40x, Olympus BHA, Nikon D200, 10x PlanoApo, 22 image stack in Helicon focus
Pycnogonid foot detail
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Pycnogonid foot detail
I have a bunch of sea spiders in my fish tank that have a nasty habit of eating all my coral (only the nice ones mind you!) they're always really difficult to remove from the corals and now I know why looking at their feet!
40x, Olympus BHA, Nikon D200, 10x PlanoApo, 22 image stack in Helicon focus
40x, Olympus BHA, Nikon D200, 10x PlanoApo, 22 image stack in Helicon focus
Here we go again. Just when I was starting to get a little bit, mind you, used to jumpers. 
So much for in the buff beach vollyball! 
-
Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
Looks like you were able to get that Olympus "up and running" quickly! The stack worked well, and does indeed show that these guys were designed to have a great ability to "hang on".
Just curious, what optics are you using to "feed" the image into the D200? Does the "fluoresence" intermediate piece have additional magnification built into it as well?
Just curious, what optics are you using to "feed" the image into the D200? Does the "fluoresence" intermediate piece have additional magnification built into it as well?
Hi Charles,
Optics wise it's an olympus 10x/0.32 Plan apo and there's a 3.3x photo eyepiece in the trinocular tube. The flouro section states that it's 1.2x
I did a bit of a crop so 40x was my best guess at the magnification
The scope is really exceeding up to my expectations, it'll be even better when the proper stage arrives for it and I have to stop scanning slides at random for hours on end!
Kev
Optics wise it's an olympus 10x/0.32 Plan apo and there's a 3.3x photo eyepiece in the trinocular tube. The flouro section states that it's 1.2x
I did a bit of a crop so 40x was my best guess at the magnification
The scope is really exceeding up to my expectations, it'll be even better when the proper stage arrives for it and I have to stop scanning slides at random for hours on end!
Kev
They're very interesting critters, but a real pest in a reef. I spend hours at night removing every last one of them just to look again 3 weeks later and find them everywhere again 
They carry their eggs around and when they hatch the larval stage burrows into coral polyps (zoanthids in the case of these spiders) once they're a decent size they re-appear to feed on the corals and lay more eggs 
They carry their eggs around and when they hatch the larval stage burrows into coral polyps (zoanthids in the case of these spiders) once they're a decent size they re-appear to feed on the corals and lay more eggs -
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23938
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Kev, think "scale bars".Hairyduck wrote:my best guess estimate at 40x is way out, I'm going for somewhere in the region of 160x now with the crop I did and the distance from image plane, size of sensor etc! I'll get the hang of this soon hopefully!
See the sticky topics at the top of this forum. --Rik
-
Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
With the 3.3X photo-eyepiece and the 1.2X of the fluoro intermediate piece your total relay magnification is 4X (3.3x1.2=3.96).
So with a 10X objective, the image was recorded at 40X on the sensor. This is where some people get confused. Since most folks are using 10X eyepieces, and thus for this example they are viewing at 100X (10X10), they sometimes will say the photo is 100X.... wrong.
Probably the most accurate verbal description would be to say it was recorded onto a 23.6x15.8mm camera sensor at a magnification of 40X. Then (assuming no cropping) if someone wanted to do the math they could determine the actual magnification of the final (enlarged) image. But nobody really annotates their magnification that way. So it becomes ambiguous (and is something of a pet peeve of mine
) when you see a picture and it is simply labeled, say 100X. Where is that 100X? Through the eyepieces? On the sensor/film? In a 5x7 inch screen display? 11x14 inch print? This is why, if you really want to help the viewer get a sense of the subjects size nothing beats a scale bar. It does not matter how the image is displayed, you always have an accurate size reference.
I don't think a scale bar is always needed in a forum like this, but if the size of the subject is really important to appreciating the picture it is a good idea. Also, in a forum like this, I think there is often some curiosity as to what "hardware" was used, so it is fine to provide the objective magnification, and/or relay optics that were used, even though there are additional factors (sensor size, cropping) that will determine the actual picture magnification.
So with a 10X objective, the image was recorded at 40X on the sensor. This is where some people get confused. Since most folks are using 10X eyepieces, and thus for this example they are viewing at 100X (10X10), they sometimes will say the photo is 100X.... wrong.
Probably the most accurate verbal description would be to say it was recorded onto a 23.6x15.8mm camera sensor at a magnification of 40X. Then (assuming no cropping) if someone wanted to do the math they could determine the actual magnification of the final (enlarged) image. But nobody really annotates their magnification that way. So it becomes ambiguous (and is something of a pet peeve of mine
) when you see a picture and it is simply labeled, say 100X. Where is that 100X? Through the eyepieces? On the sensor/film? In a 5x7 inch screen display? 11x14 inch print? This is why, if you really want to help the viewer get a sense of the subjects size nothing beats a scale bar. It does not matter how the image is displayed, you always have an accurate size reference.I don't think a scale bar is always needed in a forum like this, but if the size of the subject is really important to appreciating the picture it is a good idea. Also, in a forum like this, I think there is often some curiosity as to what "hardware" was used, so it is fine to provide the objective magnification, and/or relay optics that were used, even though there are additional factors (sensor size, cropping) that will determine the actual picture magnification.
-
Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
Oh... it's not that complicated
In fact, I hereby present you with a custom made Hairyduck chart that you can use until you get things going with your new stage micrometer!
So if you have a full size image from your D200 (3872 pixels wide, long dimension) draw a line the length indicated in columns 3 or 4 to represent 20 or 50 microns.
If the picture is sampled down to 800 pixels wide before you have made your scale bar, then draw a line the length indicated in columns 5 or 6 to represent 20 or 50 microns.
(Do this before you crop the image! Then you can crop it to your hearts delight.)
In fact, I hereby present you with a custom made Hairyduck chart that you can use until you get things going with your new stage micrometer!
So if you have a full size image from your D200 (3872 pixels wide, long dimension) draw a line the length indicated in columns 3 or 4 to represent 20 or 50 microns.
If the picture is sampled down to 800 pixels wide before you have made your scale bar, then draw a line the length indicated in columns 5 or 6 to represent 20 or 50 microns.
(Do this before you crop the image! Then you can crop it to your hearts delight.)
-
Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
Kev,
http://www.krebsmicro.com/microsetup2/index.html
Check out this page. It updates a previous page about my working arrangement, and shows the way my BHS is currently set up:Out of interest is there any chance of some photos of your BHS system?
http://www.krebsmicro.com/microsetup2/index.html
