| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bvalente
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 69
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
okay fair enough. 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. My pincer fell apart so I will retry and change only one thing at a time
Cheers
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Charles Krebs
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 5805
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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")
_________________
http://www.krebsmicro.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 20266
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
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!
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AndrewC
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 1436
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Best thing for damping is probably sorbothane.
Andrew
_________________
rgds, Andrew
"Is that an accurate dictionary ? Charlie Eppes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bvalente
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 69
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Rik and Andrew - feedback much appreciated!
Andrew it's interesting you mentioned this because I addressed my vibration through some sorbothane feet on my main board. I'll have to post a pic of my setup as soon as it's in some semblance of shape.
Cheers
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bvalente
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 69
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AndrewC
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 1436
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
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.
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bvalente
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 69
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
A good starting point is all I can ask!
Cheers
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Krebs
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 5805
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Brian,
| Quote: | | A good starting point is all I can ask! |
Try this and see if it answers some of your your questions.
_________________
http://www.krebsmicro.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AndrewC
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 1436
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Charles Krebs wrote: | Brian,
| Quote: | | A good starting point is all I can ask! |
Try this and see if it answers some of your your questions. |
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/formulas/formulasfielddepth.html
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 ....
_________________
rgds, Andrew
"Is that an accurate dictionary ? Charlie Eppes
Last edited by AndrewC on Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:46 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AndrewC
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 1436
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bvalente
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 69
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Krebs
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 5805
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Andrew,
| Quote: | | Which is basically what is on my web calculator |
I see it's there now, wasn't earlier when I posted!
_________________
http://www.krebsmicro.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AndrewC
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 1436
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bvalente 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!
..... |
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 with
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lauriek
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 2404
Location: South East UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AndrewC wrote: |
For the calculations it doesn't matter if the lens is reversed or not, so long as it is a simple symmetric lens. |
This comes up quite often. How would one know if a lens is a simple symmetric lens or not, examine the apparent aperture size from both sides?
_________________
Flickr | www.laurieknight.net | Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
