Darkfield 20X objective pond water
cyclops
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
jc maccagno
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:43 pm
cyclops
Darkfield 20X objective pond water
-
jc maccagno
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:43 pm
cyclops
The 2 showing the egg sacs as green were taken using darkfield The central picture is the critter as she appeared in the scope.
Nothing was done to alter the colors. I was very pleased with how they turned out...hope this answers your question
Thanks for looking.
John
Nothing was done to alter the colors. I was very pleased with how they turned out...hope this answers your question
Thanks for looking.
John
John, that's why I asked all those questions about your camera. I have noticed, with the various cameras I have tried, that the CCD sensors will pass through much more of the colors than a CMOS sensor in a camera. I believe this is due to the filters they put in front of the sensors inside the mirror box of a camera.
-
specious_reasons
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:46 pm
- Location: Woodridge, IL
jc, I think the deeper, darker colors you're seeing is a result of the height of the condenser. I've had a similar effect when I've lowered the condenser for other reasons and then switched to darkfield.
I'll generally raise my condenser until I don't see that anymore. If it were me taking a picture of that cyclops, I would be trying to make her mostly white, since in brightfield she's mostly colorless and translucent.
I liked the effect, but I felt it was "wrong" and changed settings to "correct" it. Maybe more experienced microscopists than me can weigh in.
I'll generally raise my condenser until I don't see that anymore. If it were me taking a picture of that cyclops, I would be trying to make her mostly white, since in brightfield she's mostly colorless and translucent.
I liked the effect, but I felt it was "wrong" and changed settings to "correct" it. Maybe more experienced microscopists than me can weigh in.
-
Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
Mitch,
In terms of the "color" you get, I realize there is a lot of anecdotal opiniion out there regarding CCD vs CMOS, but I really doubt that is the issue here. Most peoples familiarity with CCD sensors comes from using more basic "point-and-shoot" type cameras,where the manufacturers often "jack up" the color processing in order to provide more "pleasing" results. If there really was any real inherent imaging superiority of CCD to CMOS, then I would think Canon and Nikon would be putting them in their $8000 bodies. Whether it is a CMOS or CCD, the sensor itself provides only a voltage at each pixel site that is then processed into color information. The color you get is far more influenced by the image processing "engine" built into the camera or the software used to "process" a raw file. (I think your T1i probably has the same sensor as the 50D I use on my microscope)
I don't know exactly what you are seeing, but there are a few of possibilities that come to mind. With darkfield microscope illumination it is extremely common for the images or video to be overexposed. Depending on the size, tonality, and position of the subject, often the dark background "fools" the metering system. With darkfield it is very important to check the histograms and be sure that the subjects are exposed properly and not washed out. Auto-exposure settings are a real gamble in darkfield. Manual exposure, and careful monitoring of the histograms is the best way to work. John's darkfield images in this post are not over-exposed at all, and the colors remain rich. (Although many of the subjects encountered in water do not really have much inherent color to start with!)
It is also important to realize that a microscopes light often passes through quite a few pieces of "glass" before it reaches the subject and then the sensor. It may start out at the bulb as a (close to, hopefully) 3200 degree K source, but it will sometimes pick up color casts along the way. (Especially in some older scopes that might have various forms of heat-absorbing-glass in the lighting system). You might want to try taking some photographs after setting up a "custom white balance" on the camera. If you rely on AWB or a "preset" white balance the (directly out of camera) results may be disappointing. And if they are considerably "off" you may not even be able to correct a camera produced "jpg" adequately in post processing.
In terms of the "color" you get, I realize there is a lot of anecdotal opiniion out there regarding CCD vs CMOS, but I really doubt that is the issue here. Most peoples familiarity with CCD sensors comes from using more basic "point-and-shoot" type cameras,where the manufacturers often "jack up" the color processing in order to provide more "pleasing" results. If there really was any real inherent imaging superiority of CCD to CMOS, then I would think Canon and Nikon would be putting them in their $8000 bodies. Whether it is a CMOS or CCD, the sensor itself provides only a voltage at each pixel site that is then processed into color information. The color you get is far more influenced by the image processing "engine" built into the camera or the software used to "process" a raw file. (I think your T1i probably has the same sensor as the 50D I use on my microscope)
I don't know exactly what you are seeing, but there are a few of possibilities that come to mind. With darkfield microscope illumination it is extremely common for the images or video to be overexposed. Depending on the size, tonality, and position of the subject, often the dark background "fools" the metering system. With darkfield it is very important to check the histograms and be sure that the subjects are exposed properly and not washed out. Auto-exposure settings are a real gamble in darkfield. Manual exposure, and careful monitoring of the histograms is the best way to work. John's darkfield images in this post are not over-exposed at all, and the colors remain rich. (Although many of the subjects encountered in water do not really have much inherent color to start with!)
It is also important to realize that a microscopes light often passes through quite a few pieces of "glass" before it reaches the subject and then the sensor. It may start out at the bulb as a (close to, hopefully) 3200 degree K source, but it will sometimes pick up color casts along the way. (Especially in some older scopes that might have various forms of heat-absorbing-glass in the lighting system). You might want to try taking some photographs after setting up a "custom white balance" on the camera. If you rely on AWB or a "preset" white balance the (directly out of camera) results may be disappointing. And if they are considerably "off" you may not even be able to correct a camera produced "jpg" adequately in post processing.
Charles, Canon actually made a CCD sensor camera, the 1D Classic, which I owned for a number of years. Oh yes, you can see a difference in colors between that and all the other Canon xxD and xD bodies, which are CMOS. The T1i is my first xxxD body, but it's CMOS also, and actually pretty darn good when compared to the rest of the Canon line.
But, Johns camera, even though I went to their website, I can't tell if it's CCD or CMOS. They never mention it anywhere on their site that I found.
But, I am going more by anecdotal results. I owned a CCD box type camera, pretty much like Francisco's, and it was definitely a CCD sensor, as is his, and the colors, on the same scope, are much richer than what I see in the eyepiece or on any CMOS sensor camera, USB or Canon.
I do kind of like the colors, true or not, and after April 15th, a CCD box is on my to get list.
As for my shooting now, I am using Flash and setting for Flash WB in the EOS Utility panel, and I always shoot in RAW and have CS4 open them as shot.
After about a hundred back channel mails to NU, and trying his very experienced suggestions, we tracked down a problem in the Fluophot, with all the lenses in the arm, there are two, through the nose turret, being filthy. I finally got it apart and cleaned them, and it made a big difference. Now it's a clean shot up through the arm and trinocular tube, but the binocular prisms are all greasy and filty and I can't get to them for a cleaning.
I just now took some shots of a female cyclops with a few eggs. The first shots after the cleaning. I have not processed them, but I am hoping most of the problem that I have bothered you, Rik and others about, has gone away. LOL
I'll know in an hour or so.
But, Johns camera, even though I went to their website, I can't tell if it's CCD or CMOS. They never mention it anywhere on their site that I found.
But, I am going more by anecdotal results. I owned a CCD box type camera, pretty much like Francisco's, and it was definitely a CCD sensor, as is his, and the colors, on the same scope, are much richer than what I see in the eyepiece or on any CMOS sensor camera, USB or Canon.
I do kind of like the colors, true or not, and after April 15th, a CCD box is on my to get list.
As for my shooting now, I am using Flash and setting for Flash WB in the EOS Utility panel, and I always shoot in RAW and have CS4 open them as shot.
After about a hundred back channel mails to NU, and trying his very experienced suggestions, we tracked down a problem in the Fluophot, with all the lenses in the arm, there are two, through the nose turret, being filthy. I finally got it apart and cleaned them, and it made a big difference. Now it's a clean shot up through the arm and trinocular tube, but the binocular prisms are all greasy and filty and I can't get to them for a cleaning.
I just now took some shots of a female cyclops with a few eggs. The first shots after the cleaning. I have not processed them, but I am hoping most of the problem that I have bothered you, Rik and others about, has gone away. LOL
I'll know in an hour or so.
-
Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
Mitch
Perhaps. But it seems an awfully big jump to conclude that CCD sensors will:
Never had a 1D, but can't see much difference here:
http://tinyurl.com/6gt6s7g
Ultimately, if you prefer the rendition of one camera over another then who cares about the internal details, just use the one that suits you best.
Canon actually made a CCD sensor camera, the 1D Classic, which I owned for a number of years. Oh yes, you can see a difference in colors between that and all the other Canon xxD and xD bodies, which are CMOS.
Perhaps. But it seems an awfully big jump to conclude that CCD sensors will:
Did you actually do a simultaneous side-by-side comparison under the same conditions? And if there is any discernible difference, is it intrinsic to the sensor design (CCD vs CMOS) or the internal color "engine" that builds the color based on the "voltage" from each pixel location? My contention is that the latter is more likely the case.pass through much more of the colors than a CMOS sensor in a camera
Never had a 1D, but can't see much difference here:
http://tinyurl.com/6gt6s7g
Ultimately, if you prefer the rendition of one camera over another then who cares about the internal details, just use the one that suits you best.
I can see a difference in those shots, especially the last plums. The colors look much more real. The Mk3 shots look too bright, like they are lit from within. I just like the pastels from the 1D.
You might want to pick one up, just for fun. They are selling for less than a even an old worn out Nikon objective lens.
On another note, I have processed about 5 images I just took, and there is a noticeable difference in image quality, and color for that matter. A difference in the good direction.
You might want to pick one up, just for fun. They are selling for less than a even an old worn out Nikon objective lens.
On another note, I have processed about 5 images I just took, and there is a noticeable difference in image quality, and color for that matter. A difference in the good direction.