Taxacom: digital camera issue

Leslie Watling watling at hawaii.edu
Thu Aug 15 14:17:44 CDT 2024 

Hi John,
Yes, all the images have to be shot at the same magnification, same
lighting, etc. The only thing that changes is the focus plane. The software
will make adjustments for parallax, etc., which is common with dissecting
microscopes (that is, the image shifts slightly as you focus up or down).

Also, the images need to be numbered sequentially, so the stacking software
knows which image to look at next. In a nutshell, what the stacking
software does is look for pixels that are sharp, i.e., in focus. Then it
adds in-focus pixels from the next image, and so on. So, you get better
results if your focus step is short. On a cheapish dissection microscope
the focus step can be tough to gauge, so I have added markers to my focus
knob to help me know where I am.

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 2:40 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__http%3A%2F%2Fhelisoft.com__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!SXcTlbYqzJ4TTjyK3jvrUSxUVfew87shDEOVD1jkrnieG1U-UuWEPL8LcDfW4UhLpddON4jujgBb4VwcYuqpQXk%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910203101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Rh8vdm3bYlUSrFklBYYxIA2tknCh0fl7X9HwrB%2BAvYw%3D&reserved=0>.
>> 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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910203101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7AKhFOOwv1VDy7m%2BYhc2H5jb5qw%2B2vZUP5dR%2FqPK2c%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910203101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LGawJjjAzRhczeQvZi3tYuclLHtryh3apu4KT%2BV3sUE%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910203101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7AKhFOOwv1VDy7m%2BYhc2H5jb5qw%2B2vZUP5dR%2FqPK2c%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910203101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FDo4BDEct%2F%2F8diJI%2BsnoHC1qLwwOFbalrQ4IfTR%2BQo8%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910203101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2LpwvEeArZ3IjSkNAi%2B3%2F6RpAS6KyClhmBzqi0lFQkA%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910203101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0QbmzO%2Btr2mTGm3w%2BKcLwP%2Bnc5R1NUmUZWpR3Rs760o%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910203101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7AKhFOOwv1VDy7m%2BYhc2H5jb5qw%2B2vZUP5dR%2FqPK2c%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910203101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LGawJjjAzRhczeQvZi3tYuclLHtryh3apu4KT%2BV3sUE%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910203101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7AKhFOOwv1VDy7m%2BYhc2H5jb5qw%2B2vZUP5dR%2FqPK2c%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910203101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LGawJjjAzRhczeQvZi3tYuclLHtryh3apu4KT%2BV3sUE%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
>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__http%3A%2F%2Facd.ufrj.br__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!SXcTlbYqzJ4TTjyK3jvrUSxUVfew87shDEOVD1jkrnieG1U-UuWEPL8LcDfW4UhLpddON4jujgBb4VwcbLBOOBE%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910203101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5W0z0nQq5jMbHRecTnaSgkwDXvCQr8no0TQfYggrhIk%3D&reserved=0>
>> >
>> > 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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910203101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7AKhFOOwv1VDy7m%2BYhc2H5jb5qw%2B2vZUP5dR%2FqPK2c%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910203101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LGawJjjAzRhczeQvZi3tYuclLHtryh3apu4KT%2BV3sUE%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910203101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7AKhFOOwv1VDy7m%2BYhc2H5jb5qw%2B2vZUP5dR%2FqPK2c%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ORoC%2Bsm6aLmBBeDsCQRCs9cZp7J9O31aMfHAGxonh94%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Iuv1vymOBKLwYX2XuvLyk8G4TsbZw36ymxgTZgn5oug%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fSgKoJjKqhGF2f%2Fh0LLUghxqQ4vMqOv5oGh%2Bj2dW2xQ%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Qp61jMeoVNlYoB%2BNjeajI1wmJvcaJGUReuHRQqsgtcg%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XdY6jp3%2BgNYlJPVfW9WAg%2Fgf1cYh%2Fh7DGjWZME4tcCA%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Iuv1vymOBKLwYX2XuvLyk8G4TsbZw36ymxgTZgn5oug%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ORoC%2Bsm6aLmBBeDsCQRCs9cZp7J9O31aMfHAGxonh94%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Iuv1vymOBKLwYX2XuvLyk8G4TsbZw36ymxgTZgn5oug%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ORoC%2Bsm6aLmBBeDsCQRCs9cZp7J9O31aMfHAGxonh94%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fSgKoJjKqhGF2f%2Fh0LLUghxqQ4vMqOv5oGh%2Bj2dW2xQ%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Qp61jMeoVNlYoB%2BNjeajI1wmJvcaJGUReuHRQqsgtcg%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XdY6jp3%2BgNYlJPVfW9WAg%2Fgf1cYh%2Fh7DGjWZME4tcCA%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Iuv1vymOBKLwYX2XuvLyk8G4TsbZw36ymxgTZgn5oug%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ORoC%2Bsm6aLmBBeDsCQRCs9cZp7J9O31aMfHAGxonh94%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Iuv1vymOBKLwYX2XuvLyk8G4TsbZw36ymxgTZgn5oug%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ORoC%2Bsm6aLmBBeDsCQRCs9cZp7J9O31aMfHAGxonh94%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910359377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Iuv1vymOBKLwYX2XuvLyk8G4TsbZw36ymxgTZgn5oug%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%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910515646%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gXgFQOzYpD5ugkzQH%2FRyfEg2EGVRLg%2FcWntaoaZZB4U%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
>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!SXcTlbYqzJ4TTjyK3jvrUSxUVfew87shDEOVD1jkrnieG1U-UuWEPL8LcDfW4UhLpddON4jujgBb4VwcOTq2EJM%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910515646%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=akZHbFD8gqSffJFIuOupHTMaf6D60KF5tGBhNMNCeCQ%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%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910515646%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=n8WpxSdTTcDzJtvVeRF3Usv5b8kTgNqPY06xIBHcwHg%3D&reserved=0
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!SXcTlbYqzJ4TTjyK3jvrUSxUVfew87shDEOVD1jkrnieG1U-UuWEPL8LcDfW4UhLpddON4jujgBb4Vwc0agPPeY%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C2e9c1340d3124e1a9ed608dcbd5efddc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638593462910515646%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rmUvxiMu1KC5aUcMBOUXEdTXg27AQ1PupOEy9NzFf2o%3D&reserved=0> (use
> the 'visit archived web site' link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page'
> link.
>

More information about the Taxacom mailing list