Glare problem with 144 LED right light for microscope - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2020, 08:40:44 pm
content: I am using an AmScope clone (Eakins) microscope with a 144 LED ring light and a 0.5x barlow lens and I have a major problem with glare. Green PCBs shine bright white, text etched on chip packages is invisible, etc. This happens even at low power levels when throttling down the dimmer. The problem seems to simply be that with my ~10 inch working distance the LED light is very hard and directional. (If I hold the ring light down around a chip, at a height of a couple of inches, then it looks gorgeous, but I can't solder that way.)Can someone suggest how to fix this? I am tempted to buy an 8" beauty light from Amazon and bolt that on in the hope of getting soft omnidirectional light but I didn't find any reassuring posts in the archive about other people doing that and so I wanted to check now first.Today I tried to make a softbox using cardboard, aluminium foil, and baking sheets but I'm not satisfied with the result. I also tried holding the ring light _adjacent to_ the lens instead of around it and this actually reduces the glare a lot but I'm not sure how consistent this would be with varying angles and working distances.Help appreciated!

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2020, 09:05:52 pm
content: Can you use any diffusing plastic to soften the glare? Cut a ring out of some HDPE (milk bottle), or get an off-cut of frosted plastic somewhere (maybe from a light fixture lens or somewhere just as a test).

author: chris_leyson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2020, 09:14:03 pm
content: Use polarized filters, one on the LED lighting and one in front of the microscope objective lens. I'm surprised nobody sells these as accessories. EDIT: linearly polaried sheet is not too expensive.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 12, 2020, 09:18:14 pm
content: For PCB light source under angle work the best. LED rings around lens generally suck.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2020, 03:33:01 am
content: You can buy light rings with individually dimmable quadrants. I found this is somewhat helpful. But the best thing is to tilt the microscope head 4-5 degrees. This removes the glare (and it gives a better view, IMO); no more adjusting the light. Obviously this is not that helpful if your microscope stand can't tilt.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2020, 07:09:35 am
content: Thanks for all the tips!I'm leaning towards both a "beauty" ring light with diameter similar to max working distance, and a polarized lens.My scope seems to already be at a 5 degree or so angle and I don't seem to be able to improve there (but yes straightening it makes glare worse.)I am having trouble finding a suitable lens now. I'm googling for "c-mount" as the form factor and "CPL" as the filter type but I'm not exactly swimming in obvious choices. I'm also not sure if there are other parameters that I need to be conscious of.Any more tips?(This is all with the Eakins trinocular that's very similar to Amscope.)

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2020, 03:49:43 pm
content: So! I have made some progress. It's hard to discuss because the pictures from the camera are much different (worse) than the pictures from the eyepieces. I'll just go with that for now because I have already ordered the fancy autofocus camera from Eakins.Here is the awful glare that I see when using the 144 LED ring light that came with the scope. This is with the 0.5x barlow lens at minimum zoom. (The camera also has a much narrower field of view than my eyes for some reason I don't understand?)I can reduce the intensity of that ring light, which does reduce the overall brightness, but the glare is there even at minimum intensity.My next step has been to mount a "beauty light" on the microscope instead. This is an 8" ring light powered by USB that cost $20 from Amazon. I've mounted it using a generic flexible camera tripod.This is a massive improvement! The glare is basically gone, the colors are more vivid, and the writing etched on the chips is legible through the eye pieces. The brightness is a bit low, and maybe that will lead to eye strain over time, but a big step forward anyway. The camera doesn't quite do it justice but here is the image somewhat enhanced:I'll try using this step and see whether the low brightness becomes a problem, and also how it all performs with the new camera once that arrives.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2020, 07:49:36 am
content: This is probably obvious to other people but I've only now realized that eliminating glare is not an end in itself and actually loses valuable information.For example, the shine for glare is useful for knowing whether something is shiny, for example because it is wet.I have a board that looks gorgeous under the soft sideways light but with hard overhead light is obviously scratched up, covered in gunk, wet from tacky flux residue, etc.Just in early testing I'm happy having both the ring lights hanging overhead and adjusting them separately. Then I can always fiddle a knob to see what I am interested in e.g. what's written on the top of that chip, or have I cleaned up all the flux yet, or has the alcohol evaporated yet, etc.I'm also really seeing in the screenshot above that the soft light isn't providing enough light for the exposure settings on the microscope camera, even though it looks good to my eye. I measure the light at about 1300 lux according to some Android app. I'll wait for the new camera to arrive before I bother looking into exposure settings or added more light etc.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2020, 11:08:04 am
content: I have a new camera which allows me to see and control exposure settings. I see now that my 144-LED ring light is only sufficient without the barlow lens. Once I have the barlow lens on then the gain/ISO kicks in hard and the picture looks awful. That's a pity because I really like the barlow lens for the working distance and for the lower magnification, especially via the camera which seems to have a much narrower field of vision than the eyepieces for some reason.The next step will be to acquire a 6W dual gooseneck LED light and see if that provides the light that I need to use the barlow lens.

author: sn4k3
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2020, 03:39:45 pm
content: Solution:https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000613976304.htmlI have using this for sometime now, and is a relief, you have max light when needed and can regulate polarizer angle to elimate glare when need too. Belive me, you will not always use the polarizer at maximum effect/use, sometimes we need more or less and this piece let you regulate on fly. That said, permanent lens without easy ajust possibility will not be optimal.Note there are cheap junk like:https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32523568334.html, dont buy it! Plastic crap with distorced image. Real solution is expensive but worth all cents.Also i went this solution because gooseneck leds or other angle solutions will get on the way and stell work area, i like clean and easy solutions.Example of jobs:Lights on max, polarizer on minimum position:Some test when i first got it:

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2020, 04:50:50 pm
content: Quote from: lukego on February 10, 2020, 11:08:04 amHow big is the camera's image sensor? If the microscope has a c-mount photo port, it may project an image meant for a 1 inch image sensor. If it does and the sensor is smaller, you typically add an intermediate reduction/relay lens to shrink the image to match the sensor.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2020, 08:15:54 pm
content: Quote from: sn4k3 on February 10, 2020, 03:39:45 pmThat looks amazing!What kind of microscope are you using? what's your working distance?I'm using an Eakins trinocular (AmScope clone) and I'd love to be able to reproduce the picture you have. Just not sure if that will mount on my microscope and whether it will have the brightness for a 0.5x or 0.7x barlow lens e.g. 15-30cm working distance.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2020, 08:27:31 pm
content: Quote from: jfiresto on February 10, 2020, 04:50:50 pmInteresting!I have this camera:https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32967911721.htmlwith this microscope:https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000013736134.html... so that seems to be a Sony IMX290 sensor with size 1/2.8" connected to a microscope "23mm photo port." Does that sound like a mismatch that needs to be corrected by some adapter?The microscope did come with some adapterey bits for the trinocular port but I never quite figured out how to use them... always suspected they were for connecting other kinds of cameras unlike the one I have, on which I did find a thread that fits without really understanding exactly what C-mount etc really mean... I'll have to do some homework.

author: sn4k3
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2020, 09:03:36 pm
content: Quote from: lukego on February 10, 2020, 08:15:54 pmSM-4TP, basically same as yours0.5x barrow len4K cam with 0.35x adaptor on c-portFirst video is from 4K camera, second is 1080p camera which im selling now with the adapterHeres another video from 1080p and same setup with half polarizer:The light ring will mount on yours, it have same dimentions as 144 led ring you usePS: Your c-port adaptor is crap, but camera follows

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2020, 09:07:30 pm
content: Quote from: lukego on February 10, 2020, 08:27:31 pmRight. If I were designing a microscope to make it as inexpensive to build as possible, I would split the intermediate image before it hits the eyepiece and direct half of the image out the photo port.Here is something to try. Pull the other eyepiece, the one that isn't tied to the photo port, and hold it above (or in?) the port – and see if you can get the same view that fills the other eyepiece.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2020, 07:52:09 am
content: Quote from: jfiresto on February 10, 2020, 04:50:50 pmThis looks like the ticket:https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32855848880.htmlI'll order the 1/2 and 1/3 and see which one helps me out the most. Or if I'm on the wrong track please do shout at me :-)

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2020, 07:58:24 am
content: Quote from: sn4k3 on February 10, 2020, 09:03:36 pmI'm sorely tempted :-). The specs on the Aliexpress store are a bit sparse though. Do you know how many watts/lumens the LEDs are rated for? I'm not satisfied with the brightness of my 144 LED ring light because when I use the 1/2 barlow lens then the cameras I have need to use gain for their exposure and that impacts image quality. I'd like to avoid that problem if I'd spring $250 for a super-duper ring light.There aren't many sales/reviews on that Aliexpress store either - is that the same unit from the same seller that you have?I reckon I'll wait for my gooseneck lights to arrive and see how I get on with those first but the polarized ring light does sound like a major potential upgrade.QuoteWhat do you mean about the c-port? Mostly that it needs a reducing barlow lens for the field of vision, or something else? and about the camera? I'm all ears

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2020, 08:45:43 am
content: Quote from: lukego on February 11, 2020, 07:58:24 amYou lose an f-stop from the microscope's 50:50 beam splitter (my interpretation of "simul-focal") and a couple more f-stops from the 0.5X barlow lens. I faced the same issues and bought a used mirrorless camera body with a much larger sensor. Substituting a micro four thirds camera will likely win back more than three f-stops. If the microscope follows a not uncommon pattern, the camera may also need no reduction lens, which is good as a lot of the cheap ones noticeably degrade the image.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2020, 12:22:14 pm
content: Hey what camera(s) and camera attributes would you guys recommend for the trinocular port? Sounds like a larger sensor would help, but maybe something else too, and what's s good camera that would check all the boxes?Maybe at some point I will make the autofocus camera into a separate inspection scope and put a different fixed-focus camera on the trinocular.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2020, 03:35:13 pm
content: I have checked the inventory on the microscope kit that I bought and the "spare part I never worked out what to do with" is in fact a 1/2 reducer. So I'll fish that out and test it when I get home. I'm not sure why I couldn't make it fit in the beginning, perhaps it is either/or with another lens piece that I had already installed.I need to do some reading about optics. I'm not sure whether to expect the light strength to increase, decrease, or stay the same with the 1/2 reducer lens. On the one hand it seems like more lenses means more loss but on the other hand I'm using a 1/1.8" sensor with a 28mm lens and that seems like it would be discarding most of the light rather than capturing it. So I'm quietly optimistic but certainly in for an education :-)

author: sn4k3
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2020, 05:02:09 pm
content: Quote from: lukego on February 11, 2020, 07:58:24 ami don't know lumens or watts they have, i surely can test for that but...This led ring appear to me have less brightness than the 144led, because it got 120led only plus polarizer glass that dim a little bit, but who cares, the real important factor is suficient light and image quality, which i got both. I got same magnification and working distance as you. And you have the videos to see for yourself. Now the more you zoom less light will enter and image on camera will be very dark. Eye ocular will always have better light and better view then the camera, but again you have my videos to check out.What i do:Set manual exposure on camera from 14ms to 16ms (NEVER USE AUTO-EXPOSURE!!!)Put the minimum zoom on scopeAjust brightness on camera for a maximum accepted and confortable level without ruin imagemNow check at max zoom if brightness is enoughFollowing that you will cover all your range and your recordings will be good.Quote from: lukego on February 11, 2020, 07:58:24 amIt is, they are always refreshing the article and reviews go away. There aren't many sells of that stuff because is "expensive" and people rather like buy cheap, but we pay for what we get most of the times.There are other sellers with same stuff, but i recommend that seller.Quote from: lukego on February 11, 2020, 07:58:24 amTrust me, i tried everything too to solve the glare. 144 led -> goosenecks -> plastic polarizers -> led clips -> other craps. All a waste of money and time.Goosenecks well placed will solve your problem or angle quadrant leds BUT the goosenecks will always be on front and not rotate when you move your scope head. I hate things on the middle and slowing you down. You will have to ajust position tons of time if you move your scope head a lot like me.The led ring i use now was the best thing i ever buy for the scope, what a relif, it fix the glare and give you the freedom of ajust the polarizer just turning the wheel.PS: If this led ring dont have the desired brightness for you, you can merge it with your goosenecks to increase the power, or mod it with super bright leds.Quote from: lukego on February 11, 2020, 07:58:24 amYes it needs an adaptor, but that adaptor is not good and long.Camera is low quality and cheapest they can put in to have a "good deal/price". Buy bundles is always a tradeoff because you will never get all quality. Scope is ok then they trown a buch of crap equipment like that adaptors and cameras of low quality to atract the buyer.The best move is buy everything separate and finger picked.That being said, your camera and adaptor is what kill your image and make don't have the required light. Look my first video, it looks dim? With less power than your 144 led ring plus a polarizer and still look shiny... No post process. But if required premier can do miracles and fix your image with filters.Check this post:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/buysellwanted/fs-(eu)-microscope-1080p-60fps-hdmiusb-camera-0-35x-len-adaptor/msg2804054/#msg2804054There you can find links to my camera and proper adaptor.Reject all plastic lens and embrace real glass onesPS: My 0.5x barrow len is original made from glass, if i would you, check and see if yours it made of glass or plastic...EDIT:I also trust this store:https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000689771351.html

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2020, 05:29:46 pm
content: Quote from: lukego on February 11, 2020, 03:35:13 pmI am pretty tired and probably should not have been commenting.A glass 0.5X auxiliary lens should win you a couple f-stops because it is gathering light from four times the area.The missing 0.5X reduction lens between the microscope and 1/2.8 inch image sensor should cancel that, if using the lens matches the sensor to the full field of view.Projecting the full field of view on to a 4/3 inch sensor could win over five f-stops: a bit less than 2 stops for the full field of view plus 3.7 stops for the the 13X larger sensor area (2**3.7 = 13). But I probably should sleep on that!

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2020, 09:01:44 pm
content: I have done a little experimentation.First, I seem to have 2/3 field of view via the camera, 2cm wide verses 3cm wide in the eyepiece without a Barlow lens.Here is what comes out of the camera with the 0.7x barlow lens, ring light at full brightness, longest shutter time:I would like to play with the exposure settings but I wasn't setup for recording and operating at the same time.There is obviously more than enough light there, the only problem being glare, which makes the polarized ring light seem like a good idea.(My desk is wobbling too. I have to work on that.)Here is the microscope itself including the spare bits I couldn't find a use for:... but those bits don't have any glass in them so I don't think they are useful here. Maybe I the microscope head has a built-in 1/2 reducer and I could perhaps swap that for a 1/3 reducer for a wider field of view but I'm not confident about that.Any thoughts? Otherwise I guess the next step will be to try with my goose lights when those arrive and/or play with the exposure settings while recording.EDIT: I also have this video without the barlow lens but the framerate come out bad because of the way I recorded it (screen capture while viewing):

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2020, 08:29:33 am
content: I reckon I'm coming full circle here, to the problem being glare rather than brightness, and it sounds like you guys have proposed a couple of good solutions: polarizing light from AliExpress to fix the glare problem and a stronger reduction lens for the field of view (AliExpresd has a 1/3 lens I can substitute for the current 1/2 from the microscope supplier, Eakins.)Thanks for all the input! I will report back with what I come up with. O won't be shocked if the 1/3 lens has some issues, e.g. artifacts around the edges, but we will see.

author: dreamcat4
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2020, 10:01:29 pm
content: So where are we at now with the 8 inch beauty light? It's still worth it? Or it's not worth it for the $20 to save towards the $250 polarized ring light ?

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2020, 03:07:24 pm
content: Quote from: dreamcat4 on February 13, 2020, 10:01:29 pmI think the photo that I posted above is representative.I'm going to upgrade to the polarized light. The beauty light avoids glare but I'm just not satisfied with the brightness. If it were significantly stronger it would probably be a viable solution but I don't want to keep spending money on cheap hacks that don't quite solve the problem. So I'll bite the bullet on the polarized ring light that should always be in the right position and easily control the level of light and shine to suit the task at hand.Luckily I was able to cancel my order of the gooseneck lights although maybe I'll need that for high mag in the future.

author: dreamcat4
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2020, 04:05:15 pm
content: yes indeed. my impression from the photo is that the larger diameter will probably conflict with the mocroscope arm where it attaches and has the geared rail to move the head up / down. which is going to hamper the positioning / mounting and potentially somewhat get in the way.also the dim-ness aspect is expected due to the low cost they cannot use anything but the cheapest leds. but in my mind what that calls for is homebrew replacement / modification using the same ring shell as the basis for that.i also agree with the idea of getting the expensive polarizer. although its pretty darn expensive atm.my other suggestion is maybe just flood your entire room with more ambient light from far away. by buying hundreds of led strips. which the isnt going to be at any single angle since it will bounce around from all walls and other surfaces in the whole room. this might be more help than the beauty light. and the cost will be less than the polarizer. (and help the polarizer too since that cuts the amount of light).

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2020, 04:36:02 pm
content: Quote from: dreamcat4 on February 14, 2020, 04:05:15 pmThis bit is actually okay for me because the microscope is on an articulating arm. The ring doesn't obstruct the microscope positioning.QuoteThat is probably a fine idea. I'm gradually coming to realize that I'm not much of a DIY-er compared with many other people on this forum. I'm more digital than analog.QuoteI have done this too actually. Since I'm working in a small room with white walls and ceiling I'm bouncing light from two color-adjustable Neewer LED panels around my room. I really like this for general strong and soft lighting of the room and work space, though i'm not sure how much impact it has on the microscope (that 144 LED ring light at close range is damn bright.)

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 02:04:32 pm
content: I have the polarizing LED ring light now (https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000689771351.html). I'm just playing with it and don't really have the hang of it yet.Here's how it looks with the 0.5x barlow lens:Here's how it looks with the 1.0x objective lens:I've set auto-exposure in those videos but it seems superior to manual mode for me: it always chooses the maximum shutter time (~1/60sec) and then enough gain to achieve the chosen brightness level.What do you make of it?

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 02:16:11 pm
content: I am still waiting for the 1/3 reduction lens. This will potentially increase the field of view and catch more light. However, I do reflect that the view from the eyepieces is round and the same might be true for the camera with the 1/3 reducer. Curious to see how it looks.

author: dreamcat4
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 04:05:44 pm
content: as would 0.5x barlow instead of 0.7

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2020, 06:26:46 pm
content: I'm super happy now! I'll make a video when I have the chance.The killer combo for me is the polarizing ring light with the 1/3 reducer on the camera port and the 0.7x Barlow lens.Switching from the 1/2 reducer to 1/3 is s big improvement in field of view and light level. I expected to see black around the edges but there is little or none so it's pretty optimal rectangular cropping of what I see in the eyepiece.The 0.7x gives me enough working distance and also provided enough light even for the most extreme positions on the polarizer.Great stuff!! The 1/2 reducer that I started with seems to have been simply the wrong tool for the job/camera and discarding a lot of light.

author: dreamcat4
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2020, 06:38:24 pm
content: cool man. thanks for coming back to let us know!

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2020, 06:47:11 pm
content: Good job.I am encouraged by your success with polarized light. I have all the parts and tools to add it to a microscope, and will as soon as I finish adapting its stand and an 0.5X auxiliary lens. The lens acts more like 0.7X because it is meant for a different make and design of microscope (later Japanese instead of classic Swiss).

author: sn4k3
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 10, 2020, 01:11:28 am
content: Quote from: lukego on March 09, 2020, 06:26:46 pmSee, the right pieces and quality stuff makes all the difference

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 10, 2020, 09:39:23 am
content: Here is a quick video of the new setup:I'm very thankful for all the tips and feedback here. Honestly I was quite disappointed with the polarized ring light in the beginning because it did not seem bright enough for the camera port. The real problem seems to have been that I was using the wrong reducer lens and spilling most of my precious light away from the camera sensor. Having videos demonstrating how it's supposed to look really helped!(Sorry about the focus issues towards the end, I don't have a setup yet to record and view the camera port at the same time, I'm doing everything on the HDMI output going into a capture card. Polarizer is great for finding dog hair on these old zombie boards...!)

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2020, 03:58:43 pm
content: Update: I waited a very long time for my gooseneck LED lights to be delivered (https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1645407423.html) and I'm getting much happier now with my picture quality and overall light level. I'm able to get a decent image on the camera without adding gain/ISO on the camera and without unwanted glare.Here's how it looks now:And here's another video of the same setup but with a Nikon DSLR camera instead of the dedicated microscope camera (just out of curiosity because I'm curious about the relative sensor and ISO quality.)

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2020, 04:09:07 pm
content: I have been happy with my video quality lately. I've been positioning the gooseneck lights really close and this delivers enough light even for high magnification. Here's a video from the camera port doing 01005.I do still find it challenging to get enough light to the camera port for decent exposure. I'm wondering whether a camera with a more sensitive sensor might help with this in the future. I'd like to hear recommendations for cameras delivering good picture quality even when the microscope doesn't deliver too much light.

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2020, 04:58:37 pm
content: Quote from: lukego on August 29, 2020, 04:09:07 pmWhat camera are you using and how big is its sensor?This $400 microscope cameraonly has a 1/2.3" sensor. The sensor in a micro four thirds camera has almost four times the area which almost wins you a couple f-stops. The sensor in a full frame camera is that much larger again and almost win you a couple more. Full frame, however, usually needs a relay lens; micro four thirds sometimes doesn't.

author: dreamcat4
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2020, 05:38:48 pm
content: To take advantage of the whole sensor area on a DSLR camera, you will need the right type of a lens that is capable of magnifying and being within the allowable focussing range, for the aperture. Whilst being at the right distance away from the camera port. At the distance where the camera had been mounted.Probably not so easy or so simple to get right. Unless you already find somebody else has done that, and they can recommend the right adapter product(s) for achieving that.Otherwise the best microscope camera is the blue square / cube shaped ones. Which have the sony IMX290 sensor in them. They are full HD 1080p @ 60fps. With 2 variants. A version with auto exposure but FIXED focus, that is the cheaper one. Then for an extra ~$100 or so is the version that looks exactly the same, but also includes auto focus. And it's the autofocus version that Dave Jones eevBlog made his video about. Sorry I don't have a link handy. But you can find it on eevblog youtube channel.Hope that helps.

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2020, 06:25:54 pm
content: Quote from: dreamcat4 on August 29, 2020, 05:38:48 pmThe challenge in adapting a DSLR is that it needs a suitable relay lens, if for no other reason, because the mirror distances the sensor from the lens flange. If you can live without an optical viewfinder, a mirror-less camera brings the sensor within range although you may still need an expansion lens to fully cover it.QuoteAck. That one is 1/2.8" and even smaller than the one I linked to.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2020, 07:16:28 pm
content: Thanks for helping me work this out!I'd like to briefly step back and summarize/acknowledge that:I don't know much about optics but I'm impatiently waiting for a copy ofLight: Science and Magicthat is taking a long time for delivery. So though I may miss some of the finer points here now I'll come back later to understand fully.There are a lot of variables affecting picture quality: microscope head, objective lenses, auxilliary lenses, optical splitter for the trinocular ports, camera sensor, etc and I may not be considering the right one(s).I am mostly wondering where is the lowest hanging fruit: what could I do to get sharper images, less sensitivity to low light, better depth of field, etc?So with that out of the way let's get back into this.Quote from: dreamcat4 on August 29, 2020, 05:38:48 pmThis is actually what I am using now: the Eakins autofocus camera with IMX290 sensor that Dave reviewed. However, I'm not using it with an inspection scope but rather on the camera port of an Eakins (~AmScope) trinocular microscope. So my setup is like Steve Gardner herehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs67D1t16wA.Earlier in the thread I found that I need a 1/3 reducer lens to have a suitable field of view on this microscope. The camera then sees approximately the rectangle contained by the circles I see through the eye pieces i.e. crops out the round bits around the edges.Generally the view through the eye pieces is very bright - brighter than I would ideally like - while the camera can only /just/ get a proper picture without using ISO gain. So it seems like somehow less light is coming to the camera lens than to my eyes and I don't know if that's down to the reducer lens (indirectly a mismatched camera sensor size?) or due to the ratio of the optical splitter in the microscope head (unspecified, didn't get a straight answer from Eakins) or...Any ideas? (Am I expressing myself clearly?)

author: dreamcat4
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2020, 09:07:37 pm
content: If you take apart the Eakins microscope head you will see that the 3rd port is in fact being tapped / split by a triangular prism from the left eye piece. So it would then make sense that the light reaching the camera port will be of a lower intensity. Perhaps less than 50%. But then your camera's aperture and its CCD sensor will have different values of sensitivity and gain compare to you own eyes. So it's not going to be like for like regardless of the prism thing. Plus also your computer monitor has it own brightness too.

author: mawyatt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2020, 11:40:26 pm
content: Microscope objectives can be directly mounted to a standard DLSR with some available adapters and extensions. Finite objectives do not require another lens in the optical chain, infinite objectives do require a "tube lens" in the optical chain. Also you can use a reversed DSLR lens with an standard reverse adapter, or even stacking standard DSLR lenses. Many have repurposed old scanner & reproduction lenses for macro use, some are exceptional.A bellows is very useful, especially with finite objectives since you can vary the magnification by simply changing the distance between the objective and the camera with the bellows.You can find loads of information about all this over at:https://www.photomacrography.net/index.htmAnother good reference is:https://www.closeuphotography.comAnother:http://extreme-macro.co.uk/Here's a couple setups I've developed for focus stacking of chips I've designed or been involved with, but also useful for video. Also some notes from my notebook.Best,

author: mawyatt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2020, 11:47:17 pm
content: Here's some notes on using objectives with a DSLR using extensions and adapters.Best,

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 05:52:22 am
content: Quote from: mawyatt on August 29, 2020, 11:40:26 pmI actually have a full-frame DSLR (Nikon D750) with the adapter to mount it on my microscope. I have tested it only once and I did not notice a huge difference but I haven't made a detailed side-by-side image comparison. I suppose that this means I have everything I need to compare the impact of sensor size on image quality though.Thanks for the references!

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 05:59:14 am
content: Quote from: jfiresto on August 29, 2020, 04:58:37 pmThanks for your insights!To what extent can I compensate for a small sensor using a reducer lens?I've seen a big improvement with my 1/2.8" IMX290 camera since I started using the 1/3 reducer lens. I suppose that this both gives me a wider field of view and also channels light onto the sensor (instead of spilling off the sides when the small sensor causes the image to crop.) But at what cost does this come? Is there still a significant loss of light? Loss of image clarity? Impact on depth of field? Would these aspects be better/different with a larger sensor camera that doesn't need a reducer lens? Is there a good description of the trade-offs already online somewhere?

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 08:03:52 am
content: Follow-on question: I have a problem that the round field of view in my eyepieces is larger than the rectangle field of view in the camera. This makes me worry that the camera will crop out something important that I see with my eyes.Would a reasonable solution be to switch my 10x eyepieces for 15x? The idea being that this would increase the zoom on the eyepieces and in doing so reduce their field of view to be within what the camera sees.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 09:03:15 am
content: Follow-follow-on questionI see other cameras likeRisingCam BIGEYE 4Kwith Sony IMX294 4/3" sensor. Are such cameras better suited to these trinocular microscopes by virtue of their larger sensors matching the image delivered to the camera port? (Is my IMX290 1/2.8" camera better suited to other microscopes e.g. a single-lens inspection scope?)Hard to make sense of it all! Not least the various Sony sensor product numbers... I found acomplete listbut I'm not sure that helps much.

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 10:01:42 am
content: Quote from: lukego on August 30, 2020, 05:59:14 amAbout all you can do is center the sensor with the image out of the microscope and reduce the image so that it just excites every pixel in the sensor, out to the corners. Your video above show modest vignetting at the right side corners which makes me think you are close to that. Could you post a image of a light object that shows the vignetting at all four corners?Your reduction lens may be losing a modest amount of light, but I am pretty sure you are losing a great deal more sensitivity (many f-stops) from the small, 1/2.8" sensor.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 10:24:40 am
content: Quote from: jfiresto on August 30, 2020, 10:01:42 amHere are two pictures taken on a white sheet of paper, one at minimum zoom and one at maximum zoom (both with my usual 0.7x barlow lens.)Quote from: jfiresto on August 30, 2020, 10:01:42 amIs that likely to also affect depth of field? I would quite like to extend my depth of field such that I'm able to focus the full height of basic electronics components (e.g. MLCCs) instead of having to choose between seeing the top verses seeing the PCB. I'm not really clear on how depth of field fits in with other aspects like sensor sizes and reducer lenses but since we are talking about F-stops it sounds potentially related.

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 10:34:02 am
content: Quote from: lukego on August 30, 2020, 08:03:52 amOne way people like it, is to have the camera view out at the corners just match the limit of the eyepiece's field of the view, that is, they expand or shrink the image so that the lens+camera is just shy of vignetting (starting to shade and round the corners). That works great if you have a research microscope with expensive, plan apochromatic optics.More modest microscopes will show optical aberrations approaching the corners, so some prefer to crop the image to the camera and have it capture the sharpest and flattest central part of the image. The photo tubes I have, apply a 1.25X crop factor to what you see in the standard 10X/21mm eyepiece. The camera only captures roughly the inner 60% of the image which is about as much as you can get sharp and flat with plain, achromatic optics.QuoteSticking to 10X eyepieces can be nice because you see more between pictures or when you are not taking them. A popular alternative is to use an eyepiece reticule that shows a box delimiting the camera's view.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 10:48:57 am
content: Quote from: jfiresto on August 30, 2020, 10:34:02 amThank you very much for the tip about an eyepiece reticule. I naively tried to accomplish this by stringing a rectangle of dental floss across the bottom of the objective lens, but (of course) that was completely out of focus and ineffective. I see now that the solution has been lurking on Aliexpress all along but I knew not what to look for.I am casting an admiring gaze on the 4K cameras with 4/3" Sony IMX183 sensors now. I would really appreciate the ability to take high-resolution photographs in addition to video. Do you have any words of caution about potential mistakes in shopping for such a device?

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 11:29:18 am
content: Quote from: lukego on August 30, 2020, 10:48:57 am... I suppose that I can spend more time testing my Nikon D750 with the microscope to see how the image quality compares. This camera has a full-frame sensor that can be cropped to FX size. This presumably will show me the potential improvement from a microscope camera with larger sensor.Separate issue is 1080p verses 4K resolution but that's really secondary. I only want 1080p final results but would see 4K as a nice-to-have as headroom for post-processing like rotating and cropping before concerting to 1080p.

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 12:06:10 pm
content: Thank you for the images. Something is not quite right, there, especially with the first image (fully zoomed out?). Could I trouble you to repeat the experiment without the barlow lens? I like to take images of graph paper, in sharp focus at the center, as the grid also help show aberrations.More camera friendly stereo microscopes – or their add-on photo tubes – include dual apertures that let you stop down and win more field of view. The ones I am familiar with are, I think, around f7 when wide open, and do not give much depth of field unless they are really stopped down, noticeably dimmer and starting to lose detail. I can see why stacking has become so popular.If you think of the microscope as the lens, I tend to the notion that you want to stop down, and for that you need much more light on the sensor and a sensor that needs less light. There is a fair amount of art in getting that – which I am learning – so I am not sure what to suggest.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 12:26:24 pm
content: Quote from: jfiresto on August 30, 2020, 12:06:10 pmIs there an easy way to follow your learning journey? I'm curious.I'm also remembering that there are some "bare electronics" camera modules around that might be cheaper ways to access specific sensors. The Raspberry Pi camera for example:https://www.raspberrypi.org/products/raspberry-pi-high-quality-camera/.I have no desire for the OEM firmware in these various cameras nor their associated PC software.

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 01:24:32 pm
content: Quote from: lukego on August 30, 2020, 12:26:24 pmI follow and occasionally contribute to a couple forumshttp://www.microbehunter.com/microscopy-forum/http://www.photomacrography.netmuch more to the former which seems a little silly as I neither look at microbes nor own a microscope that is good for that. Still, they are a friendly bunch and seem to tolerate my posts. Mostly I have been absorbing scattered information from the 'net and testing what works and does not.QuoteI have not tried the component/OEM route. Instead, I have gotten into photo enthusiast cameras that are easily adaptable to microscopes (e.g., the micro four thirds system). The ones I favor are sold in volume and, consequently, impressively cheap for the high quality sensors and image processing they provide. For example, I am currently finishing up an electronics box to control one favored byAsian camera girls. (I better use A4 button head screws on its front panel or it is going to look dowdy.)

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 02:12:41 pm
content: I have an idea for a cheap contraption that might give stellar results: a new monocular microscope objective lens for the autofocus camera:https://www.aliexpress.com/item/33001984896.htmlThis way 100% of the light would be directed towards the camera instead of being split into the eyepiece on a trinocular.I have a cheaper camera that I could put onto the trinocular and it might actually work slightly better (has a slightly larger sensor than the autofocus.)Maybe I could even wield the autofocus-monocular microscope hand-held? I'd point it at parts of the PCB where I want a closer look, while the PCB sits clamped under the trinocular microscope. I would need a short working distance, high adjustable magnification, and perhaps a monocular lens that's well suited to the 1/2.8" sensor if I'm able to identify one.Crazy?

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 02:32:16 pm
content: ... if that wasn't sufficiently crazy...How about if the monocular scope would hang from a slightly elastic cord from the main scope? And have a ~2cm working distance so that its base could be rested directly on the PCB under inspection? Then you would have one end firmly resting on the PCB at a suitable focal distance and the other end suspended from elastic so that you can maneuver it without excessive wobble.(This still leaves the issue of image quality on the trinocular scope but this would reduce the requirements there if there's a separate solution for close inspection.)

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 02:32:50 pm
content: Crazy? I do not think so. Stereo microscopes make compromises to produce stereoscopic images that a camera does not need and can not use. If someone has already paid for the microscope and its compromises are not unhelpful, it can be easier and less expensive to build on what you have got.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 03:21:32 pm
content: I've been informed that RasperryPi now has a $50 camera module with a Sony APS-C sensor that kicks out 1080p30.https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/new-product-raspberry-pi-high-quality-camera-on-sale-now-at-50/.(The sensor seems to be more capable than this and the bottleneck is what a Pi can encode.) I'm further informed that a RaspberryPi Zero for $5 can make this camera module function as a standard USB webcam (http://www.davidhunt.ie/raspberry-pi-zero-with-pi-camera-as-usb-webcam/).Sounds potentially amazing, depending on the actual performance of the sensor and video encoding?

author: dreamcat4
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2020, 04:06:07 pm
content: Yeah i have seen that vignetting before and it's the cheap CVT 1/3 reduction lens. Vignetting like this also occurs on the cheap ~$20 version 0.35x lens. However the $90 version of the 0.35x should not have that issue. From the various samples i have seen over time.BTW the later 0.35x version is only compatible with certain microscope heads. The camera port is a different diameter somethin like 38mm. So be aware of the compatibility.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2020, 03:47:43 am
content: I've ordered the RaspberryPi HQ camera and RaspberryPi Zero. This is supposed to make a 1080p30 C-mount webcam with APS-C sensor for ~$60 (see above) and that demands investigation. I'll see if the Pi performs better on my trinocular scope than the IMX290 autofocus camera.I've also ordered a monocular C-mount microscope lens from AliExpress. This might be a better match for the autofocus camera to use for inspection only.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2020, 08:20:35 am
content: Just posting to share an image from some quick 0402 inspection work this morning. I'd really like to improve on this. Have to try improving focus, using a mono lens without splitter, using the RaspberryPi HQ camera once that arrives...

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 07:44:50 am
content: My book on photographic lighting finally arrived!!! I'm pleased as punchMeanwhile I had an image quality win on the microscope today. I made a video of soldering a USB controller using hot air. The picture quality started gorgeous to my eye but when I brought in the hot air gun it bumped a gooseneck LED out of the way. However, I was able to quickly more-or-less match the exposure in post processing just with a single point adjustment on the base curve. Pleased!Here's the video showing my current picture quality level. This is still with the Eakins autofocus and 1/2.8" sensor (RapsberryPi cam hasn't arrived yet.)

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2020, 03:24:05 pm
content: I have started experimented with a Raspberry Pi Zero W wirelessly streaming video from a HQ Camera to my PC now.The light sensitivity ismuchbetter with the Pi camera (IMX477) than the Eakins autofocus (IMX290.) It's really night and day. My long journey trying to get more and more lumens seems to have been simply working around a deficiency in the camera that I was using.I can't easily make an apples-to-apples comparison because there are so many tunables, however with the same shutter speed I'm able to get perfectly fine images from the Pi camera that would look like indistinct darkness on the Eakins e.g. using only the ring light with the polarizer cranked up high.Have to do some more experimentation - I have a feeling my depth of field is shallower with the Pi and that's an issue - and have to 3D print a suitable enclosure for the Pi+camera.

author: dreamcat4
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2020, 04:13:38 pm
content: Quote from: lukego on September 12, 2020, 03:24:05 pmThanks for letting us know luke. I myself happen to have a zero w already doing nothing and it seemss like a good choice. Please try to get back to us later on with some photos, comparisons etc. And if you can share the 3d design files on thingverse or wherever then we would of course love to see that too.Good job man!

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2020, 04:34:17 pm
content: Here very briefly is a picture from the Pi Zero W that's taken with only my relatively weak ring light and the polarizer dialed up (which reduces brightness by about half.) This would look like a ship in the night on the Eakins (sorry I don't have an exact comparison photo handy, but I'll try to produce one later.)

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2020, 07:36:15 pm
content: I like the new camera. It is much brighter and sharper overall and even more so toward the edges.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2020, 03:16:22 pm
content: Here's a video from the RPi HQ camera today. I've been staring at the screen for so long I can't tell if it's good or not anymoreWhat do you all think?That's without any digital enhancement. Usually I have to boot the exposure waaay up but not with this sensor. I should drop the saturation a little though I suspect.Command used: raspivid -ag 12 -dg 1 -fps 30 -hf -vf -ss 25000 -ag 12 -dg 1 --drc high --awb sun --mode 2 -t 30000 -w 1296 -h 972 -o /dev/shm/demo.h264(That's a special incantation to trigger all the special cases to use the full sensor binned 2x2 in the closest res to 1080p30 that I can manage. I have some hope of capturing a better image via HDMI instead of having the RPi encode H.264 but I need to wait for a micro-HDMI adapter to test that.)EDIT: Let me add that a nice feature here is that both the field of view and exposure in the camera is much closer to what I see in the microscope eyepieces. This means I don't have to be so careful of accidentally cropping out the action on the recording. I also don't have to blind myself while trying to get enough light to satisfy the camera. Hopefully this good exposure also means that when I zoom riiight in there will be enough margin to tease out a decent image there too.EDIT2: also note there's a slight slowdown factor on that video because it was captured at 30fps but accidentally uploaded to youtube as 25fps.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2020, 11:10:45 am
content: Today I made a video of soldering 01005 at high magnification with the RPi HQ camera on microscope trinocular port.I'm really satisfied with this setup because it's noweasyto capture a reasonable image. Just a little extra illumination, just a little slower shutter speed, just a little boost in post, no need for any extreme measures.That video was re-encoded at lower bitrate after the RPi captured it when I cut it and so compression artifacts will be not due to the RPi. Overall it's taken quite a while to tweak the right settings on the Pi, see which ones clobber which others, and avoid glitches due to e.g. mismatched framerates through my editing pipeline. However with the right incantations it seems to work really smoothly and easily now.For reference here is my current magic incantation to get good exposure, high encoding quality, and full sensor used in 2x2 binned mode:raspivid --vstab -qp 18 -ag 12 -dg 1 -fps 30 -ss 22000 -ag 12 -dg 1 --awb sun --mode 2 -t 600000 -w 1296 -h 972 -o 05001.h264I'm pretty satisfied now though probably should e.g. tune the white balance and see if a little longer/shorter shutter speed is a better brightness/blur tradeoff.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2020, 11:49:22 pm
content: Quote from: lukego on September 04, 2020, 07:44:50 amI think this is one of your best so far and after following your posts I think you are on a good path. Plz remind us of what scope and camera configuration and settings were used in this one. Thx

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2020, 04:52:43 am
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on October 05, 2020, 11:49:22 pmThe quality of that one is totally down to lighting. I have two LED gooseneck lights shining sideways at a sharp angle from about an inch away. The sideways lighting prevents glare and the close placement provides extra light for the camera sensor.That video is taken with the Eakins trinocular microscope (AmScope clone) and the Eakins IMX290 autofocus camera. This camera only works well on this microscope with very strong illumination (bright to the point of absurdity I would say.)I always use the RaspberryPi HQ camera now. The sensor performs much better in normal lighting (2x2 binned mode) and it's easy to capture a good image without being obsessive about moving the lights as close as possible. I ssh into Linux on the RPi to record directly and don't need a HDMI-USB capture device either. Much cheaper and easier to get good results, usually no post processing to boost exposure needed, highly recommended for Linux aficionados.

author: dreamcat4
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2020, 07:42:00 am
content: hey whats the maximum resolution+framerate you can capture this way?and have you considered to try streaming the video feed over LAN to your computer? Using something like NDI / rtmp / vlc / obs etc?thanks

author: ChuckDarwin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2020, 08:14:50 am
content: Another example of overhead ring-light vs side lighting (gooseneck leds). Both views were instructive.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2020, 01:50:17 pm
content: Quote from: lukego on October 06, 2020, 04:52:43 amYour results and figure it out tenacity are very cool.I’m pretty sure that much of microscopy, like photography itself, comes down to lighting. And I’m pretty sure that leads to the amount of light, the direction/angle from which it shines, the type / color temp of light, and the number of sources - so I’m looking to experiment with LED rings and goosenecks to see what causes what.On the camera, as much as I like making tools to make tools so I can have a tool to use, I’m inclined to start a tad simpler. (Maybe I’m missing something - probably a lot - but “raspberry pi camera” sounds like an extra step or three in experimenting.)I think I’d prefer a mostly off the shelf camera that would capture and allow for a display similar to what my eyes would see when looking into the microscope. So for starters I’d like to avoid post processing and even a PC - just see the live image on a monitor via a simulfocal camera (although a camera with a built-in card writer would be very nice.) Any suggestions on what specs (resolution, fps, aperture, etc) and/or what hdmi? manufacturer/model might suffice? Thx!

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2020, 04:08:19 pm
content: Quote from: ChuckDarwin on October 06, 2020, 08:14:50 amThat's a really nice comparison.The directional lights produce a much more pleasing image. I do think that if you had something wet in the frame, like flux or IPA, than it would be almost invisible under that illumination though. That's why I like to have a lot of sideways illumination for picture quality and a small/adjustable amount of top illumination for adding "just enough" glare to see texture details.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2020, 04:39:13 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on October 06, 2020, 01:50:17 pmThis sounds right. I'm totally sold on the RPi, but it's a complex beast to setup, and I'm leveraging experience with Linux/ssh/ffmpeg/nfs/etc that I already have.I would suggest finding a camera that works well in low light. This will make your life easier because the camera on a trinocular port will be able to capture the same image as you are seeing through the eye pieces. RPi HQ performs well, thanks to its large sensor with decent sensitivity and ability to use the full sensor at appropriate resolutions. I'm sure other more traditional cameras perform well too but I'm not sure how to evaluate them on paper or what to recommend.Avoid the trap of using a camera like the Eakins IMX290 with low sensitivity. Then you will end up needing way too much illumination. It will look uncomfortably bright through the eyepieces, and you will still probably need post-processing to get a decent image. If you look at Steve Gardener from SDG Electronics he is even going so far as to build a custom ring light for his Eakins IMX290 camera that will probably get a decent image at the expense of blinding him on the eyepieces... I went pretty far down that path myself spending a few hundred $ on illumination before switching cameras.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 06:56:48 am
content: Quote from: lukego on October 06, 2020, 04:39:13 pmOk, I’m following your lead but why does this guy seem to be such a happy camper both in terms of the camera and his eye piece viewing? His lighting tutorial is compelling.https://youtu.be/5VzrGNmIApw

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 07:45:06 am
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on October 08, 2020, 06:56:48 amI did not see any eyepiece viewing in his video. Instead, he appears to mount the camera on a monocular macroscope and solely view its video output on an LCD monitor. Compared to a Greenough stereo microscope, his macroscope has much simpler internal optics, has no beam splitter to halve the light, and can have and has a bigger objective that gathers much more light. He can also crank up the illumination as much as he wants to compensate for the camera's insensitivity, with no danger of blinding the operator to produce a bright enough image for his viewers. Look at how much he lights up the table for his macroscope video. [EDIT: Look at the dimmer slide. If he could, I bet he would push his goose neck spots to 11.]

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 07:47:24 am
content: After watching the video again I think I can answer my own question above. NorthridgeFix gets such good results with the ringlight plus gooseneck forboth eye piece viewing andthe camera because he has decided that ~4” working distance is enough to do his nice soldering work. He points out that he isn’t using a Barlow lens because while that would provide more working space it would change the lighting angle from the light ring which would negate his very effective lighting. I have been following the general consensus? path often advocated around here that a 0.5 Barlow provides an optimum soldering working distance of about 8” - which I can believe provides good soldering ergonomics. But maybe that’s a bit of herd or early adopter reasoning? I don’t know since I am a rookie at soldering for through hole and a complete beginner with SMD. Maybe the answer is that we should be soldering with NorthridgeFix’s four finger rule of thumb. I can completely buy into the concept that as the lens rises the light ring angle is just bouncing the light down and back up into the user’s/camera’s view rather than washing the light across the PCB area of interest. I saw the discussion about a polarized ring light and that seemed to get somewhere but not quite all the way there. I also saw that Amscope sells a ring light that has selectable segments which might help but probably still is dependent on the steepness or shallowness of the angle as dictated by the ringlight height above the PCB.On a related note I “liked” a comment around here that said don’t worry if a tri/simul port config loses some light vs regular stereo because you can always add more light. That got me happy about going with a 3rd port (vs 2) but now it’s clear (haha) that just turning on a ton of light is not the full equation - we need enough light from the right angle(s), and likely from 2 (or more?) directions.Net, net: if the two primary sources of light (beyond ambient) are ring and gooseneck lamps, then we need to think about either the height of the ring - or maybe the diameter of the ring? It seems likely to be unwieldy but maybe a larger diameter ring light (kind of like people use for Zoom videos?) might be able to create the desired angle NorthridgeFix likes, but at the ~8” working distance made possible with a 0.5 Barlow.Just some thoughts....

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 07:51:10 am
content: Quote from: jfiresto on October 08, 2020, 07:45:06 amYou are right - he seems to only be using the camera without any eye pieces. That’s not the dual use case but I think his insights on working distance and ring light angle are still very relevant.

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 08:07:06 am
content: I find microscope ring lights tend to wash out an image because of reflections, even more so as you increase the working distance and angle the illumination closer to vertical. I would gladly accept the light loss of using cross polarizers to eliminate glare and restore contrast. In the meantime, more oblique lighting from multiple angles works for me.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 08:17:46 am
content: Kind of off topic but 2 other observations:1) NorthridgeFix doesn’t seem to have any issues with boom jitter. Maybe at 4” vs 8” it’s easier to let the highly flexible boom do it’s ease of positioning flex magic and not have to wish for the stability of a more rigid but less flexible boom. Maybe he benefits from the shorter working distance and/or maybe he is less likely to bump the head since he goes without eye piece viewing.2) I only heard of Eakins for the first time about a week ago and it seemed like folks were ready to put their products in some tier beneath Amscope but so far it looks to me like Eakin’s products can compete (and some might come from the same source).

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 08:21:09 am
content: Quote from: jfiresto on October 08, 2020, 08:07:06 amOk, so it has been written, so it shall be done.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 08:50:30 am
content: My barlow lens preference is 0.7x, then 0.5x, then 1.0x. I have all three and switch as needed. (Sure, I know the 1.0x is really just a piece of glass to protect the objective and not strictly speaking a barlow lens.)If you are working with hot air then 1.0x can feel very cramped. If you are working over a preheater then 0.5x might be too long and stretch your neck. Similarly, at 1.0x you can only see a really small area of the board while at 0.5x it can be hard to do very fine close-up inspection. I find 0.7x a good compromise between all those factors that works 90% of the time for SMD work/rework.I agree with all the comments above that some Youtubers get really excellent image quality using a simple ring light on a monocular microscope with a short working distance. I suspect that you'd want a second strong directional light to create a shadow that you can use to perceive depth. Maybe a good monocular setup would be competitive with the binocular/trinocular scopes overall, I'm not sure, maybe I will try to set that up using my Eakins autofocus camera and spare lenses.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 09:25:45 am
content: one more data point from an Amazon reviewhttps://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00JZJO7YC/ref=psdcmw_393248011_t1_B07ZRJQ177#aw-udpv3-customer-reviews_feature_divVery good light ring for low distance work.I like this light ring for my amscope Sm-4b. It works very well. The brightest is well bright enough! The variable brightness knob is very useful,and helps to get the best view on your project,depending on how much light you need.One thing people don’t really seem to mention,is that at a longer working distance(like with the 0.5x Barlow lens),the quality of optics is greatly deteriorated. The lights from the ring are angled and designed perfectly for the 4 inch working distance the Sm scopes provide. But when you go to 8 inches,the angled lights shine DIRECTLY onto what you’re looking at,from all directions,and this causes gray distorted colors. When you hold the light ring in your hand,you could see this. Have it aligned with the head of the scope,and move it closer to your object(for me it’s a circuit board I solder on) ,and you see it gets colorful and clear,since the lights shine around what you’re looking at. But when you move it farther away,the angled lights have more time and distance to cross over and shine across each other and directly onto what you’re viewing. This causes the gray and reflective distortion. A gooseneck may be best in this case,or somehow attach the light ring to “hang down” from the scope so that it is 4 inches from the object of view.I only mention the above to help anyone that gets the ring and is confused about optics being grayed. I saw a review on here about that. They probably used a Barlow lens. Perhaps the 0.7x wouldn’t be as bad since it’s a 6.4 inch working distance.Otherwise,this light ring is very useful. For the price,I can’t argue!

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 10:17:11 am
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on October 08, 2020, 08:21:09 amSorry, I am probably parroting the obvious. I need to find a quieter place where I can get more sleep.Perhaps I should stop posting for a while. I should definitely stop making significant purchases on ebay. I probably did not need the lightly used E-PL7 I bought yesterday, but it was cheap compared to the cost of a good microscope camera with a 4/3-inch sensor.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 01:34:44 pm
content: Quote from: jfiresto on October 08, 2020, 10:17:11 amNah, keep posting. Your posts are always helpful, for sure. Read, eBay/Amazon/AliExpress, Test, Write, Sleep. Keep up the good R&D

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 01:47:27 pm
content: Man, I didn’t even know what a E-PL7 is. I just looked it up, that looks very nice. I don’t have any four thirds anything.... now you have me thinking maybe it’s a system path that should be explored. My plan was to get a microscope with a simulfocal port and just leave off the video camera for now, just make it Phase II. Actually, Phase III. Phase IIA was maybe learn how to solder through hole better and Phase IIB would be SMD. We are all showing each other a ginormous field of rabbit holes.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 01:57:24 pm
content: Hey Rabbit Buddies - look over here. That’s cool, I was just there. No, look over HERE. Yeah, check that hole out! Yep, it goes vertical and then horizontal and then vertical again. Hmmm, mine had a diagonal. Maybe your rabbit hole is newer than mine. Guys, guys - over HERE. Check this out! Rabbit holes, rabbit holes, Endless rabbit holes. 🐇

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 02:26:57 pm
content: Seriously relatable with the rabbit holes!I've pretty much sorted out my soldering lab and techniques now, including the microscopy. Took about a year. I haven't actually soldered by big 1500-pin 4x4cm BGAs yet but I'll burn that bridge when I get to it.I'm now diving down the rabbit hole of automatic PCB routing: How do you write a program to layout a PCB including 25Gbps SERDES links with sufficient signal integrity? Maybe I'll know the answer to that in another year...Meanwhile I also need to learn how to debug the stuff that I'm assembling! Maybe that will require a one year detour along the way...

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 07:40:16 pm
content: Quote from: lukego on October 08, 2020, 02:26:57 pmI'd say if you are looking at 1500 pin BGA soldering or working on 25 Gbps PCBs that your rabbit holes might be somewhere in the Earth's crust and and headed for the mantel. My soldering and PCB work is more like at about the depth of the cup on a putting a green.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2020, 07:46:28 pm
content: Ok, new/adjacent rabbit hole.It has dawned on me that while I think I might be soldering some SMDs that there is a lot of discussion about alternative techniques. So maybe before I settle on the appropriate microscope working distance for viewing, lighting, etc. perhaps I should better understand the likely tools - in case they are more than / different than a soldering iron.I've searched a fair amount... lots of bits and pieces but no big/full picture yet. Anyone have a link to a tutorial that gives a good overview of conventional soldering vs hot air, rework stations, soldering tweezers (these look useful but I haven't seen as much on these as on hot air), etc, etc? Thx

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2020, 01:43:37 am
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on October 08, 2020, 07:46:28 pmGood question. I don't know of one. I've been trying to work this out first hand buy acquiring most of the interesting-looking tools and seeing how much I use each one. I've been a really big fan of hot tweezers (JBC NASE) for fine SMD work like replacing 0402 passives but I now have a smaller hot air station (Quick TR1100) that might be a much cheaper and easier solution to the same problem. I'm thinking a lot lately about the question: if I were starting over, what would I want to get and in what order? (e.g. start with a big iron and a big hot air gun, later add smaller ones as a luxury, also get a preheater if working lead-free, something like that.)On the microscope though I really appreciate flexibility. I was really frustrated when I was using a camera that could only produce a good image in very specific circumstances e.g. at a short working distance with very strong and very close illumination. I wouldn't like to have a microscopy setup that's optimized for only one working style.

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2020, 06:58:53 am
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on October 08, 2020, 07:46:28 pmYou might also research reflow ovens and hot plates. I picked up a 2000W electric Ceran grill to explore and refine the latter, and will return to that once I finish some microscope projects.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2020, 11:05:51 am
content: Quote from: jfiresto on October 09, 2020, 06:58:53 amThat is a really important point. You have to decide what are your own goals and whether you are more interested in assembly or rework. You can get a good assembly setup much cheaper and easier: an oven, a $20 vacuum tool, and some solder paste. Rework might only need a hot air gun but it can also rapidly become expensive with the endless temptations of specialist tips, irons, hot tweezers, air tools, etc that really are a great pleasure to use.I decided early on that I'm mostly interested in rework. I further decided that I will treat assembly as a special case of rework: a fresh new board is "really" just a board on which every component is faulty (missing) and needs to be corrected (soldered on.) So here I am now with almost ten different iron/tweezer/air soldering tools but no reflow oven and having never tried applying a stencil, just because I am not interested in trying that until after I have mastered rework.Most people think I'm being very eccentric and suggest it would be much cheaper, faster, and more reliable to use stencil and reflow oven. I'm sure that's true when everything goes well. I'm just imagining that sooner or later I'll need to do some important rework of expensive boards and I'll be glad to have mastered the skills instead of making my all my beginner mistakes "on the job" with production boards. (I also wonder how other people developed their rework skills in the first place, and how much money they spend on buying fresh components for each prototype instead of reusing more old ones.)Lots to think about and some very personal decisions to make. I suppose that it comes down to budget too: do you want to do things as economically as possible or is there a particular amount of money that you are trying to invest in developing your electronics capabilities.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2020, 06:29:50 pm
content: This might be a way to roughly halve the working (and lighting) distance from approximately 8" to 4" (plus add some stability to a PCB) in case anyone wanted to see how the 4" view and working distance compares with the 8" view and working distance. Or it might be more cost effective to use a "1.0" vs a 0.5 Barlow.Accessories can be like shallow rabbit holes

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2020, 06:43:06 pm
content: I use Omnivise when I'm working. This raises the PCB and then you have to raise the microscope by the same distance to make it focus. That's too high for my neck with the 0.5x Barlow.Aside: He mentions at the end that it's hard to use an Omnivise with a small board and a preheater. I have a solution to this. I put the PCB into a Stickvise and then that into an Omnivise. Photo.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2020, 06:49:23 pm
content: btw: the main issue with working distance for me is not the elevation of the PCB but rather how much vertical space I have to maneuver tools e.g. hot air gun that ideally wants to be vertical to direct air downwards onto the chip.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2020, 09:17:53 pm
content: Quote from: lukego on October 10, 2020, 06:49:23 pmMan, you are in and all around this rabbit hole - your documentation is a good map for future rabbits🐇

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2020, 08:06:31 pm
content: Saw this:Probably doesn't completely translate due to different technologies including different materials, dimensions, and construction techniques but maybe it has some tiny applicability:https://expertphotography.com/photography-umbrella-lighting/#:~:text=This%20type%20is%20best%20for,umbrella%20is%20a%20reflective%20umbrella."White umbrellas don’t control the light as well as black umbrellas. Because they spread the light over a larger surface area, they reduce the glower of that light more than other types of modifiers."So maybe by a tiny margin the white ring housing might diffuse the light rather than focus it, and therefore maybe provide slightly less light but maybe help avoid some reflections (grasping at theoretical nits in the rabbit hole, I think).https://www.amscope.com/white-adjustable-144-led-ring-light-illuminator-for-stereo-microscope-camera.htmlhttps://www.amscope.com/144-led-adjustable-compact-microscope-ring-light-adapter-with-black-finish.htmlAs of the moment it's 77 reviews for white vs 49 for black (but both average 4.9). Review/purchase numbers likely reflect (haha) aesthetic preferences rather than any measurable difference in performance.---- or maybe I got it backwards?

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 12, 2020, 08:37:18 am
content: One thing I'd mention (surely covered somewhere above) is that the color of the surroundings seems to matter when you are working with leaded solder, because it is reflective like a mirror and will pick up its surroundings, while lead-free solder tends to be less sensitive because it reflects diffuse light and has a consistent cloudy appearance.I had trouble seeing bridges with leaded solder because their reflective appearance looked similar to wet flux residue. I was planning to make some kind of white screen around the working area, e.g. a 3D printed enclosure, to give the solder something more definite to reflect back (and holding up a piece of white paper made me think this would work.) However, I switched to lead-free solder for separate reasons instead and then I didn't have the problem.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 12, 2020, 03:48:16 pm
content: Quote from: lukego on October 12, 2020, 08:37:18 amGood point about the color of surroundings and reflections.Also, if color temp has been discussed in these threads I don't think I've seen it.What color temps have you tried and what have you settled on?IMO without a doubt color temp impacts what you see. As LEDs have become more available for home lighting I've paid more attention to color temp. At first LED's for conventional lighting didn't seem to offer much choice with respect to color temp. Now it's possible to find LED bulbs with ~3000-3200 K color temp. Generally anything higher seems too white/bright/sterile, ie too "cold" - both for indoor and outdoor lighting. There might be some exceptions but that seems to be the general trend.The Amscope and other LED ring lights seem to only be available in 6000 K or higher. If anyone has a line on warmer LED ring lights, please post a link.

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 12, 2020, 04:29:45 pm
content: Leica Microsystems used to favor 4500K, a neutral white. They have since shifted toward 5600~6000K (vertical daylight) as demonstratedhere. The LED3000/LED5000 illuminator brochure can be downloaded asa PDFif the link is still broken.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 12, 2020, 04:53:41 pm
content: in my opinion a high quality microscope needs more then just a central point ring light but also ability add one or two directional lights if needed.to add 45 degree side illumination . ring light is ok, however sometimes you need side illumination to pop some text or code.all three light source's should be independently dimmable, with any side illumination independently adjustable angle, from the other light source's set around the radius of a central point of the microscope.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 12, 2020, 07:43:07 pm
content: Quote from: jonovid on October 12, 2020, 04:53:41 pmAgreed. So far my plan is for a dimmable double goose neck plus a dimmable ring light. Unfortunately the gooseneck only has one dimming setting for both goose lights; ideally there would be separate dimmers for each gooseneck.Edit: ok, as a result of this discussion I found this:https://www.amscope.com/powerful-led-dual-goose-neck-microscope-illuminator-light.html- another $62 plus tax for dual dimmers- both single and dual dimmer versions are 6500 K- the educational process around here sometimes saves $ and sometimes it costs $; hopefully it all evens out with good results

author: ErikTheNorwegian
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 12, 2020, 08:12:24 pm
content: My microscope light was hard to work with, glear , hard light and not very easy on the eyes..I opened a defective LCD monitor, removed the fresnel layer under the LCD panel. Cut a ring out of the thin plastic fresnel that I placed under the led light and turned it until I got a more even and glear free light. The 3D dept and feeling was greatly improved. Some tape and it's been there since.Worked for me, free to try for you.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 12, 2020, 08:29:44 pm
content: Quote from: ErikTheNorwegian on October 12, 2020, 08:12:24 pmYep, maybe Amscope hasn't put quite as much R&D into their lighting products as they have margin.A search on "gooseneck LED light" on Amazon shows various alternatives, some at pretty low prices relative to the $107 Amscope wants for a double gooseneck with a single dimmer. Not sure how convenient these are but looks to be some possiblities.https://www.amazon.com/s?k=gooseneck+led+light&ref=nb_sb_noss

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 12, 2020, 08:52:31 pm
content: I and others have used IKEA Jansjö work lamps. Unfortunately IKEA discontinued the brighter versions a couple years ago.If there is an IKEA nearby, you might check out its successor, the Nävlinge. The desk lamp is probably not all that useful as only the top bit flexes. Butthe clamp on spotlight, if it is just as bright, could prove quite serviceable.EDIT: The clamp-on and desk lamps are both 220 lumens.2ND EDIT: I checked out the Nävlinge and found it too dim. I see however, that IKEA Germany is selling the Jansjö table lamp in chrome.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 13, 2020, 11:10:05 am
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on October 12, 2020, 07:43:07 pmI have a light like this from Aliexpress:https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000041917646.htmlThis works well with my RPi camera. Gives me high quality images without needing max brightness or extremely careful/near positioning. Definitely an important part of my setup.The device is simple. Each illuminator is just one LED and a lens to focus the light into a smaller area. The base seems to just provide 5V to the LED and use PWM for dimming. Mine seems to deliver 20% PWM duty cycle at maximum brightness. The "3W" claim seems to just be a marketing number, if the LED would operate at 100% duty cycle, which is 5x what the maximum setting actually delivers. I tired putting in 100% duty cycle from my bench supply for a second or so, and WOW was that bright, but I'm not sure if the LED can survive long in that mode or whether the enclosure is able to dissipate enough heat.This light wasn't sufficient for my Eakins IMX290 camera. If I wanted a good image I needed both lights cranked up to max and placed within about an inch of the board, which is too close for comfort. That's why I opened it up and started to look into "turbo charging" the light. But the fault there is with the camera, just doesn't have the right sensor for use on a trinocular scope.

author: dreamcat4
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 13, 2020, 12:34:52 pm
content: Quote from: lukego on October 13, 2020, 11:10:05 amYeah the thing I don't really understand properly is because the IMX290 is supposed to be a very well performing low light sensor... probably even better (for low light) than the one in the Rpi HQ camera.So it's like... well whats the problem then? Is it the firmware running on the eakins blue camera? Or that the camera is somehow engaged in a "mode" that is not performing to the full capabilities of the sensor? For example if that mode is not exposed to the user, or it's a technical restriction of the way the MCU in the camera communicates with the sensor module, etc.It does not really make sense to me why the IMX290 (the sensor alone). Would be inadequate and be underperforming. Don't get what I am missing here.I mean - it's great that the rpi camera can do such a good job at lower cost. But that doesnt then explain why the eakins itself is doing such an inferior job, when it has a (slightly better?) sensor in it.Or maybe there is some post processing steps going on in the rpi?Ah wait! now I remember! The rpi camera only can use 2 of those mipi dsi lanes. Half the bandwidth. SO this then limits the fps to 1080p30. Wheras the eakins is doing twice the refresh rate @ 1080p60. So maybe since each frame is being exposed for double the time (on rpi), that then makes it about twice the brightness?So what would happen if you could limit the eakins IMX290 sensor to do a "true" 30fps? Rather than have it's MCU just be throwing away half of the frames (and still capturing at 60fps regardless).The reason I bring this up is because some dude out there has also been working on an FPGA adaptor, for the RPI HQ camera. Which uses all 4 dsi lanes. And that implementation (very much a prototype rather than a finished product). Well he can set any resolution or framerate he likes, up to 1000fps.And basically to increase the FPS is always makes the image significantly DIMMER. As of course you would expect out of any camera.Hope this helps! Let us know if you can do any further tests to confirm (or deny) with your own cameras. Good day!And of course this speaks to the differential between the brightness thru the eye pieces compared to the camera image. Perhaps other people just artificially boost the brightness on the captured image? At a loss of quality? But of course it does not work like that. Due to the metal reflections, making it hard to see the solder joints, etc.Please let us know if you can elaborate any better! Since my own opinions expressed here are mostly guesswork and therefore speculative. It would be nice to know better.

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 13, 2020, 02:12:22 pm
content: Quote from: dreamcat4 on October 13, 2020, 12:34:52 pmGood question. The RPi camera does expose more tuning parameters (via raspivid command) than the Eakins (via primitive GUI) and I am tuning the RPi to the max. Some notes:RPi HQ has a physically larger sensor. I am running that in 2x2 binned mode i.e. each pixel in my image is made up of light captured from four (2x2) cells on the sensor. This may mean that the sensor's per-pixel light sensitivity is higher than the spec would suggest (if it considers full resolution mode on the sensor.) The max resolution I'm able to make this work with is 1296x972 for that's close enough to my goal 1080p for my purposes.Eakins doesn't let me test slo shutter speeds. Those should allow more light onto the sensor for each frame at the expense of some blurring if the shutter speed is too close to the frame rate. Eakins setting for maximum shutter time / longest exposure seems to be too short while RPi software seems to allow more choice of values i.e. gives me some rope to hang myself with. On RPi HQ I'm able to boost exposure by extending shutter time with perfectly acceptable smoothness. It's possible that this is a big part of the problem if Eakins firmware artificially limits exposure length while RPi HQ lets me make the right trade-off.These days I always disable all digital enhancement in the camera. I record the image as it is delivered by the sensor and then I correct the exposure myself in post-processing (specifically I use the "RGB Curves" modifier in Blender VSE to boost the mid range.) So I am not dependent on the digital "gain" features of the Eakins verses the RPi HQ.The RPi HQ does offer some exposure correction features that occur in the analog domain, like analog gain and dynamic range control (e.g. capture more of the darker range to brighten later in post), and I do apply these. Could be that the IMX290 also supports this but that Eakins firmware doesn't expose it, not sure.EDIT: Also, another factor is that I'm using different reducer lenses for the cameras, because the larger sensor on the RPi HQ works well with 1/2 while the smaller sensor in the Eakins IMX290 needs 1/3. These are both cheapo reducer lenses from Eakins so I don't think they make a big difference but worth mentioning.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 13, 2020, 05:32:06 pm
content: Thanks for the discussion on the cameras - hope we can keep that going.On the lighting....Attached is an image of the AliExpress pricing for a double gooseneck with individual brightness controls. It looks a lot like the Amscope product; additionally for $92.65 it includes a ring light that seems to be about $40 from Amscope. Just the double gooseneck with the individual controls from Amscope is $169.99.Beyond wondering about the pricing is another item/question. In the third image you can see that the AliExpress light stand has markings that indicate that maybe the color temp is configurable. Any possibility color temp is really user configurable? Anyone know if the same labeling is on the back of either the single or individually controllable Amscope double gooseneck?I think the ability to have an individual brightness control is pretty desirable as it would effectively give the ability to control 3 lighting sources (2 goosenecks plus the ring) from 3 directions.Thoughts? Thx

author: lukego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2020, 08:17:08 am
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on October 13, 2020, 05:32:06 pmI have some LED photographic lights with "adjustable color temp." On mine the way it works is there are both cold and warm LEDs and you control the brightness of them separately to get the mix you want. (If you want max brightness you are stuck with 50/50 mix because they are all turned on to full.)Quote from: Electro Fan on October 13, 2020, 05:32:06 pmI see only two control dials so it seems unlikely that both color temp and brightness are individually controlled. But you can also adjust brightness by moving one light further away from the board, these goosenecks are pretty good for that because they are long and firm.That's probably the lighting kit that I'd start with if I were starting over. I think that you can get a good image using those lights, even with a suboptimal camera if you take care with the positioning. The only difference in my setup is the polarized ring light but that was expensive and not necessarily worth the money.

author: jaaa1976
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2020, 12:09:23 am
content: Quote from: jfiresto on October 08, 2020, 10:17:11 amHello..did you fix E-PL7 on microscope? if yes .. which adaptor c mount ? I want try some dslr camera on my microscope.thxOlympus PEN Lite E-PL7 I see on ebay is good price used so i may try this camera ? or is there some better options for dsrl camera on ebay ?

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2020, 07:20:34 am
content: Quote from: jaaa1976 on November 16, 2020, 12:09:23 amMy ca. 40 year old photo tube has a c-mount that was originally for a one-inch video tube. All I needed was an inexpensive c-mount to micro four thirds thread adapter to directly project the image onto the camera sensor. Do note that the c-mount should be no more than 34~35mm in diameter for a few millimeters below the flange, since the adapter has to stick the mount a couple millimeters into the camera to get the correct Flange Focal Distance.The Olympus micro four thirds cameras from roughly the OMD EM-5 onward are nice for stills and basic video. I would get a later Panasonic micro four thirds camera for more advanced video or if you need live HDMI out. A Nikon 1 should be better sized if you are a Nikon fan. Otherwise, it is probably cheaper to go 4/3rds and waste some pixels. You can probably use a mirrorless APS-C camera body (check the FFD!), but without a relay lens, the vignetting would waste more of the sensor.Because of its mirror, a DSLR needs an intermediate relay lens to project the camera port image all the way to the sensor. The cost and complication of that prompted me to look at mirrorless system cameras with 1" and 4/3" inch sensors.

author: jaaa1976
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2020, 05:16:27 pm
content: Quote from: jfiresto on November 16, 2020, 07:20:34 ammirrorless system cameras with 1" and 4/3" inch sensors will be better buy? if yes ..which model you can suggest me? Im new with cameras ..was using camera when was young..its all new to me now.

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2020, 05:41:19 pm
content: Will you be shooting video?High definition video?Do you need live monitoring so that you can use the camera as a video camera without recording anything?

author: jaaa1976
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2020, 06:59:08 pm
content: Quote from: jfiresto on November 16, 2020, 05:41:19 pmIs good to have this options but for me now is enough just look on monitor to check boards when i repair phones etc.. so i can clearly see smallest parts capaitors etc. and replace them.. sometimes i just look on monitor and same time soldering..so not always look in microscope.I dont need at the moment make videos.I need live monitoring so that I can use the camera as a video camera without recording anything.

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2020, 07:18:18 pm
content: Quote from: jaaa1976 on November 16, 2020, 06:59:08 pmLook at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX80. It is supposed to have live HDMI monitoring, both 4K and 1080, with 4K pleasantly decimated to 1080 if the monitor only supports that. I bought one to decimate and will mount it on a microscope with a one-inch image, c-mount camera port. Unfortunately, I am presently blocked from fetching the camera and it would be rather expensive to post.

author: jaaa1976
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2020, 12:43:25 pm
content: Quote from: jfiresto on November 16, 2020, 07:18:18 pmthank you for suggestion.. its not expensive camera i look on ebay.. if i buy..which adapter i need to buy? can you send me link?If i buy this camera .. it means i dont need buy this expensive microscope C mount adapter for amscope in link below?https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32858009996.htmland what you think about Sony A6000 Mirrorless Camera ?

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2020, 01:14:44 pm
content: Quote from: jaaa1976 on November 17, 2020, 12:43:25 pmI have since favorable snippets about Sony's cameras but no very little about them. The A6000 has an E-mount with an even slightly shorter distance than micro four thirds. It looks like you can get inexpensive c-mount to Sony e-mount thread adapters, though, again, you may have consider the diameter of the microscope's c-mount just below the flange. Having an APS-C sensor, you may get vignetting or more blurring toward the corners than with a micro four thirds camera.What microscope do you have? You want a 1X, 1-inch microscope c-mount adapter. On older and on higher end microscopes, they are often much cheaper and simpler because the adapter needs no optics.

author: jaaa1976
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2020, 01:36:17 pm
content: Quote from: jfiresto on November 17, 2020, 01:14:44 pmI have AmScope SM745NTP-B 7X-45X Black Simul-Focal Trinocular Zoom Stereo Microscopehttps://www.aliexpress.com/item/32995863371.html?spm=a2g0s.9042311.0.0.43b34c4dA

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2020, 02:04:12 pm
content: I do not know Amscope, but I think you want the 1X version of the above, perhaps the 1X version ofone of these. It is the cheapest which may mean it contains no optic, that is, no cheap optics to degrade the image, assuming it is designed correctly.

author: jaaa1976
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2020, 03:54:27 pm
content: Quote from: jfiresto on November 17, 2020, 02:04:12 pmThis adapter will be good if i buy Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX80 ?I already sold this adapter.. i sold with eakins microscope and relife camera in picture 2 months ago..this adapter have optic,glass inside.For Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX80 I think will need different size adapter i think ?

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2020, 04:50:52 pm
content: Quote from: jaaa1976 on November 17, 2020, 03:54:27 pmYou are probably asking the wrong person. Normally, a 1X adapter means 1.0 times 1-inch, and would be a good magnification for the GX80. Some AliExpress vendors, however, sometimes do things I do not understand.

author: jaaa1976
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2020, 07:04:22 pm
content: Quote from: jfiresto on November 17, 2020, 04:50:52 pmOk..so adaper look good then..but after i fix this adapter on microscope.. i need another adapter connect to Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX80 ?

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2020, 07:21:59 pm
content: Yes, you also need a c-mount to micro four thirds adapter, like one of the somewhat thin ones (the great majority)among these on ebay.

author: jaaa1976
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2020, 08:02:02 pm
content: Quote from: jfiresto on November 18, 2020, 07:21:59 pmThank you very much..now i know how to fix Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX80 on microscope.I think i will buy Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX80 ..it looks cheaper option like this microscope camera in link below.https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32906410173.html?spm=2114.12010610.8148356.24.3855b19and i can also use DMC-GX80 make pictures not only with microscope.

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2020, 08:23:02 pm
content: I might read the GX80 reviews (in America, it is called the GX85), anyway, to see if you can find any deal breakers. The big quirk people mention is the electronic viewfinder which interlaces the primary colors and produces a funny chromatic tearing of fast moving objects. Despite that, it is a popular model that gives you a lot for your money.