A Question of Electronic Live Image Magnification

[BigDon]

I have a difficult to articulate question about digital microscopes. I was reminded by my post in the STEM toys thread when I mentioned the Eyeclops.

How does one define what strength something is magnified at when you can cast the live image onto monitors of various sizes?

An image magnified x100, but broadcast to a monitor 3.5 feet across, is considerably more than x100.

What am I missing here?

 

[DennisN]

How does one define what strength something is magnified at when you can cast the live image onto monitors of various sizes?

Maybe you are confusing and/or mixing optical magnification with digital magnification?

E.g. if you have an image that is optically magnified x100, and you increase only the size of the digital monitor that is displaying it, you are essentially only digitally magnifying the image. The actual "optical" resolution of the image won't change.

 

[BigDon]

That's pretty much exactly what I'm doing.

So I need to work on the definition of "optical magnification" then?

 

[hutchphd]

This question is not limited to the digital age. In some ways digital makes it easier to think about. There have always been fundamental limitations on "acuity" of an optical system that are driven by diffraction...if one tries to image a point source of light it will show up in the image plane as a diffraction disc depending upon the aperture. Also no real lens can perfectly project an actual image except for a pinhole lens of zero size: these don't allow much light to pass through! Impossible even in theory
So it is always a trade off. And absent a huge digital monitor I can still put an inappropriate eyepiece on a telescope/microscope and advertise a huge and useless magnification. (Look at how big the blur is!)
The name of the game is to optimize each piece of the system to the desired level. That way provides the best return for time and money. and requires some nontrivial understanding.

The term of art is "usable magnification"

.