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

[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.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Ok...? I don't have scale bars on the images, either.

Edit- I don't mean to sound ungracious: I am very happy and pleased that you spent time and effort thinking about my images! I probably should acquire a calibration image for the 100x lens...

I suppose I should also offer the following disclaimer: "The images presented here and on the lab blog are intended for educational and outreach purposes only; no federal research funds were used to obtain these images and they are not considered a product of scholarly activity."

 

[dlgoff]

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.

What? You haven't calibrated your monitor screen?

 

[Andy Resnick]

There appears to be (at least) two major classes of chip fabrication technologies, in addition to some hybrids (radio-frequency circuits, mostly). The images I've posted so far are of one fabrication method- the wires conform to an uneven substrate and are joined with 1-micron diameter 'spot welds'.

This next series is of the other major type, where the traces are planar and there does not appear to be any obvious joining. The overall feature sizes are much smaller as well, resulting in much more colorful images:

http://imageshack.us/a/img694/7672/dsc00041cs.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img43/8510/dsc00084ut.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img834/8384/dsc00078wy.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img846/7118/dsc00079jy.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img84/9937/dsc00098qe.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img210/5783/dsc000981o.jpg

Even at moderate numerical apertures (0.75 and 0.9, corresponding to f/0.66 and f/0.55), the large color blocks appear uniform, as the wires are too small to be resolved. Only the 100/1.47 lens is capable of showing the traces.

It's clear that I'm pushing a few optical limits- aside from diffraction, the Petzval sum is greatly magnified, as are the chromatic aberrations. I've also slightly blurred the images to reduce speckle. I'm thinking about ways to compensate- a field flattener (a.k.a. a plano-concave lens located near the sensor) may not be realistic, but monochromatic illumination may be interesting and useful...

 

[Andy Resnick]

Now that I've done this for a bit I've gotten some additional ideas. The physical sizes of these things varies considerably- here's a test arrangement of 'powers of 10' in terms of area and mass for integrated circuits and simple MOSFETs:

http://imageshack.us/a/img845/2104/dsc02233q.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img197/6589/dsc02230copy.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img692/6172/dsc02229copy.jpg

The largest is an nVidia chip- the largest IC I've unearthed so far. The smallest device is a LED. The data:
Area [mm^2] mass [mg]
Chips
1 188 293.25
2 25.8 14.35
3 5.2 2.94
4 0.48 0.14
5 0.20 0.09
MOSFETs
1 16.8 4.41
2 1.13 0.40
3 0.09 <0.01
4 0.063 <0.01
5 0.022 <0.01

Roughly 5 orders of magnitude in area and 6 in mass.

There is also a huge variation in aspect ratio- the ratio of thickness to (say) width. The nVidia chip is massive, memory chips are incredibly thin: this is somewhat obvious, but some tiny ICs are also really thick- nearly as thick as the nVidia (that's why one of the chips is out of focus). I'm not sure how to to represent this (yet).

Yet another possibility are series showing changes in number of transistors (or circuit density) and storage on RAM chips. I'm not sure how to make this visually compelling, tho.