Macro Imaging Setup: Homage to "Powers of 10" Movie

[Andy Resnick]

Since my fluorescent source it at the shop for repairs, I took the opportunity to set up a proper macro imaging setup. I saw the "Powers of 10" movie in school, maybe 1st or 2nd grade, and it had a lasting impact on my career choices as a scientist. So, I decided to take a series of images similar in spirit to the movie as an homage to the filmakers, and (possibly) as a warm up to 10/10/10:

http://www.powersof10.com/

The first series of images is of a filter insert from an old Leitz microscope, and the second is of a 0.055" diameter bolt. The height of the 'K' is 0.07" in the first series. All images except for the final one in each sequence are full-frame.

The lenses used for the first set are (in order): 24mm macro, 85mm planar, 100 mm luminar- two, 63 mm luminar- two, 25 mm luminar, 16 mm luminar, and a 100% crop of the 16 mm luminar. I estimate the range of magnification from the first to the last is about 1:10^5.

The lenses used for the second set are the same as the first, but I've added the zoom luminar (one) in between the 85mm and 100 mm, only used one magnification at 63 mm, and then added a 16x, 40x, and 80x epiplan microscope at the bottom end. Again, the final image is a 100% crop at 80x, and this sequence represents a magnification range of about 1:10^6.

As I said, these are warm-ups for something a little more 'professional', once I find something good to photograph- maybe a fine patterned cloth or needlepoint, for example.

Enjoy!

http://a.imageshack.us/img685/5706/dsc01360.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img690/1542/dsc01362.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img46/3180/dsc01365.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img838/857/dsc01377.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img203/5424/dsc01382.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img822/332/dsc01391.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img805/3794/dsc01397.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img405/8163/dsc01403.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img444/1777/dsc0140310.png







http://a.imageshack.us/img641/1593/dsc01420.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img638/8254/dsc01423.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img203/7534/dsc01430.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img180/3152/dsc01447.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img12/892/dsc01458.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img5/6596/dsc01461.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img40/6899/dsc01470.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img101/8179/dsc01475.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img230/5593/dsc01481.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img694/9052/dsc01484.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img844/8413/dsc01485.png

http://a.imageshack.us/img810/1183/dsc0148510.png

 

[turbo]

Neat!

 

[GeorginaS]

Spiffy!

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Very nice! But why does the ninth photo of the second lot seem different?

 

[Andy Resnick]

Good eye- when I switched over to the epiplan objectives, the working distance got so short (<< 1 mm) that I needed to move the light. Consequently, I've adapted the luminar epi-illuminator for the next sequences of images (forthcoming).

 

[DaveC426913]

That is very cool.
I will tune in for your subsequent demos.

 

[Andy Resnick]

thanks- I made some progress last week (popped the top off a DSP with excellent results), but I'm still working on imaging dielectric materials (wood, paper, etc)- epi illumination provides nearly zero contrast.

Hopefully I'll have something worth posting in a couple of weeks.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Ok- here's my (likely) final two series. These images took a long time to setup and arrange, but I'm very pleased with the outcome. There may be a Nikon Small World submission hiding in these. These will be a part of a seminar I'm presenting here at CSU, and (shameless self-promotion) I'm willing to travel.

The first set are images of a computer chip. Boring and cliche', I know. However, the images show the effect of lighting: most of the macro images use oblique reflected illumination, while the micro images use epi-illumination and DIC.

The second set of images is of the balance point on an old analytical microbalance that I got from my dad. I really like these. All were done using reflected oblique illumination. For some reason, epi-illumination completely obliterates all contrast in dielectric materials: I tried stamps, 1200 grit sandpaper, and a wooden box. The 'box' images are ok, but in the interest of space I won't post them here.

None of these images have been altered (other than size). Again, all full-frame except for the last computer ship image.

Something about the luminars I really like is the level of contrast the images have: deep blacks and bright whites can coexist right next to each other (acutance).

Enjoy!


[PLAIN]http://a.imageshack.us/img831/9543/dsc1623s.jpg

[PLAIN]http://a.imageshack.us/img801/9352/dsc1626l.jpg

[PLAIN]http://a.imageshack.us/img827/9936/dsc1633f.jpg

[PLAIN]http://a.imageshack.us/img829/3159/dsc1930.jpg

[PLAIN]http://a.imageshack.us/img837/3305/dsc1941z.jpg

[PLAIN]http://a.imageshack.us/img825/1436/dsc1906.jpg

[PLAIN]http://a.imageshack.us/img687/9269/dsc1909ug.jpg



[PLAIN]http://a.imageshack.us/img529/2771/dsc2044h.jpg

[PLAIN]http://a.imageshack.us/img828/7830/dsc1978.jpg

[PLAIN]http://a.imageshack.us/img842/7185/dsc1986k.jpg

[PLAIN]http://a.imageshack.us/img833/8574/dsc1988.jpg

[PLAIN]http://a.imageshack.us/img824/4262/dsc1991.jpg

[PLAIN]http://a.imageshack.us/img836/8721/dsc2016.jpg

[PLAIN]http://a.imageshack.us/img153/4291/dsc2037.jpg

 

[DaveC426913]

I hope you're posting these on a personal website somewhere.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I don't have one. Too lazy/insufficient motivation. Although now that I have a lab and stuff to populate a site with, I should at least go and get a domain name.

 

[Andy Resnick]

DaveC426913 gave me sufficient motivation- I started a blog for my lab. I won't duplicate postings, most likely I'll put a single image here and have the extended images/discussion on the blog.

 

[DaveC426913]

DaveC426913 gave me sufficient motivation- I started a blog for my lab. I won't duplicate postings, most likely I'll put a single image here and have the extended images/discussion on the blog.

Awesome! Point me at it please.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Awesome! Point me at it please.

My pleasure!

http://resnicklab.wordpress.com/

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Stunning photos, not only jointly but severally too, thanks!

 

[Andy Resnick]

New set- an errant bluetooth headset fell into my clutches, and I couldn't resist taking it apart. It's takes time to find objects that look interesting through this large magnification range; computer chips and biological materials are pretty much the only things I have found. The headset has a a couple LEDs, one of which I assume is GaN, which has a nice blue color against the reddish copper tracings.

Enjoy!

[PLAIN]http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/8810/dsc3460f.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3958/dsc34630.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4750/dsc3469.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/5590/dsc3478l.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3306/dsc34840.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/328/dsc34841.jpg

 

[JaredJames]

http://a.imageshack.us/img685/5706/dsc01360.png

Blimey, metal equipment and is that metal trunking I see running around the edge with a power supply on. Would I be right in thinking you don't have an Earth on your equipment over there (I'm assuming you're in the states with the two pin plug)?

Bit risky ain't it.

^{Yes, after looking through all of those lovely pics, that is what I pick up on and feel urged to comment about!}

 

[Andy Resnick]

Blimey, metal equipment and is that metal trunking I see running around the edge with a power supply on. Would I be right in thinking you don't have an Earth on your equipment over there (I'm assuming you're in the states with the two pin plug)?

Bit risky ain't it.

^{Yes, after looking through all of those lovely pics, that is what I pick up on and feel urged to comment about!}

Hm? Let's see- the electrical lines are three-conductor (hot,neutral, ground); the white box is a lamp housing (which has a power supply inside, but I don't think that's what you meant), but yes- I do have a lot of electrical, optical, biological, and chemical hazards in my lab. Part of lab training for scientists is learning how to mitigate and control hazards.

Sure, accidents happen- a chem. prof. here electrocuted himself last year (and the university is not at fault).

 

[JaredJames]

Ah, so you do have an Earth in your electrics. Didn't think you did. Problem solved.

In the UK, you're not supposed to fit any metal electrical fittings without an Earth (ground). If it was to short to the metal and you touched it, you'd be in for a nasty shock.

You can have all the lab training in the world, but if you don't have an Earth and it shorts to a metal case / trunking / machine, you're going to be in a world of pain.

 

[FlexGunship]

I always feel like I wish the sequences of photos would go "just one more."

 

[Andy Resnick]

I always feel like I wish the sequences of photos would go "just one more."

heh- me, too!

 

[fuzzyfelt]

New set- an errant bluetooth headset fell into my clutches, and I couldn't resist taking it apart. It's takes time to find objects that look interesting through this large magnification range; computer chips and biological materials are pretty much the only things I have found. The headset has a a couple LEDs, one of which I assume is GaN, which has a nice blue color against the reddish copper tracings.

Enjoy!

[PLAIN]http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/8810/dsc3460f.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3958/dsc34630.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4750/dsc3469.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/5590/dsc3478l.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3306/dsc34840.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/328/dsc34841.jpg[/QUOTE]

I have enjoyed very much! Such a good concept, beautifully done.

 

[Pythagorean]

Are you taking requests? =P If so:

1) something biological/organic.
2) something "fractal"

 

[Andy Resnick]

Are you taking requests? =P If so:

1) something biological/organic.
2) something "fractal"

Of course- at least, I can do my best. I have some fish vertebrae that may be interesting, and some sort of highly porous rock (maybe a byproduct of the local steelmills). Since the semester is almost over, I'll have some time to play.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Here you go, Pythagorean: I posted the original 24 MP images on my blog.

[PLAIN]http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/9061/dsc35300.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/5826/dsc3524.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/9898/dsc3519.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/1959/dsc3517.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4984/dsc35080.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/4536/dsc35081.jpg


[PLAIN]http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4706/dsc3532.jpg
[PLAIN]http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/4769/dsc3534.jpg
[PLAIN]http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/1541/dsc3536m.jpg
[PLAIN]http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/7771/dsc3544s.jpg
[PLAIN]http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/4071/dsc35471.jpg
[PLAIN]http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/7205/dsc3547k.jpg
[PLAIN]http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/6138/dsc35451.jpg
[PLAIN]http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5174/dsc35450.jpg

 

[Andy Resnick]

When it rains, it pours: here's another interesting object. This will be the last series for a little while, I found something that should give me some amazing images or be a complete failure- it's going to take a while for me to grok the thing.

A long time ago, when the Earth was much younger, people recorded sounds on plastic disks called 'records'. These were large and prone to damage. After the usual sequence with the Luminars (which gave *amazing* images), I put the thing under the Ultraphot for further enlargement- up to 160x. I'm not sure where the colors came from, but they add a nice abstract quality to the images- I took images both of the top surface, and the bottom groove. One can almost hear Jello...

Enjoy!

[PLAIN]http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/9034/dsc3549.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/8506/dsc3550.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/557/dsc3556.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9377/dsc35600.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3124/dsc3562.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/3324/dsc35640.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/8076/dsc3570.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/5893/dsc3571.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/3644/dsc3574.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/237/dsc3575p.jpg

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Thanks so much for sharing this, Andy! I really think they are brilliant.

The concept is so good and illustrated so clearly. More, the work of a scientist, working with such instruments, systematically observing nature, providing information of precise distances, beginning with the familiar and becoming more and more a perspective which belongs in the realm of science. Described by context.

And the images are so successfully artistic- individually stunning, with such strong, balanced composition of form, colour, tonality, etc. Very beautiful.

I really like the mingling of boundaries the concept and images have, beautifully bridging science and art.

Even more, the subject of the last group is fascinating in itself, but I especially like the incorporation of again, another field of experience- sound. Science, visual art and (some favourite) music together! Gorgeous!

 

[Andy Resnick]

Thanks so much for sharing this, Andy! I really think they are brilliant.

Thanks! <blushes>.

I like how the epi-illuminated images look very abstract and mysterious- I'd like to see if I can get a better color palate, but I have to be careful not to scorch the plastic.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Yes! I missed saying that!

 

[Andy Resnick]

Ok- another object. My old CD/DVD writer died- mechanical failure, not optical- so I have been slowly disassembling the optical head, and hope to post photos of the interesting bits. Here's the backside of the assembly:

[PLAIN]http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/6070/dsc4326c.jpg

Going from bottom to top, there are two diode lasers (red and blue), then two quarter-wave plates. Both beams are sent through a beamsplitter (the cube) before hitting a dichroic mirror and sent (down) to the CD/DVD. On the frontside of the optical assembly is another interesting subassembly- the beam steering and alignment control. The reflected beam then comes back up and hits the silicon detector (the thing that looks like an LED). All the way on the left is what I started with. There's a lens right in front of the metal plate, and the chip on the plate is actually another photodetector (not sure what the function is), which I took photos of today. This sequence starts with the 63mm, 25mm, and 16mm luminars and then some photos of the chip under differential interference contrast (32X). The final photo is a 1:1 crop of a microscope image- the other images are essentially full-frame.

[PLAIN]http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/8123/dsc4498.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/8852/dsc4504k.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9365/dsc4506l.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/8576/dsc4514.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/8818/dsc4513.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/8674/dsc45131.jpg

Enjoy!

 

[Andy Resnick]

Chalk this up to "being unprepared". Today I hooked up the diode lasers- not easy, but I was able to get one to work great- it's red and operates at 3V, 500 mA. I wasn't getting any output from the other- in my ignorance, I thought the CD wavelength is red and the DVD wavelength is blue (blu-ray?). I was being *extremely* uncareful- looking directly in the various exit apertures to look for light, for example. Well. I now know that the CD wavelength is 780 nm, and the DVD wavelength is 640 nm. So, all the time I wasn't getting any output, I was actually staring directly at the 780 nm output. I got lucky! I should have simply put a spectrometer at the output and looked for a signal.

In any case, here's two shots of the optical assembly lit up with the red laser- the backside, and the front, where the light goes to the DVD. I guess I should mention the entire assembly is about 1" across

[PLAIN]http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/8937/resultofdsc4541.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4683/dsc4549v.jpg

I like the frontside- very HAL-9000.

[PLAIN]http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/6175/dsc45491.jpg

 

[Dembadon]

I love this thread, Andy, and appreciate that you're sharing these with us.

 

[Andy Resnick]

My pleasure!

 

[fuzzyfelt]

I do too, thanks!

 

[Andy Resnick]

Here's an interesting object: a piece of coral

[PLAIN]http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8051/dsc4663c.jpg

As I mentioned, I've been playing with focus stacking. The human eye operates between (about) f/3 and f/8.5, depending on the pupil diameter. Recall, images look most natural when using 50mm focal length lenses on a 35mm format image: you can verify this for yourself, by simply looking through the camera viewfinder with one eye and keeping both eyes open. When I do this, I almost can't tell I am looking through a camera with one eye.

Using the 50mm lens/35mm image combination, f/8.5 produces a hyperfocal distance of about 32 feet- that is, everything between 16 feet and infinity is in focus. A relaxed eye focuses on distant objects, and so we have been accustomed to seeing most things in focus.

At high magnification, low f-numbers (high numerical aperture) is required in order to resolve detail. For example, a 4X objective may have an na = 0.1 (f/4.5), while a 16X objective typically has na = 0.5 (f/1) and higher. My 63X immersion objective operates at f/0.34.

The result is that 'microscopic' imaging produces images that don't look 'normal'- the depth of field is highly restricted. For flat objects, this is not a problem. But for 3-D objects, like the coral above, going to a moderate magnification gives images like this (these are all full-frame images):

[PLAIN]http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/4584/dsc4666p.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/1466/dsc4665s.jpg

and at higher magnifications:

[PLAIN]http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/4102/dsc4668b.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/6193/dsc4667.jpg

There's nothing wrong with these, but they don't look 'natural'. I could stop down the lenses used for some of these images (the top one was taken with the 100mm luminar, the middle two with the 63mm luminar) to improve the depth of focus, but only because the magnification is low- to have the aperture begin to conflict with the resolution limit would mean I operate the lenses in excess of f/300, beyond the capability of the iris. The bottom two were taken with the 25 mm luminar, and the thin depth of field is a dominant feature of the image. I can't stop down the 25mm much past f/16, and that still only gives me a thin depth of field in addition to causing resolution problems. The 16mm luminar doesn't have an iris, so I have no ability to control the depth of field with that lens. Here's an image is of a 'thing' I happened to notice in one of the 25mm images (top right corner). I used the 16mm luminar at about 30X magnification (the lens was about 2 feet from the camera), and here's a single frame from the stack:

[PLAIN]http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/165/dsc5066.jpg

Again, the thin depth of field is so dominant, the image appears unnatural. So I turned to focus stacking when going up to the 25mm and 16mm luminars to generate images like this:

[PLAIN]http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/903/newout99994.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/1640/newout99991.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4236/newout99992.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4168/newout99998.jpg

There are definitely some artifacts from focus stacking, and there's room for improvement as far as contrast goes, but clearly focus stacking is a useful tool.

As an aside, does anyone know what that thing is? It's about the size of a period ("."'), and I think it's from the ocean (the coral was sitting out on a desk for decades), and organic in origin- I don't think it's a piece of netting.

 

[DaveC426913]

Interestingly, there's another side of the coin from your 'unnatural-looking' depth-of-field.

That very narrow depth-of-field is the very thing that visually indicates we are zoomed way in. When you increase the depth of field, you remove this clue, and our brain cannot interpret the scale. So, though we are looking at something only a few hundred micrometers wide, it appears to be a less dramatic few millimeters wide.

That object is most surely the skeleton of a http://www.google.ca/images?q=diato...source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1259&bih=597".

 

[FlexGunship]

That object is most surely the skeleton of a http://www.google.ca/images?q=diato...source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1259&bih=597".

Um... um... um... um...

[PLAIN]http://www.temple-of-flora.com/images/500/diatom_3_500.jpg

[PLAIN]http://www.iwasabducted.com/ufogallery/wallonia061590b.jpg

[PLAIN]http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/esi/1999/princeton/projects/diatoms/gfx/Diatom.jpg

[URL]http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/11/13/ufo2_wideweb__470x270,0.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/systems/images/diatom.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/gulf/hoaxmobile%202.jpg[/URL]

 

[Andy Resnick]

Interestingly, there's another side of the coin from your 'unnatural-looking' depth-of-field.

That very narrow depth-of-field is the very thing that visually indicates we are zoomed way in. When you increase the depth of field, you remove this clue, and our brain cannot interpret the scale. So, though we are looking at something only a few hundred micrometers wide, it appears to be a less dramatic few millimeters wide.

That object is most surely the skeleton of a http://www.google.ca/images?q=diato...source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1259&bih=597".

Good point, regarding depth-of-field cues. That said, *removing* the context is a big part of my photography!

Anyhoo- diatoms. It could be, but I don't think it is for three reasons- 1) it's too big (call it 100 microns across), 2) it's not bilaterally symmetric, and 3) it's black- diatom skeletons are made of silica. But, there a bit of skeleton near dead-center of this image that appears similar:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Diatomaceous_Earth_BrightField.jpg

Here's a better image of the thing (better lighting, mostly):

[PLAIN]http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/6548/newout99996.jpg

and a 1:1 crop showing the open structure a little better. I really think this is a multi-cellular organism

[PLAIN]http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/338/newout999961.jpg

 

[Andy Resnick]

Today I struck a blow for aggrieved spouses everywhere- I came into possession of this evil device:

[PLAIN]http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4686/dsc5220c.jpg

and have been disassembling it slowly, with extreme prejudice, while the theme to 'Dexter' plays in the background. ('Dexter' is a tv show concerning a serial killer, the theme song is a droll waltz played over video of the various violent acts performed during the morning routine- shaving, smashing eggs, grinding coffee beans, etc).

Today I focused on the camera flash and speakers- I'm not sure how the flash works (other than discharging a capacitor into something), so I was curious to see what it looked like:

With the lens:

[PLAIN]http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/8623/dsc5241.jpg

Without the lens:

[PLAIN]http://img852.imageshack.us/img852/8007/dsc5243.jpg

Not much insight here. Although the yellow paint/ink is fluorescent- here's a shot taken while illuminating the device with 405 nm light-

[PLAIN]http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2224/dsc5262j.jpg

And the speakers: note, the crackberry is held to gether with a *lot* of adhesive, and there are also a lot of magnets. There's no earwax in these photos (AFAIK...)

[PLAIN]http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/1436/dsc5240.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5967/dsc5233.jpg

The red part is actually copper wire- a coil of it sits around the central magnet:

[PLAIN]http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/3753/dsc5237.jpg

The next photos will most likely be the trackball and camera. The trackball failed repeatedly, which led to the donation of this monstrosity and my dissection table.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Here's the next batch of photos: first, the trackball assembly-

[PLAIN]http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/7929/dsc5265.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/582/dsc5267i.jpg

The black cylinders are magnets, and I'm hesitant to disassemble this further, as the 4 magnet/gear parts will not stay in place. The ball rotates the gears via friction, and somehow the rotational motion is picked up by a circuit on the main board- the magnets lie over the chips.

[PLAIN]http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/9524/dsc5252l.jpg

But the main action today is the camera- here's the backside of the blackberry, with all the covers removed:

[PLAIN]http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/5655/dsc5270.jpg

There are *lots* of exotic components, and I'll post photos as I explore my way around. The camera is the square at the top. It pops out as an integrated unit:

[PLAIN]http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/3423/dsc5311.jpg

and the sensor is the sliver of silicon at the back. Here's a couple shots, front and back of the camera assembly:

[PLAIN]http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/5731/dsc5309.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/9889/dsc5314.jpg

And the chip popped right off:

[PLAIN]http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/6858/dsc5345.jpg

Zooming in on the sensor, I wanted to get a clean shot of the Bayer filter-

[PLAIN]http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/3963/dsc5342d.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/3199/dsc5376m.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3706/dsc5372fi.jpg

But getting the last two shots was tricky- I have an unusual immersion lens (63X, water) that is designed for use without a coverslip. I held my breath, put a drop of clean water on the ship, took my photos and blew the water off the chip with some pressurized air- no obvious damage or residue was left behind.

The pixels on this sensor are only a couple of microns on a side.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

So good!

 

[DaveC426913]

[PLAIN]http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2224/dsc5262j.jpg

Wife: "Hey what's this button do?"
:FLASH!:
Andy: Aaaiiieeeeee! My eyes!

 

[Andy Resnick]

Wife: "Hey what's this button do?"
:FLASH!:
Andy: Aaaiiieeeeee! My eyes!

:) She's happy I finally appreciate the cursed thing as much as she did.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I finished stripping down the camera lens and the LCD display. Here's a couple shots of the lens assembly. I expected the lens to be a molded singlet, it's a fairly complex assembly- 3 elements with spacers. Here's the assembled lens:

[PLAIN]http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/1293/dsc5613m.jpg

And with the elements splayed out:

[PLAIN]http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/1630/dsc5615.jpg

Moving on to the LCD, it's also a quite complex device. Here's the front:

[PLAIN]http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/5775/dsc5617b.jpg

And opening it up, there are 3 plastic film filters sandwiched between the LCD and the back, which is a reflective piece of brushed metal. Getting a clean shot of the 5 layers open like a book was beyond my ability:

[PLAIN]http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/5776/dsc5621.jpg

Going from left to right is the LCD, two diffractive elements, a 'homogenizer', and the rear metal case. The homogenizer looks like a 'popcorn' surface under the microscope:

[PLAIN]http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/9116/dsc5687z.jpg

And the diffractive elements look like this (the two sheets are crossed with respect to each other:

[PLAIN]http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/1817/dsc5689t.jpg

These are really bizarre films- they look semi metallic and diffractive at the same time. The optical effects have been too difficult to capture well- they sort of 'double' the object when placed directly on something. Using the Bertrand lens to capture the Fourier transform of the image above yields this, with the aperture stop closed down as much as possible:

[PLAIN]http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2707/dsc5695l.jpg

That is, a point object gets transformed to a diagonal line. Putting the two films together didn't help much to understand their function, but I suspect the overall goal is to produce a uniform field of linearly polarized light. The LCD itself is somewhat transparent:

[PLAIN]http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/8103/dsc5684.jpg

and since it's an LCD device, there are spacers to confine the fluid:

[PLAIN]http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/123/dsc5697n.jpg.

Onward to the electronics...

 

[Andy Resnick]

[PLAIN]http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/5735/dsc6807.jpg

Our cable company recently switched over to digital, and even though our TV is digital-ready, our Tivo is not. So... on the operating table it goes:

[PLAIN]http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/8469/dsc6809.jpg

The real prize is the hard disk. But there are 8 (!) oscillators on the main board, and the two large-ish boxes on the main board are where the coaxial cable line goes in and out, so those may be interesting to open up.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Here's a shot of the main board- since it's been raining non-stop for 2 weeks, the only cityscapes I can do are artificial:

[PLAIN]http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/2668/dsc6837n.jpg

The cable 'boxes' are really strange (at least to me)- the backside of the board is covered with wire coils, I have no idea what they do- maybe some sort of 'choke'?

[PLAIN]http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/6261/dsc6835t.jpg
[PLAIN]http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/6553/dsc6834.jpg

But as I mentioned, the fun part to the Tivo is the hard disk- here's a sequence (full frames: 24mm macro, luminar zoom, 100mm, 63mm, 25mm and 16mm)

[PLAIN]http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8176/dsc6880s.jpg
[PLAIN]http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/4640/dsc6883b.jpg
[PLAIN]http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/5317/dsc6886.jpg
[PLAIN]http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/2596/dsc6887t.jpg
[PLAIN]http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/2906/dsc6889u.jpg
[PLAIN]http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/2044/dsc6890bc.jpg

The platter is a near perfect mirror- the glare on the 25mm image is from the illumination light reflecting off the platter, the backside of the arm, back to the platter, and then to the camera. For the 24mm image, I had to shut off all the room lights, and you can still see the reflection of the arm off the lens, back to the platter and then to the lens again.

The sort-of centered hole in the 16mm is (I suspect) where the read/write head is. I'll see if I can easily remove the arm and image that side (and take apart the various bearings while I'm at it...)

I removed a permanent magnet keeping the arm in a 'locked' position- the magnet is quite strong, so I'll keep that somewhere for future use. The 'fat' end of the arm has some wire coils that interacts with the magnet(s)- there's another one beneath the arm- and in the zoom image you can see a yellowish plastic 'keeper'- there are stops with small magnets on each arm. Maybe one day I'll get some MR fluid to use with the magnets.

Switching from the macro setup over to the microscope, here's a few images of the read/write head (the little antenna thing is actually well off the surface, not sure what the function is). The first one is epi-DIC at 4X, and the last one is epi-DIC of a section of the support arm at 160X:

[PLAIN]http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/8637/dsc6891.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/3972/dsc6894i.jpg

I thought this last one was interesting because the surface treatment is unlike anything I have seen before- it's neither a ground surface nor polished. It looks 'rubbed', but I couldn't say what the process was.

 

[Andy Resnick]

This week, on "Hoarders", it's the Cleveland State University Physics Department machine shop!

This summer, I've been given the opportunity to clean out the shop and make it useful (again). I've been dealing the accumulation of 40+ years of "don't throw that out, we could use it for something"- stuff ranging from (empty) wooden crates, cases of relays still in their 1964 packaging, hectopound chunks of lead, and the occasional interesting object- we found a 6-foot long slide rule, for example. I'll start off with this:

[PLAIN]http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/554/dsc7646.jpg

It's a transformer core, made of laminated iron. It's about 1 foot across and weighs 10 pounds- I found 30 of them in a pile. Zooming in looks like this:

[PLAIN]http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/5800/dsc7649.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/5104/dsc7652r.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4560/dsc7654.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/2328/dsc7656.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2684/dsc7657.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5296/dsc7661cj.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3048/dsc76611.jpg

Going from the first image, the lenses were: 85mm planar, 24mm macro, 100mm /63mm/ 25mm/ 16mm luminars, 8x darkfield, and a 100% crop of the 8x darkfield. Each lamination is about the thickness of a piece of paper.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I had mentioned that we uncovered a 6-foot long slide rule as part of the clean-up effort, and I wondered how precise/accurate such a device could be (as compared to a 'normal sized' slide rule. Unfortunately, I left my slide rule at home, so those photos will have to wait until next week. Here's the giant one:

[PLAIN]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4281/dsc7870.jpg

I set it to calculate 22/7 (actually, 2.2/0.7), which gives a 3-digit approximation to pi. Here's how well it does:

[PLAIN]http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5660/dsc7872.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/7950/dsc7873g.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/4133/dsc7874z.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/1086/dsc7876t.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6263/dsc7877y.jpg

Magnifying further didn't make sense. In order, the lenses were: 15mm, 85mm, 24mm macro, 100mm luminar, and the final two using the 63mm luminar.

The 85mm image has, reading along the bottom scale 4th row up, on the left side the origin (2.2 is aligned with the '1') and on the right side the 0.7, with the result located close to 'pi'.

The 100mm image clearly shows an answer of 3.18+, with 'pi' located close to 3.16. So, even though the slide rule is 200 cm long (roughly implying 4 digits of accuracy if the printer can be controlled to 1 mm), it's only good for 2.5 digits of accuracy and 3.5 digits of precision.

I'm curious how a proper slide rule compares...

 

[Andy Resnick]

Here's a set of photos of a 'normal' slide rule, again set to 2.2/0.7:

[PLAIN]http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9085/dsc8247.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/2913/dsc8250.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/2629/dsc8251g.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5862/dsc8253h.jpg

The accuracy is considerably better than the large demonstration slide rule- the result is 3.14. Given the width of the ink markings as 384 pixels (FWHM), the width of the silk as and the width of the silk marker of 77 pixels gives a precision of +/-0.002 (if I did the calculation correctly). However, to fully exploit that precision I need a microscope to align the sliding parts. There are mechanical sliders with that level of precision and accuracy:

http://www.dataoptics.com/supergage.htm

http://www.juelich-bonn.com/site/ma..._glass_rule_with_chrom_scales_bt-cs-1000.html

But they are quite expensive...

 

[Andy Resnick]

I get to resurrect this thread- it's hard finding objects that look interesting over even a few orders of magnification. This post will be brief, but there should be a few more shortly. And as always, the full-sized images will be posted on my lab blog.

Here's what I am calling 0.1x magnification:

http://imageshack.us/a/img707/6030/dsc09902ij.jpg

and 1X:

http://imageshack.us/a/img687/4871/dsc09896n.jpg

moving to 10X:
http://imageshack.us/a/img577/2517/dsc09900l.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img837/345/dsc09904ko.jpg

and 100X:
http://imageshack.us/a/img204/1381/dsc099261.jpg

Finally, 1000X:

http://imageshack.us/a/img84/1381/dsc099261.jpg

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

On my screen, the penny in the .1X photo is about 8 times the size of an actual penny. The chip in the 1X photo is about 15 times the size of the chip in the .1X photo. The size of the text 'GU7868' in the 10X photo is less than 2 times the size of the text in the 1X photo. The size of the text '800A' in the unlabeled photo between 10X and 100X is about 2 times the size of the text in the 10X photo. The radius of the circular object in the 100X photo is 3 times the radius in the unlabeled photo and the the radius in the 1000X photo is 3 times the radius in the 100X photo.