## Substitute for the resolution test slide 3000

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

rjlittlefield
Posts: 21204
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:
ChrisR wrote:I think the color at 20º should match what you get at
(original wavelength)/cos 20º = 282nm .
That's what I thought too. But the calculator disagrees. In fact the calculator's shift has the opposite sign. Increasing the angle causes the calculator's spectrum to shift right, while increasing the maximum film thickness causes it to shift left. I'm very confused.

The paper at https://www.osapublishing.org/viewmedia.cfm?id=79472 supposedly explains how the calculator models the physics of the film reflection, but I haven't read it in enough detail to resolve my confusion.

In any case, here's an animation of the chip as photographed with two angles of light:

Each of the two frames of this animation was a single camera exposure, shot with a 20X objective, using a non-diffused Jansjö lamp.

Despite the obvious change in apparent geometry, nothing physically changed between the two exposures except for the angle of the light.

The difference in aspect ratio between the two frames is entirely due to the "utilized aperture" effect. Physically the slide is at a fixed angle, tilted about 22 degrees with respect to the objective. In one frame the light is positioned above the slide, so that the reflection enters roughly the center of the objective. In the other frame, the light is positioned at a much lower angle, so that the reflection barely enters the edge of the objective. Effectively, the slide is being viewed at a lot lower angle in the second case, and the difference in aspect ratio is just perspective foreshortening corresponding to the different virtual viewing angle.

In both cases, the narrow angle of the illumination greatly stops down the objective, resulting in greatly increased DOF and correspondingly reduced resolution for focused detail.

--Rik

ChrisR
Posts: 8575
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK
Nice demo. I expect those who haven't witnessed the effect on geometry, wouldn't believe it..

If I'm understandng the colour shift change at all, it isn't as simple thought because of the light spectrum. Different frequencies having different behaviours in the dielectric. What comes out is rather like a Michel-Levy chart.
I'd wondered how they came about...
Chris R

mjkzz
Posts: 1237
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:38 pm
Location: California/Shenzhen
Contact:
wow, geez, this is unbelievable . . . thanks!

mjkzz
Posts: 1237
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:38 pm
Location: California/Shenzhen
Contact:
on second thought, maybe it is not virtual view angle, it is the real but equivalent thing -- for a super smooth surface where things are measured in nm, if we use the light source as reference (instead of the lens) and look at the light path, ie, line of sight entering the lens . . .

So even though the angle between the lens and subject does not change, the angle of light beam entering the lens change due to super smooth surface, by line of sight, effectively, it is equivalent of changing the angle between lens and subject surface as if the position of light source is fixed.

ChrisR
Posts: 8575
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK
Fan, you need page 6 of Rik's article about the No-Parallax Point.
Try it with paper with a pencil-diameter hole over a camera lens. It's surprising.
Much the same happens if the light from the subject only hits one part of the lens. It's just like having a small aperture over the lens.
Chris R

Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:09 pm
Hello everyone,
I have just taken a photograph of the BWO-test illuminated by two LEDs.

( CANON EOS M3 + CANON EF 70-200L + NIKON LU Plan 10x / 0.30 )

Some areas have been illuminated OK but some not softly enough (too many reflections).
Maybe should I change the alignment?

Last edited by Adalbert on Sun Feb 19, 2017 5:09 am, edited 3 times in total.

ChrisR
Posts: 8575
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK
How does it look at 100%?

(I've been thinking ... crossed polars )
Chris R

Lou Jost
Posts: 4727
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Contact:
"Nice demo. I expect those who haven't witnessed the effect on geometry, wouldn't believe it.. "

Yes, this is one of the most interesting and counter-intuitive things I've yet seen on this forum! And that's saying a lot.

ChrisR
Posts: 8575
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK
You've presumably seen it with those inter-lens apertures you make?
Put one in front of a large diameter lens with everything fixed, while you live-view. Move aperture back and forth on centre, then round and round.
Chris R

Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:09 pm
Hi Chris,
”crossed polars”
Do you mean polarizing filters on the LEDs ?
”inter-lens apertures”
I am using a tele as a tube lens.
So, I only can change the aperture of this tele. But the changing from 4 to 5.6 causes vignetting on my camera
What kind of the inter-lens aperture do you mean?

rjlittlefield
Posts: 21204
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:
ChrisR wrote:”inter-lens apertures”
What kind of the inter-lens aperture do you mean?
I'm pretty sure that ChrisR was replying to Lou Jost, who is fond of using added apertures (search "Waterhouse stops") between the lenses in a combo. The experiment ChrisR suggests is to make such an aperture small, position it between lens and subject, and move it around laterally while observing the image in live view. The result may be shocking: as you move just the aperture, the appearance of the scene changes just as if you were moving the lens -- even though the lens and camera are actually staying in one place! The explanation is provided in the link that ChrisR gave, to my paper about "Theory of the No-Parallax Point..."

--Rik

Lou Jost
Posts: 4727
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Contact:
ChrisR, I never have moved those apertures around, since they are sandwiched between lenses. I will try that!

And Rik, thanks for explaining this in the link and paper.

Adalbert, you are less likely to get vignetting if you put an aperture between your objective and tube lens, rather than using the aperture of the tube lens. Hence my fondness for paper apertures between lenses.

ChrisR
Posts: 8575
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK
Rik, thanks for the straightening.
Lou prepare to be amazed

Hi Chris,
Quote:
”crossed polars”

Do you mean polarizing filters on the LEDs ?
No, I mean one on the light source, the other on the camera.
For a simple metal mirror you would get extinction if the polarizers were fully crossed.
It isn't exactly a simple mirror, so I expect the edges at least, would show.
Chris R

Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:09 pm
Hi Lou,
Something like that:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pair-of-Zoom-1- ... Sw0HVWC042
between the tele and the microscope lens?