Microscope: Aperture, Light Source Impact on Image Contrast/Depth/Light

  • Thread starter Thread starter superwolf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Microscope
AI Thread Summary
Changing the aperture of the condenser in a microscope affects image contrast and depth of field (DOF). A smaller aperture increases contrast but reduces the area in focus and DOF, while a larger aperture improves DOF but decreases contrast. The numerical aperture (NA) of the condenser primarily determines image contrast, with lower NA yielding higher low-frequency contrast but lower resolving power. Under critical or Kohler illumination, lamp brightness does not significantly impact image quality, and the DOF is determined by the objective lens, not the condenser. Additionally, phase contrast mode enhances contrast through phase shifting, while bright field mode typically provides better resolution than phase contrast.
superwolf
Messages
179
Reaction score
0
How will changing the aperture of the condenser of a microscope and the power of the light source change the image when it comes to contrast, depth of field and amount of light that reaches the camera?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Nice.

Allowing less light to go through the aperture of the condenser, we get more contrast. Price: smaller area in focus and lower depth of field. Open aperture: Better DOF. Bigger area in focus. Lower contrast. Can compensate with more intensity from the light source if the image becomes too dark.

Correct?
 
Last edited:
Not exactly. First off, let's state that the microscope is aligned either for critical or Kohler illumination conditions. For Kohler illumination, the source is imaged at the back pupil plane of the condenser and the front focal plane of the condenser is coincident with the sample plane (Critical illumination is essentially equivalent, but the source is imaged onto the sample plane).

Then, the numerical aperture of the condenser, which is adjusted by the aperture diaphragm (located at the back pupil plane), sets the contrast of the image (under conditions where the NA of the objective is much larger than the NA of the condenser). Low condenser NA corresponds to higher low-frequency contrast but lower resolving power. The illuminated area is set by the fireld diaphragm,which is located at a plane conjugate to the sample plane: the field diaphragm is imaged onto the sample plane.

Under critical/Kohler conditions, Lamp brightness doesn't affect image quality (within reason- the color balance can also be affected), and surprisingly, condenser aberrations do not affect image quality either.

The DOF is set by the objective lens, not the condenser. Likewise, field flatness is set by the objective lens.

Are you having trouble with a particular application?
 
Thanks!

Andy Resnick said:
Are you having trouble with a particular application?

No, I'm just trying to get things correct in my light microscope lab report.
 
Are these statements correct?

1. If the resolution of a light microscope is too low, one can decrease the wavelength of the lightsource, or increase the NA.

2. Phase contrast mode is related to bright field in that the background is bright and features causing light to scatter give raise to image contrast, but in addition one makes use of the phenomenon of phase shifting to give additional contrast.

3. Bright field mode gives better resolution than phase contrast mode.

4. Living cells and other aquatic materials are almost transparent when illuminated because the refractive index is close to that of the surroundings of the specimen.
 
Last edited:
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...
Back
Top