Determining number of shots for a stack?
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
- Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
Brian,
Chiming in a little late here...
All good advice. You don't need to be a mathematician, but you should figure out what the increments are on your micrometer scale. Of course, if you work it out by actual testing, I suppose it really doesn't matter. But sometimes it's nice to look at calculations to come up with a reasonable starting point, and then you'll need to know how much you are actually moving things.
Elf's spreadsheet is very cool, and is the only one I've seen that covers his working method. It's necessary for the way he works, but his technique of focusing with the rear bellows standard is somewhat "specialized".
I have a few calculations that I find useful and put them in a spreadsheet form as well (they have nearly all been brought up in this thread already). It was not for "public consumption" since things were set down pretty randomly for my own purposes, but I added a few notes and re-arranged things so others may find it to be of some use. There's a large number of exceptions, caveats, and footnotes that could/should be added (pupillary magnification factors, circle of confusion selection and such) but with that understanding I think you can get some decent starting points here:
http://krebsmicro.com/DOF3.xls
(The upper sections relate to microscope objectives. The sections below the "black bar" are more universal for bellow use with lenses marked in "f-stops")
Chiming in a little late here...
All good advice. You don't need to be a mathematician, but you should figure out what the increments are on your micrometer scale. Of course, if you work it out by actual testing, I suppose it really doesn't matter. But sometimes it's nice to look at calculations to come up with a reasonable starting point, and then you'll need to know how much you are actually moving things.
Elf's spreadsheet is very cool, and is the only one I've seen that covers his working method. It's necessary for the way he works, but his technique of focusing with the rear bellows standard is somewhat "specialized".
I have a few calculations that I find useful and put them in a spreadsheet form as well (they have nearly all been brought up in this thread already). It was not for "public consumption" since things were set down pretty randomly for my own purposes, but I added a few notes and re-arranged things so others may find it to be of some use. There's a large number of exceptions, caveats, and footnotes that could/should be added (pupillary magnification factors, circle of confusion selection and such) but with that understanding I think you can get some decent starting points here:
http://krebsmicro.com/DOF3.xls
(The upper sections relate to microscope objectives. The sections below the "black bar" are more universal for bellow use with lenses marked in "f-stops")
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23603
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
The image is well executed. The full size version easily passes one of my standard tests for sharpness: make a copy, shrink to 50%, expand by 200%, and compare to the original. If there's little or no difference, it was fuzzy; if there's an obvious difference, it was sharp. It's sharp. And the subject and composition are interesting. Good job!bvalente wrote:I was really aiming for an image that is well executed by this community's standards, but I realize it wasn't helpful in diagnosing.
That said, I confess that my first thought was a lot like ChrisR's. Sometimes you have to change two things at once, but then it gets difficult to tell what mattered. Based on my own experience, and considering the conditions of your first image (shot with flash; center clean; high magnification and lens with its wrong face forward), I'd be inclined to bet on the lens change. I wouldn't be inclined to bet much, though, having been wrong way too many times.
By the way, according to the literature I have, the Luminar 40 mm is designed to be used front forward at magnifications greater than life size. ("Maximum performance" at 5:1; "good performance" from 4:1 to 16:1".) So in switching to that lens, you not only used different glass but also took care of the "wrong face forward" problem.
--Rik
I was talking about putting together a spreadsheet, but this little web page calculator from AndrewC seems to get close to what I was envisioning:
http://tirpor.com/macro/macro_DOF.htm
I only hope you will finish up the microscope objectives portion!
Cheers
Brian
http://tirpor.com/macro/macro_DOF.htm
I only hope you will finish up the microscope objectives portion!
Cheers
Brian
Will do To be honest I put it together to teach myself a bit of Javascript programming but if it is useful I'll finish it off.bvalente wrote:I was talking about putting together a spreadsheet, but this little web page calculator from AndrewC seems to get close to what I was envisioning:
http://tirpor.com/macro/macro_DOF.htm
I only hope you will finish up the microscope objectives portion!
Cheers
Brian
As I'm sure our erudite optical experts will point out - any of these calculations make a lot of assumptions and approximate real behaviour but they do give you a good starting point.
rgds, Andrew
- Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
Brian,
Try this and see if it answers some of your your questions.A good starting point is all I can ask!
Which is basically what is on my web calculator which shouldn't be a surprise as we are using the same equations ... from the MicroscopyU page http://www.microscopyu.com/articles/for ... depth.htmlCharles Krebs wrote:Brian,
Try this and see if it answers some of your your questions.A good starting point is all I can ask!
Though of course one could go into a long discussion about using the CofC or double pixel pitch in the objective calculations I might code that in as an option sometime ....
Last edited by AndrewC on Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.
rgds, Andrew
"Is that an accurate dictionary ? Charlie Eppes
"Is that an accurate dictionary ? Charlie Eppes
bvalente wrote:I was talking about putting together a spreadsheet, but this little web page calculator from AndrewC seems to get close to what I was envisioning:
http://tirpor.com/macro/macro_DOF.htm
I only hope you will finish up the microscope objectives portion!
Cheers
Brian
.... done
rgds, Andrew
"Is that an accurate dictionary ? Charlie Eppes
"Is that an accurate dictionary ? Charlie Eppes
Thanks guys
Both look like great tools. Andrew your page has already proven useful to me and operates on a level I can easily understand. Well, almost.
I don't know all the details, but I do know reversing the lens is generally preferable. Is it possible to include an option to choose reverse or non-reversing of the lens?
Also I hope you add 40mm to the enlarge lens list!
Charlie your spreadsheet is more comprehensive. It will take a bit of time for me to ingest but will be helpful as I use more of my various cameras, objectives, etc. I may try putting on a slightly more user-friendly veneer to the basic calculation engine you have. I am a sucker for pull-down menus and plain english
Cheers
Brian
Both look like great tools. Andrew your page has already proven useful to me and operates on a level I can easily understand. Well, almost.
I don't know all the details, but I do know reversing the lens is generally preferable. Is it possible to include an option to choose reverse or non-reversing of the lens?
Also I hope you add 40mm to the enlarge lens list!
Charlie your spreadsheet is more comprehensive. It will take a bit of time for me to ingest but will be helpful as I use more of my various cameras, objectives, etc. I may try putting on a slightly more user-friendly veneer to the basic calculation engine you have. I am a sucker for pull-down menus and plain english
Cheers
Brian
- Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
Done. Some time I might make it a field you can just type a number into but then you need to add lots of other code to catch errors plus it opens up some other issues to do with web security I don't want to be hassled withbvalente wrote:....
I don't know all the details, but I do know reversing the lens is generally preferable. Is it possible to include an option to choose reverse or non-reversing of the lens?
Also I hope you add 40mm to the enlarge lens list!
.....
For the calculations it doesn't matter if the lens is reversed or not, so long as it is a simple symmetric lens. I'll add a picture sometime soon showing where you need to measure to for the extension - basically it is the shoulder of the enlarger screw mount, so if you are using the lens reversed it seems as if you are measuring to the front of the lens facing the subject.
rgds, Andrew
"Is that an accurate dictionary ? Charlie Eppes
"Is that an accurate dictionary ? Charlie Eppes