Looking to build a setup with 100nm resolvable detail

[toejama1]

I want to scan a coin and some other objects at a imaging resolution with resolvable detail as high as 100 nanometers. (10nm resolvable detail would be even better.)


I was thinking of using a Canon 5D mark III with a Canon MPE-65mm Macro lens with telecentric lens adapter to ensure its an orhographic view.
But that only has a micron resolution? If I understand it right. and Imaging Area: 635mm (X) x 534mm (Y) x 254mm (Z).

Are there any other lens adapters or do I have to start thinking of using a microscope to get this nanometer level of resolution.... with a image area of 63 x53x25 mm (or a factor of 10 lower)

I am looking for the best suggestions for exactly what to setup
..

[Sam236]

for 0.1 micro meter tor 0.01 micro. try SEM

[rjlittlefield]

Sorry, but the resolution you're asking for cannot be done with optics and visible light. See HERE for some explanation.

What is it that you're really trying to accomplish? How did you come up with 100 nm as a specification?

--Rik

[toejama1]

your right, we did try a profolomiter at our university.

Could we rig an optical system to get around 300nm resolvable details, or would that still run into the diffraction problem

We want to get surface and texture features near the wavelength of light

[rjlittlefield]

Could we rig an optical system to get around 300nm resolvable details, or would that still run into the diffraction problem

We want to get surface and texture features near the wavelength of light

You would still run into huge problems with diffraction. To get 300nm resolvable details, you would need to be running blue light and a very wide aperture, approaching NA=1. (See Table 1 at http://www.microscopyu.com/articles/for ... ution.html .) At best, the data will probably be a mess under those conditions. See http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 187#149187 and http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=16736 for discussion and illustration of how surface features "squirm around" even under much more modest conditions. For convenience and clarity, I'll copy the key illustrations here:

50X NA 0.55


10X NA 0.28


There is another phenomenon called "surface speckle" that will also mess you up. See the long thread at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=19582, especially the latter pages, for example the illustration at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 515#123515.

Bottom line is that whenever you're working with a wide aperture at high magnification, what you end up capturing is some information about surface and texture features, but it will be a huge struggle to get clear images of the features themselves.

--Rik

[Chris S.]

Toejama1,

Does your university have an atomic force microscope, along with people experienced in using it? At the level you're looking to examine, an ATF or similar regime would seem appropriate.

--Chris

[seta666]

Correct me if I am wrong but a 50/0.80 like the nikon LU 50/0.80 1mm WD or the Nikon 100/0.80 ELWD 2mm WD should resolve around 0,35um max which is close to the 300nm target.

Both lenses are perfectly usable. In an APS-C body the 50/0,80 can be used at 30X with good corner performance.

Lepisma scales with 50/0,80 on a NEX 5N

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8116/860 ... fa18_o.jpg

I tried a couple of nikon NA 0,90 and NA 0,95 lenses but the outcome was plain awfull, but in theory these lenses can resolve up to 0,29um, right?

This is the best I could get from a nikon epi 100/0,95 but the 0,3mm WD and the way the image warps make it a pain to use

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7461/150 ... f909_o.jpg

Regards
Javier

[rjlittlefield]

and the way the image warps make it a pain to use

That sounds like one aspect of the concerns that I'm raising. When you try to push very near the wavelength limit, you have to use such a wide aperture that the warps go crazy. If you could compare the structure shown in https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7461/150 ... f909_o.jpg against what an SEM would show, I suspect you'd find significant differences for the fine details down near the wavelength limit.

Correct me if I am wrong but a 50/0.80 like the nikon LU 50/0.80 1mm WD or the Nikon 100/0.80 ELWD 2mm WD should resolve around 0,35um max which is close to the 300nm target.

Sure. Of if toejama1 can slack off even farther, to say 500 nm, then the problem gets way simpler. (He started wanting 100 nm, remember, and 10 nm would have been better.)

I notice that toejama1 also wrote "with a image area of 63 x53x25 mm (or a factor of 10 lower)". A 50X objective only covers an area about 0.4 mm square, so to reach the coverage goal he'd be looking at a lot of side-by-side stitching as well.

I look at this whole thread as being part of some negotiation on toejama1's part between what he'd like to have and what the physics allows. I'll be interested to see how it evolves.

--Rik

[jswatts]

Also, if tojama1's uni has a confocal, you should be able to get about 200nm resolution out of it in reflection mode, but I'd probably go the SEM route for this.

[pwnell]

Also, if tojama1's uni has a confocal, you should be able to get about 200nm resolution out of it in reflection mode, but I'd probably go the SEM route for this.

Sure but would confocal not require the subject to be fluorescent?

[Choronzon]

Not in reflection mode, all filters and dichroics removed, going straight to the PMT

[toejama1]

rjlittlefield is right ... I started too look as low as I could go, and now realize I can only go so far. Reading more now your right 500 nm -1000nm gets a lot easier.

I was looking for suggestions of what rigs to hack together to get a nice telecentric ( orthographic view of the subject) as close to wavelength of light as possible.

I was inspired by some of these rigs:


http://gigamacro.com/wp-content/uploads ... 664643.png

and

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 5c638fa783

and

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 01d71d4a4d


and was trying to build something on my own.
But guess looking for the right adapters to rig my canon or nikon cameras (I have both so whatever is easier to rig).

[Chris S.]

Toejama1,

I am looking for the best suggestions for exactly what to setup.

The best setups are optimized around a particular user's needs, and we don't know nearly enough about your needs to give detailed, useful advice.

Can you tell us, as concretely as possible, exactly what you're looking to accomplish? What budget you have? What level of throughput are you looking to do? How much human labor can you put into imaging each specimen? What are the maximum and minimum sizes of your specimens? How much vertical relief do your specimens have? Do you need flexibility in your lighting (or if not, what job do you want your lighting to do)? You've described a wide range of resolutions--can you help us understand how you value the trade-offs inherent in more or less resolution?

Also, what was unsatisfactory when you tried using a profilometer? Were you using it in contact or non-contact mode? Is the instrument a good one?

For a very good list of macro set-ups, see here. But as you peruse these setups, bear in mind that the best of these have been optimized around a particular set of needs. Matching your needs in a system design is like making a glove that fits your hand. Any perceptive and honest macro system builder will frankly elucidate what a given design is good at and not so good at. So for us to recommend a particular setup to you, we have to know as much as possible about what you want to accomplish with it.

I realize that you've said: "We want to get surface and texture features near the wavelength of light." And "I want to scan a coin and some other objects at a imaging resolution with resolvable detail as high as 100 nanometers. (10nm resolvable detail would be even better.)" But this does not give us anything close to the level of information necessary to help you design an appropriate instrument.

Cheers,

--Chris

[rjlittlefield]

rjlittlefield is right ... I started too look as low as I could go, and now realize I can only go so far. Reading more now your right 500 nm -1000nm gets a lot easier.

I was looking for suggestions of what rigs to hack together to get a nice telecentric ( orthographic view of the subject) as close to wavelength of light as possible.

At such high magnification, getting orthographic perspective will be trivial and will not require any special optics. That's because DOF is so shallow that there is no significant change of scale within the in-focus slab. Probably you'll be focus stacking, in which case just turn off the "scale" part of alignment and you'll end up with orthographic perspective even if the optics aren't quite telecentric by themselves.

Regarding the references you've provided, those are not the best to be working from.

If you do still need telecentric for other applications, then please ask again. I believe that GIGAmacro's telecentric adapters are based on the added-achromat technique discussed at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=1472. I'd be happy to walk you through those if necessary (as I did with the folks at GIGAmacro). But if your main interest is high magnification, it doesn't matter anyway.

As for setup, the comments and questions by Chris S. are perfectly on point. That's not surprising, since his own rig has now evolved to the point where he routinely shoots very deep high mag stacks, like >1000 frames at 100X NA 0.8, nominal resolution < 400 nm. See http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=8247 and follow the links to more recent threads describing advanced features of the Bratcam. Chris's rig has been widely emulated, but still it has evolved to meet his own needs and yours might be significantly different. The more you can tell us about what you really want to do, the more we can help you.

--Rik