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".