feira, 14 de agosto de 2024 11:45
> > > > Para: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > > > Assunto: Taxacom: digital camera question
> > > >
> > > > Hope someone on Taxacome has microscope camera expertise that can
> help
> > me
> > > > with a question concerning digital camera capability meeting
> > publication
> > > > needs. I am looking at buying a 'cheap' (less than $1,000 US)
> > dissecting
> > > > microscope and digital camera through Amscope. They have cameras
> > ranging
> > > > from 1 to 20 megapixels, but I have no idea how that relates to dpi
> > where
> > > > publications usually require at least 300 dpi. Can anyone clue me in
> on
> > > how
> > > > to know what megapixel size will likely work to give me a sharp
> enough
> > > > image
> > > > for publication? Currently looking at a 5 megapixel camera which
> brings
> > > the
> > > > setup well within my limits whereas 10 megapixel goes just over.
> > > > Any enlightenment much appreciated. I am a total moron when it comes
> to
> > > > digital camera tech.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > John Grehan
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi4igA8Hg%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=re5D%2BCfLqfaL%2BAJmSe13cElgGFQKQMuFJAgnjnXm6eo%3D&reserved=0
> > (use the 'visit archived web site'
> > > > link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > >
> > > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu For
> > list
> > > > information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi0_Gzny5%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dSn2Oq0UPJXa%2FX%2BJFhcN9C22%2BP2%2F0BkRCjIV5PGoQZA%3D&reserved=0
> > > > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > > taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> > > >
> > > > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 37 years,
> > 1987-2024.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi4igA8Hg%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=re5D%2BCfLqfaL%2BAJmSe13cElgGFQKQMuFJAgnjnXm6eo%3D&reserved=0
> > (use the 'visit archived web site'
> > > link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > >
> > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> > > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi0_Gzny5%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dSn2Oq0UPJXa%2FX%2BJFhcN9C22%2BP2%2F0BkRCjIV5PGoQZA%3D&reserved=0
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> > >
> > > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 37 years,
> 1987-2024.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:35:48 -0400
> > From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > To: Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> > Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: Re: Taxacom: digital camera question
> > Message-ID:
> > <CADN0ud3BMKx99C3J1quMi3rz3KL=
> > 89xDjxPS7iGMqF-QGHHOiQ at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Thanks Tony for that further feedback with respect to slide transparency.
> > Gives me a good comparative context. I also had one respondent using an
> > inexpensive Olympus TG-4 and camera with stacking capability (and sent
> me a
> > very nice example image). I had not thought about the latter capability
> > being within my price range, but I will make further inquiries.
> >
> > Cheers, John
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 12:06?AM Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > Of course it depends on how big you would like to be able to print your
> > > results - e.g. at 300 DPI, a 1 MP image (approx.) would still print up
> to
> > > about 4 x 3 inches, a 4 MP image up to about 8 x 6 inches, and a 8 MP
> > > image up to about 12 x 9 inches before quality falls off... For many
> > > journal plates, they would be a composite of smaller images than (say)
> > 10 x
> > > 8 inches, so small files would still get you there. On the other hand
> if
> > > you want something to go on the cover of "Nature" at large size, or
> just
> > to
> > > create an archive of high quality images, large is definitely better!
> > >
> > > I was intrigued enough by this topic to look further into the old
> > > chestnut of "film vs digital" in which, as alluded to above, I believed
> > > that up to around 12 MP, 35mm film beat digital, and above that, the
> > other
> > > way around (unless you go up to medium format etc.). I did a little
> test
> > to
> > > see at what point quality loss became visible on a scanned - actually
> > > digitised with a micro 4/3 format, 20 MP resolution Olympus mirrorless
> > SLR
> > > - 30 year-old slide, taken probably at 100 ISO in good light outdoors -
> > > copy put up at
> > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AMaritime_Museum_*2B_James_Craig_1990.jpg__%3BJQ!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi5JWoO4T%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490035225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZOTvyQRSnDiT6ctIXZTRfqSLyToMORwozhMh6S99yE4%3D&reserved=0
> > > , So, I digitised this at 20 MP including some of the slide mount;
> after
> > > cropping the latter off, I was left with 4,908 ? 3,234 pixels (15.9
> MP).
> > I
> > > then down sampled this to 2 smaller sizes and enlarged a small portion
> of
> > > each image to see when quality loss would kick in. The answer seems to
> be
> > > that 8 MP is a little visibly worse than 16 MP, and 4 MP definitely
> > worse,
> > > at least when "pixel peeping", see detailed enlargement comparison at
> > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fpostimg.cc%2F2V6Rxtn9__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi3cI38DL%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490191514%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gn4wd%2FE%2FaLRBZH7XxdOSh%2BgMeR%2F0DxNRyRuHKplCFjc%3D&reserved=0
> > . So this tells me that maybe 16 MP of
> > > digital may well be needed to equate to a good slide (transparency),
> for
> > > those of us ancient enough to use this as a yardstick; however that may
> > of
> > > course not be necessary unless you wish to print to very large sizes
> > (would
> > > equate to 16 x 12 inches in this example).
> > >
> > > Apologies if the above is too much of a diversion for some, however in
> > the
> > > overall context of "how much resolution is enough" for digital images I
> > > thought it might have some value...
> > >
> > > Regards to all - Tony
> > >
> > > Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmiw3JvK12%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490191514%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GUxSP0wTpW5nxTBrJE%2BR3kPkpVBx9N%2Bi1EQDVUtocd8%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 at 11:34, John Grehan via Taxacom <
> > > taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks Tony and Paulo, as well as an off-line respondent. It looks
> like
> > I
> > >> will be able to afford up to 18 megapixels. As for the microscope -
> > yeah,
> > >> you get what you pay for. But there is no way I can afford what I see
> in
> > >> university or museum facilities. But right now I have a microscope
> that
> > is
> > >> over 50 years old (Kyowa - Japan) and used a small hand held digital
> > >> camera
> > >> which sometimes produced some barely adequate images. So at least I
> will
> > >> now be better off to some degree. Through the kindness of a couple of
> > >> university and museum colleagues I have been able to get stacked
> images
> > >> for
> > >> some important dissections.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers, John
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 6:17?PM Paulo Buckup <buckup at acd.ufrj.br>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi John,
> > >> > To achieve 300 dpi, each square inch in the final page
> > requires
> > >> > 90,000 pixels. So, a full letter size page (or equivalent in PDF)
> > >> requires
> > >> > over 8 megapixels. Allowing for some loss caused by cropping blank
> > space
> > >> > around your specimen, you need at least a 10 megapixel camera for a
> > full
> > >> > page image.
> > >> > Keep in mind that if you do any resizing or rotation of the
> > >> final
> > >> > image, the relationship between the pixels in the original camera
> > sensor
> > >> > and
> > >> > the final image is lost, and the quality is severely reduced. So, if
> > >> you do
> > >> > rotating or resizing in photoshop you will need a 40 megapixel
> camera
> > to
> > >> > avoid individual pixel blurring.
> > >> > In my experience the "cheap" microscope cameras do not meet
> > >> > traditional publication requirements (but will be accepted for
> > >> publication
> > >> > in open access journals by careless editors, mostly because PDFs are
> > >> only
> > >> > evaluated using monitors that have a resolution way below the 300
> dpi
> > >> > standard).
> > >> >
> > >> > Cheers,
> > >> >
> > >> > Paulo Buckup
> > >> > Museu Nacional, UFRJ
> > >> > Brazil
> > >> > -----Mensagem original-----
> > >> > De: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu] Em nome de John
> > >> Grehan
> > >> > via
> > >> > Taxacom
> > >> > Enviada em: quarta-feira, 14 de agosto de 2024 11:45
> > >> > Para: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > >> > Assunto: Taxacom: digital camera question
> > >> >
> > >> > Hope someone on Taxacome has microscope camera expertise that can
> help
> > >> me
> > >> > with a question concerning digital camera capability meeting
> > publication
> > >> > needs. I am looking at buying a 'cheap' (less than $1,000 US)
> > dissecting
> > >> > microscope and digital camera through Amscope. They have cameras
> > ranging
> > >> > from 1 to 20 megapixels, but I have no idea how that relates to dpi
> > >> where
> > >> > publications usually require at least 300 dpi. Can anyone clue me in
> > on
> > >> how
> > >> > to know what megapixel size will likely work to give me a sharp
> enough
> > >> > image
> > >> > for publication? Currently looking at a 5 megapixel camera which
> > brings
> > >> the
> > >> > setup well within my limits whereas 10 megapixel goes just over.
> > >> > Any enlightenment much appreciated. I am a total moron when it comes
> > to
> > >> > digital camera tech.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks.
> > >> >
> > >> > John Grehan
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi4igA8Hg%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490191514%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vWNORkdEAORwBd9cTKXzzyh4zYpzSOY2jMQqkqL0rKQ%3D&reserved=0
> > (use the 'visit archived web site'
> > >> > link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > >> >
> > >> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu For
> > list
> > >> > information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > >> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi0_Gzny5%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490191514%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sVaegfpF0Zg6z50ghIi%2FRfpz4%2Bfp%2FWZRk2y2kaBqeOg%3D&reserved=0
> > >> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > >> taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> > >> >
> > >> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 37 years,
> > >> 1987-2024.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi4igA8Hg%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490191514%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vWNORkdEAORwBd9cTKXzzyh4zYpzSOY2jMQqkqL0rKQ%3D&reserved=0
> > (use the 'visit archived web site'
> > >> link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Taxacom Mailing List
> > >>
> > >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> > >> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > >>
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi0_Gzny5%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490191514%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sVaegfpF0Zg6z50ghIi%2FRfpz4%2Bfp%2FWZRk2y2kaBqeOg%3D&reserved=0
> > >> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> > >>
> > >> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 37 years,
> > 1987-2024.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi4igA8Hg%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490191514%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vWNORkdEAORwBd9cTKXzzyh4zYpzSOY2jMQqkqL0rKQ%3D&reserved=0
> > (use the 'visit archived web site'
> > link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!VRefvnLkCX36gEikzCgl0SqtnhLVsTk1ITSMvXnCZjaE-TjUh8lsRjisnc_eVEmLXkP8WaCxava2W5A6kjyMjsXmi0_Gzny5%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490191514%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sVaegfpF0Zg6z50ghIi%2FRfpz4%2Bfp%2FWZRk2y2kaBqeOg%3D&reserved=0
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> > about 37 years, 1987-2024.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 220, Issue 5
> > ***************************************
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 37 years, 1987-2024.
>
>
>
--
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cedc90b61779749791e7008dcbd59c50f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593442490191514%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lKsJIj7jMPPz7sb2L3ClEzY9jJ9UM3RDyam0bwEBHk4%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list