Fwd: Re: Importance of the tube lens NA

[Barbara Foster]

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:25:52 -0600
To: [hidden email], Confocal Microscopy List <[hidden email]>
From: Barbara Foster <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Importance of the tube lens NA

Hi, Gabor

This is an interesting concept.  If you use the expanded version of the Rayleigh criterion [1.22 lamda/(NA obj + NA cond)] and also take a look at the impact on the diffraction image, a number of things emerge which might answer your question.

For example:  if you use a simple ruled grating aligned N-S on your stage, the diffraction pattern will be a series of horizontal dots (emails don't permit a full discussion of the physics... see any basic physics review book).  The bright, central zero order spot carries information about the background.  The other spots carry information about orientation, spacing, and edge information.  To convey spacing and orientation from the object to the image, the receiving lens (the one that FORMS the diffraction pattern) only needs to capture 2 adjacent diffraction spots.  However, the larger the NA, the greater the ability to capture neighboring spots (ex: moving from the center of the pattern to the right: 0, +1, +2, etc.).  The more spots collected, the greater the edge definition.  Also, the greater the NA, the greater the summed intensity of the entire pattern.  (Again, emails don't permit much discussion of all the physics).

It is not clear to me why putting the tube lens near the objective is important... It is more likely that they have put the SAMPLE near the objective, setting up the condition for infinity corrected optics. However, there is a rule in physics that says that intensity falls off as the square of the distance, so perhaps putting the tube lens nearer to the objective allows them to maximize intensity collected from the diffraction pattern.  If you are using a high NA tube lens, by default, you need to move the detector closer, since the distance to the image plane will be shorter. 

Finally, even though you did not mention it, a higher NA lens is often engineered with greater aberration correction.  That extra engineering is also likely to increase the throughput, enabling the observer to detect more. 

All of this might add up to 10x improvement in detection and, actually, resolution and edge information.  You've piqued my curiousity... Looks like time for a chat with Olympu to learn more!

Hope this was helpful,
Barbara Foster

Barbara Foster, President and Sr. Consultant

Microscopy/Microscopy Education
7101 Royal Glen Trail, Suite A
McKinney TX 75070
P: [phone]  Skype: fostermme
W: www.MicroscopyEducation.com

NEWS! Visit the NEW and IMPROVED www.MicroscopyEducation.com! And don't forget:  MME is now scheduling customized, on-site courses through March 2009.  Call me for a free assessment and quote.

At 08:19 PM 3/5/2009, you wrote:

Dear All,

We just had a presentation from Olympus about their LV200 bio-luminescence microscope. As they claim (and demonstrated with some images) this system is significantly (approx 10x) times more sensitive then a conventional microscope used with the same objective and camera (and pixel size/resolution). Olympus argues that the "secret" is that they put the tube lens close to the objective (probably less important) and put the camera very close to the tube lens meaning that they use a high-numerical aperture tube lens. Now I simply don't understand why this should result in a significantly higher detection intensity (and the Olympus representative was also unable to give a detailed explanation).
Does anyone of you have an idea why a high NA tube lens would be advantageous? And if this is so nice - why it is not applied in conventional microscopes?


Thanks     Gabor

[Rietdorf, Jens]

Dear Barbara,

 

I have a hard time to follow your explanations. The light gathering capacity in a luminescence detection system is determined by the NA of the objective, and unless you throw away the gathered light later, I do not see how  you would gain light with a high NA tube lens. A high NA tube lens will allow to have a short overall optical apparatus, which can then nicely fit into a small dark box, so one can avoid any kind of stray light to enter, which is important for the typically very long exposure times in luminescence imaging, but that’s about it, I would say.

 

Cheers, jens

 

From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Barbara Foster
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 17:37 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SPAM] Fwd: Re: Importance of the tube lens NA

 

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:25:52 -0600
To: [hidden email], Confocal Microscopy List <[hidden email]>
From: Barbara Foster <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Importance of the tube lens NA

Hi, Gabor

This is an interesting concept.  If you use the expanded version of the Rayleigh criterion [1.22 lamda/(NA obj + NA cond)] and also take a look at the impact on the diffraction image, a number of things emerge which might answer your question.

For example:  if you use a simple ruled grating aligned N-S on your stage, the diffraction pattern will be a series of horizontal dots (emails don't permit a full discussion of the physics... see any basic physics review book).  The bright, central zero order spot carries information about the background.  The other spots carry information about orientation, spacing, and edge information.  To convey spacing and orientation from the object to the image, the receiving lens (the one that FORMS the diffraction pattern) only needs to capture 2 adjacent diffraction spots.  However, the larger the NA, the greater the ability to capture neighboring spots (ex: moving from the center of the pattern to the right: 0, +1, +2, etc.).  The more spots collected, the greater the edge definition.  Also, the greater the NA, the greater the summed intensity of the entire pattern.  (Again, emails don't permit much discussion of all the physics).

It is not clear to me why putting the tube lens near the objective is important... It is more likely that they have put the SAMPLE near the objective, setting up the condition for infinity corrected optics. However, there is a rule in physics that says that intensity falls off as the square of the distance, so perhaps putting the tube lens nearer to the objective allows them to maximize intensity collected from the diffraction pattern.  If you are using a high NA tube lens, by default, you need to move the detector closer, since the distance to the image plane will be shorter. 

Finally, even though you did not mention it, a higher NA lens is often engineered with greater aberration correction.  That extra engineering is also likely to increase the throughput, enabling the observer to detect more. 

All of this might add up to 10x improvement in detection and, actually, resolution and edge information.  You've piqued my curiousity... Looks like time for a chat with Olympu to learn more!

Hope this was helpful,
Barbara Foster

Barbara Foster, President and Sr. Consultant

Microscopy/Microscopy Education
7101 Royal Glen Trail, Suite A
McKinney TX 75070
P: [phone]  Skype: fostermme
W: www.MicroscopyEducation.com

NEWS! Visit the NEW and IMPROVED www.MicroscopyEducation.com! And don't forget:  MME is now scheduling customized, on-site courses through March 2009.  Call me for a free assessment and quote.

At 08:19 PM 3/5/2009, you wrote:

Dear All,

We just had a presentation from Olympus about their LV200 bio-luminescence microscope. As they claim (and demonstrated with some images) this system is significantly (approx 10x) times more sensitive then a conventional microscope used with the same objective and camera (and pixel size/resolution). Olympus argues that the "secret" is that they put the tube lens close to the objective (probably less important) and put the camera very close to the tube lens meaning that they use a high-numerical aperture tube lens. Now I simply don't understand why this should result in a significantly higher detection intensity (and the Olympus representative was also unable to give a detailed explanation).
Does anyone of you have an idea why a high NA tube lens would be advantageous? And if this is so nice - why it is not applied in conventional microscopes?


Thanks     Gabor

[Mark Cannell]

I have a hard time understanding this.  If overall system magnification
is the same and the NA is set by the objective there is no way to
increase throughput (see Lagrange invariant) -unless the original system
had introduced losses such as an aperture stop somewhere in the system
(the old tube lens?) -but why would one do that in the first place? All
the tube lenses in infinity systems I've seen look big enough to pass
the marginal ray. The highest efficiency is obtained by using prime
focus but that is often too close to the microscope body for the camera
chip. You then add a lens (or two) to relay the image to the camera. Now
losses occur if these lenses don't capture the marginal ray for the FOV
(seen in severe case as vignetting). So perhaps it's not the tube lens
but a relay lens? From their description it sounds like they've made
prime focus available to the camera and thereby saved a few optical
losses.  But shame on them if their  other fluorescence microscopes
throw light away!

Regards Mark

>
>> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:25:52 -0600
>> To: [hidden email], Confocal Microscopy List
>> <[hidden email]>
>> From: Barbara Foster <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: Importance of the tube lens NA
>>
>> Hi, Gabor
>>
>> This is an interesting concept.  If you use the expanded version of
>> the Rayleigh criterion [1.22 lamda/(NA obj + NA cond)] and also take
>> a look at the impact on the diffraction image, a number of things
>> emerge which might answer your question.
>>
>> For example:  if you use a simple ruled grating aligned N-S on your
>> stage, the diffraction pattern will be a series of horizontal dots
>> (emails don't permit a full discussion of the physics... see any
>> basic physics review book).  The bright, central zero order spot
>> carries information about the background.  The other spots carry
>> information about orientation, spacing, and edge information.  To
>> convey spacing and orientation from the object to the image, the
>> receiving lens (the one that FORMS the diffraction pattern) only
>> needs to capture 2 adjacent diffraction spots.  However, the larger
>> the NA, the greater the ability to capture neighboring spots (ex:
>> moving from the center of the pattern to the right: 0, +1, +2,
>> etc.).  The more spots collected, the greater the edge definition.  
>> Also, the greater the NA, the greater the summed intensity of the
>> entire pattern.  (Again, emails don't permit much discussion of all
>> the physics).
>>
>> It is not clear to me why putting the tube lens near the objective is
>> important... It is more likely that they have put the SAMPLE near the
>> objective, setting up the condition for infinity corrected optics.
>> However, there is a rule in physics that says that intensity falls
>> off as the square of the distance, so perhaps putting the tube lens
>> nearer to the objective allows them to maximize intensity collected
>> from the diffraction pattern.  If you are using a high NA tube lens,
>> by default, you need to move the detector closer, since the distance
>> to the image plane will be shorter.
>>
>> Finally, even though you did not mention it, a higher NA lens is
>> often engineered with greater aberration correction.  That extra
>> engineering is also likely to increase the throughput, enabling the
>> observer to detect more.
>>
>> All of this might add up to 10x improvement in detection and,
>> actually, resolution and edge information.  You've piqued my
>> curiousity... Looks like time for a chat with Olympu to learn more!
>>
>> Hope this was helpful,
>> Barbara Foster
>>
>> *Barbara Foster, President and Sr. Consultant
>>
>> Microscopy/Microscopy Education
>> *7101 Royal Glen Trail, Suite A
>> McKinney TX 75070
>> *P: *[phone]  *Skype: *fostermme
>> *W: *www.MicroscopyEducation.com <http://www.microscopyeducation.com/>
>>
>> *NEWS! Visit the NEW and IMPROVED www.MicroscopyEducation.com
>> <http://www.microscopyeducation.com/>! And don't forget:  MME is now
>> scheduling customized, on-site courses through March 2009.  Call me
>> for a free assessment and quote.
>>
>> *At 08:19 PM 3/5/2009, you wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> We just had a presentation from Olympus about their LV200
>>> bio-luminescence microscope. As they claim (and demonstrated with
>>> some images) this system is significantly (approx 10x) times more
>>> sensitive then a conventional microscope used with the same
>>> objective and camera (and pixel size/resolution). Olympus argues
>>> that the "secret" is that they put the tube lens close to the
>>> objective (probably less important) and put the camera very close to
>>> the tube lens meaning that they use a high-numerical aperture tube
>>> lens. Now I simply don't understand why this should result in a
>>> significantly higher detection intensity (and the Olympus
>>> representative was also unable to give a detailed explanation).
>>> Does anyone of you have an idea why a high NA tube lens would be
>>> advantageous? And if this is so nice - why it is not applied in
>>> conventional microscopes?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks     Gabor

[James Pawley]

Hi all,

We have all seen ray diagrams like.

http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/New_items/MUS/images/ray_diag_6.gif

Light from a point on the axis and in the focal plane diverges until some of it hits the (perfect) lens and emerges as a parallel ray bundle on the other side. However, things become a little more complex when the focal-plane emitter is moved off the axis, as in

http://www.phg.ulg.ac.be/Hololab/fichiers/Graphic1.jpg

Now the emergent parallel ray bundle is at an angle to the axis. So you would think that, as long at the next element in the optical system (the tube lens) was sufficiently large enough (or close enough) to collect the angled ray bundle created by light emerging from the focus plane at the edge of the field of view, then all the light from the field of view would be focused into the Intermediate Image. Then it would pass through the eyepiece/camera-coupler and end up in the recorded image.

But what about light emerging from above or below the focal plane? Although I couldn't find an on-line sketch, it is clear that instead of producing a parallel emerging ray bundle, it will produce one that either diverges or converges (resp). So some of these rays, particularly those from points both off axis and out of focus, will leave the objective at angles even larger than those from the edge of the field of view at the plane of focus. How much more will depend on how far off axis and away from the focal plane they are, but when one focuses tens of micrometers into a thick, fluorescent specimen, it can be quite a large angle.

As we want to place reasonable limits on the diameter of the black metal tube between the objective and the tube lens, (and on the diameter of the tube lens itself), then compromises must be made and some of the light from out-of-focus, off-axis sources will strike the wall and be lost. The general term for this loss is "Vignetting".

I know nothing about the actual changes that Olympus has apparently incorporated in their LV200 except what I found at

http://www.olympus-europa.com/corporate/1696_1948.htm

However, as I remember it, bioluminescence has a very low signal and the specimens are often quite 3-dimensional. To the extent that this is true and that a high NA objective is used to collect the signal, much of this signal may be out of focus. So I guess that having a tube lens with a large diameter will collect more of this light . Of course, it won't focus this extra light very well (the out of focus sources will still look like pale, diffuse blobs. You can't get around this.) but the total number of photons in the image will be larger with this large tube lens than with a "normal" one.

Two last notes:

1) If the tube lens has a larger diameter, the cone of in-focus-light that converges from it to focus at the image plane will have a larger half angle, and hence a higher NA. However, unless the magnification of the entire system is very low indeed (i.e. using a 1-3x infinity objective), then this tube NA has no affect on the sharpness of the final image (unless the large NA tube lens is not properly corrected to produce near-diffraction-limited performance at this NA: in which case the final image may be less sharp).

2) To some extent, all microscopes have this limitation (off-axis, out-of-focus light is preferentially lost) but it will be particularly severe when using high-NA objectives of lower magnification because these have larger fields of view. Indeed, vignetting and other limitations on the performance of objectives are discussed (with better figures!) in Chapters 7 and 11 of the Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy.

Cheers,

Jim Pawley

-- 

              **********************************************
Prof. James B. Pawley,                                          Ph.  608-263-3147 
Room 223, Zoology Research Building,                                  FAX  [phone]
1117 Johnson Ave., Madison, WI, 53706                                [hidden email]

3D Microscopy of Living Cells Course, June 13-25, 2009, UBC, Vancouver Canada
Info: http://www.3dcourse.ubc.ca/       Applications due by March 15, 2009
       "If it ain't diffraction, it must be statistics." Anon.

[Patrick Van Oostveldt]

Dear,

I like to praticpate to this discussion in public because in concerns  
some basic set-up in the microscope.
I already send the following respons to Garbor, and I hope if I am  
wrong, somebody like to correct me.

Dear Gabor
The fact is that by approximation  F/D=1/2NA where F is the focal  
distance and D is the diameter. If the focal length ( related to  
magnification) is fixed you only can increase NA by increasing the  
diameter of the lens. Collection efficiency = (1-sqr(1-(NA/r)**2))/2  
with sqrt: function square root, r refractive index of the medium.  
Applying this formula indicate that based on pure geometry a decrease  
of the NA from 1.4 to 1.2 reduce collecting efficiency about 40%.
On the other hand we are limited by the standards.
Application of the RMS standard also defined as  ISO standard 8038, it  
is stated that the parfocal distance (= the distance between focal  
plane and the flange of the objective) of the objective is  45 mm, and  
the tube diameter is set to  about 20mm (rev Royal microscopy society  
handbook 15).

Decreasing linear magnification by a factor 5, will increase  
light/unit area by 25.

So these rules will advise you to use minimal magnification and  
maximal aperture.  High aperture and low magnification is only  
possible if your tube lens is close to the objective or if you reduce  
the infinity path of the system.

For that reason, NIKON and Mitutoyo left off  the RMS standard and now  
use a parfocal distance of 60mm and 95mm and a flange diameter of  
nearly 30mm. The benefit of that is an increased infinity space  
without the loss of intensity. Zeiss objectives, which are very  
similar to Olympus, have an infinity space between 110 and 130 mm.  
NIKON between 100 and 200mm.

So in the end, part of this question is also: should we leave the RMS  
standard?

Bye

Patrick Van Oostveldt


Quoting Mark Cannell <[hidden email]>:

> I have a hard time understanding this.  If overall system magnification
> is the same and the NA is set by the objective there is no way to
> increase throughput (see Lagrange invariant) -unless the original
> system had introduced losses such as an aperture stop somewhere in the
> system (the old tube lens?) -but why would one do that in the first
> place? All the tube lenses in infinity systems I've seen look big
> enough to pass the marginal ray. The highest efficiency is obtained by
> using prime focus but that is often too close to the microscope body
> for the camera chip. You then add a lens (or two) to relay the image to
> the camera. Now losses occur if these lenses don't capture the marginal
> ray for the FOV (seen in severe case as vignetting). So perhaps it's
> not the tube lens but a relay lens? From their description it sounds
> like they've made prime focus available to the camera and thereby saved
> a few optical losses.  But shame on them if their  other fluorescence
> microscopes throw light away!
>
> Regards Mark
>>
>>> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:25:52 -0600
>>> To: [hidden email], Confocal Microscopy List  
>>> <[hidden email]>
>>> From: Barbara Foster <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: Re: Importance of the tube lens NA
>>>
>>> Hi, Gabor
>>>
>>> This is an interesting concept.  If you use the expanded version  
>>> of the Rayleigh criterion [1.22 lamda/(NA obj + NA cond)] and also  
>>>  take a look at the impact on the diffraction image, a number of  
>>> things emerge which might answer your question.
>>>
>>> For example:  if you use a simple ruled grating aligned N-S on  
>>> your stage, the diffraction pattern will be a series of horizontal  
>>>  dots (emails don't permit a full discussion of the physics... see  
>>>  any basic physics review book).  The bright, central zero order  
>>> spot carries information about the background.  The other spots  
>>> carry information about orientation, spacing, and edge  
>>> information.  To convey spacing and orientation from the object to  
>>>  the image, the receiving lens (the one that FORMS the diffraction  
>>>  pattern) only needs to capture 2 adjacent diffraction spots.    
>>> However, the larger the NA, the greater the ability to capture  
>>> neighboring spots (ex: moving from the center of the pattern to  
>>> the right: 0, +1, +2, etc.). The more spots collected, the greater  
>>>  the edge definition.  Also, the greater the NA, the greater the  
>>> summed intensity of the entire pattern.  (Again, emails don't  
>>> permit much discussion of all the physics).
>>>
>>> It is not clear to me why putting the tube lens near the objective  
>>>  is important... It is more likely that they have put the SAMPLE  
>>> near the objective, setting up the condition for infinity  
>>> corrected optics. However, there is a rule in physics that says  
>>> that intensity falls off as the square of the distance, so perhaps  
>>>  putting the tube lens nearer to the objective allows them to  
>>> maximize intensity collected from the diffraction pattern.  If you  
>>>  are using a high NA tube lens, by default, you need to move the  
>>> detector closer, since the distance to the image plane will be  
>>> shorter. Finally, even though you did not mention it, a higher NA  
>>> lens is often engineered with greater aberration correction.  That  
>>>  extra engineering is also likely to increase the throughput,  
>>> enabling the observer to detect more. All of this might add up to  
>>> 10x improvement in detection and, actually, resolution and edge  
>>> information.  You've piqued my curiousity... Looks like time for a  
>>>  chat with Olympu to learn more!
>>>
>>> Hope this was helpful,
>>> Barbara Foster
>>>
>>> *Barbara Foster, President and Sr. Consultant
>>>
>>> Microscopy/Microscopy Education
>>> *7101 Royal Glen Trail, Suite A
>>> McKinney TX 75070
>>> *P: *[phone]  *Skype: *fostermme
>>> *W: *www.MicroscopyEducation.com <http://www.microscopyeducation.com/>
>>>
>>> *NEWS! Visit the NEW and IMPROVED www.MicroscopyEducation.com  
>>> <http://www.microscopyeducation.com/>! And don't forget:  MME is  
>>> now scheduling customized, on-site courses through March 2009.    
>>> Call me for a free assessment and quote.
>>>
>>> *At 08:19 PM 3/5/2009, you wrote:
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> We just had a presentation from Olympus about their LV200  
>>>> bio-luminescence microscope. As they claim (and demonstrated with  
>>>>  some images) this system is significantly (approx 10x) times  
>>>> more  sensitive then a conventional microscope used with the same  
>>>>  objective and camera (and pixel size/resolution). Olympus argues  
>>>>  that the "secret" is that they put the tube lens close to the  
>>>> objective (probably less important) and put the camera very close  
>>>>  to the tube lens meaning that they use a high-numerical aperture  
>>>>  tube lens. Now I simply don't understand why this should result  
>>>> in a significantly higher detection intensity (and the Olympus  
>>>> representative was also unable to give a detailed explanation).
>>>> Does anyone of you have an idea why a high NA tube lens would be  
>>>> advantageous? And if this is so nice - why it is not applied in  
>>>> conventional microscopes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks     Gabor

--
Dep. Moleculaire Biotechnologie
Coupure links 653
B 9000 GENT

tel [phone]
fax [phone]

[John Oreopoulos]

I'm a big fan of the documentary movie genre and the other day, while re-watching a couple episodes of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series, I thought to myself, "Why has no one put together a documentary about the history of microscopy?" Is anyone out there aware of such a thing? If not, would there be interest in the community to try and put something together by making use of the many open source tools on the web like youtube, etc. to do such a thing? I myself have never been a part of any home-made movie effort, but I would be willing to work with people to get a pet project like this going.

There is a BBC documentary called Light Fantastic by Simon Schaffer which documents the history of optics and its impact on the world, and this is very much in the spirit of the kind of thing I had in mind, but it would be nice to see something exclusive for microscopy, perhaps talking about the stories of the scientists behind important developments in microscopy as well.

John Oreopoulos, BSc,

PhD Candidate

University of Toronto

Institute For Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering

Centre For Studies in Molecular Imaging

[Badri Roysam]

I agree - this is a definite need. There ought to be a show on Nova or such
other program on microscopy. I am happy to contribute to such an effort!


Badri Roysam
Professor, Department of Electrical, Computer and Systems Engineering
Associate Director, NSF Center for Subsurface Sensing & Imaging Systems (CenSSIS ERC)
Co-Director, Rensselaer Center for Open Source Software
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
110 8th Street, Troy, New York 12180-3590, USA.
Office(JEC 7010): 518-276-8067, Assistant: 518-276-8525, Lab(JEC 6308): 518-276-8207, Fax: [phone]
Email: [hidden email], Web: http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/~roysam



----- Original Message -----
From: John Oreopoulos [mailto:[hidden email]]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: A microscopy documentary

> I'm a big fan of the documentary movie genre and the other day, while  
> re-watching a couple episodes of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series, I  
> thought to myself, "Why has no one put together a documentary about  
> the history of microscopy?" Is anyone out there aware of such a  
> thing? If not, would there be interest in the community to try and  
> put something together by making use of the many open source tools on  
> the web like youtube, etc. to do such a thing? I myself have never  
> been a part of any home-made movie effort, but I would be willing to  
> work with people to get a pet project like this going.
>
> There is a BBC documentary called Light Fantastic by Simon Schaffer  
> which documents the history of optics and its impact on the world,  
> and this is very much in the spirit of the kind of thing I had in  
> mind, but it would be nice to see something exclusive for microscopy,  
> perhaps talking about the stories of the scientists behind important  
> developments in microscopy as well.
>
>
> John Oreopoulos, BSc,
> PhD Candidate
> University of Toronto
> Institute For Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering
> Centre For Studies in Molecular Imaging
>
>
>

[Jeffrey L. Travis]

The closest thing to a microscopy documentary I can recall is the
Saturday Night Live segment of "Leonard Pinth-Garnell's Bad Musicals"
which featured a musical based on the life of Leewenhoek.  This sketch
originally aired on December 10, 1977.  A synopsis can be found here:
http://snlarc.jt.org/detail.php?i=1977121010

The musical, as I recall, was proclaimed by Pinth-Garnell to be "simply
terrible."

[Ray Gilbert]

Try National Geographic's Invisible World. I saw it when I was about 12 and it set off my passion for microscopy for life.

 

Cheers

 

Ray G

 

---

From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Oreopoulos
Sent: Tuesday, 10 March 2009 9:17 a.m.
To: [hidden email]
Subject: A microscopy documentary

 

I'm a big fan of the documentary movie genre and the other day, while re-watching a couple episodes of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series, I thought to myself, "Why has no one put together a documentary about the history of microscopy?" Is anyone out there aware of such a thing? If not, would there be interest in the community to try and put something together by making use of the many open source tools on the web like youtube, etc. to do such a thing? I myself have never been a part of any home-made movie effort, but I would be willing to work with people to get a pet project like this going.

 

There is a BBC documentary called Light Fantastic by Simon Schaffer which documents the history of optics and its impact on the world, and this is very much in the spirit of the kind of thing I had in mind, but it would be nice to see something exclusive for microscopy, perhaps talking about the stories of the scientists behind important developments in microscopy as well.

 

John Oreopoulos, BSc,

PhD Candidate

University of Toronto

Institute For Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering

Centre For Studies in Molecular Imaging

 

[John Runions]

We should make a musical.  Anybody got any talent?  Imagine a big Broadway number that explains Kohler illumination.  John.

Jeffrey L. Travis wrote:

The closest thing to a microscopy documentary I can recall is the Saturday Night Live segment of "Leonard Pinth-Garnell's Bad Musicals" which featured a musical based on the life of Leewenhoek.  This sketch originally aired on December 10, 1977.  A synopsis can be found here:
http://snlarc.jt.org/detail.php?i=1977121010

The musical, as I recall, was proclaimed by Pinth-Garnell to be "simply terrible."

[Badri Roysam]

I believe that much has happened recently, and an updated documentary is needed.


Badri Roysam
Professor, Department of Electrical, Computer and Systems Engineering
Associate Director, NSF Center for Subsurface Sensing & Imaging Systems (CenSSIS ERC)
Co-Director, Rensselaer Center for Open Source Software
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
110 8th Street, Troy, New York 12180-3590, USA.
Office(JEC 7010): 518-276-8067, Assistant: 518-276-8525, Lab(JEC 6308): 518-276-8207, Fax: [phone]
Email: [hidden email], Web: http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/~roysam



----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey L. Travis [mailto:[hidden email]]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: A microscopy documentary


> The closest thing to a microscopy documentary I can recall is the
> Saturday Night Live segment of "Leonard Pinth-Garnell's Bad Musicals"
> which featured a musical based on the life of Leewenhoek.  This sketch
> originally aired on December 10, 1977.  A synopsis can be found here:
> http://snlarc.jt.org/detail.php?i=1977121010
>
> The musical, as I recall, was proclaimed by Pinth-Garnell to be "simply
> terrible."
>

["José A. Feijó"]

check bioclips.com , a lot of stuff there on the subject, specially the presentation I tried to send but was rejected (dresdencinema2007_web)


****************************
not sure if it will pass, but I attach a presentation from Dresden_Cinema festival with a bunch of links and incredible stories. I haven't followed the trend, but I believe that was one of the plans of the organizers

Badri Roysam escreveu:

I agree - this is a definite need. There ought to be a show on Nova or such
other program on microscopy. I am happy to contribute to such an effort!


Badri Roysam
Professor, Department of Electrical, Computer and Systems Engineering
Associate Director, NSF Center for Subsurface Sensing & Imaging Systems (CenSSIS ERC)
Co-Director, Rensselaer Center for Open Source Software
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
110 8th Street, Troy, New York 12180-3590, USA.
Office(JEC 7010): 518-276-8067, Assistant: 518-276-8525, Lab(JEC 6308): 518-276-8207, Fax: [phone]
Email: [hidden email], Web: http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/~roysam



----- Original Message -----
From: John Oreopoulos [[hidden email]]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: A microscopy documentary


  

I'm a big fan of the documentary movie genre and the other day, while  
re-watching a couple episodes of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series, I  
thought to myself, "Why has no one put together a documentary about  
the history of microscopy?" Is anyone out there aware of such a  
thing? If not, would there be interest in the community to try and  
put something together by making use of the many open source tools on  
the web like youtube, etc. to do such a thing? I myself have never  
been a part of any home-made movie effort, but I would be willing to  
work with people to get a pet project like this going.

There is a BBC documentary called Light Fantastic by Simon Schaffer  
which documents the history of optics and its impact on the world,  
and this is very much in the spirit of the kind of thing I had in  
mind, but it would be nice to see something exclusive for microscopy,  
perhaps talking about the stories of the scientists behind important  
developments in microscopy as well.


John Oreopoulos, BSc,
PhD Candidate
University of Toronto
Institute For Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering
Centre For Studies in Molecular Imaging



    

.

  

[Boswell, Carl A - (cboswell)]

That reminds me of a professor I knew who taught Pathology to med students.  One day, to wake up the audience and emphasize a point, he fired off a starter's pistol.  Needless to say, he got everyone's attention.  When it came time for the next exam, the answer many students gave for the question pertaining to that "exciting" portion of the lecture was that a gun was fired.  My point is, would anyone remember how to align the condensor, or just hum the tune?

C

 

Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D.
Molecular and Cellular Biology
University of Arizona
520-954-7053
FAX [phone]

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:20 AM

Subject: Re: A microscopy documentary

We should make a musical.  Anybody got any talent?  Imagine a big Broadway number that explains Kohler illumination.  John.

Jeffrey L. Travis wrote:

The closest thing to a microscopy documentary I can recall is the Saturday Night Live segment of "Leonard Pinth-Garnell's Bad Musicals" which featured a musical based on the life of Leewenhoek.  This sketch originally aired on December 10, 1977.  A synopsis can be found here:
http://snlarc.jt.org/detail.php?i=1977121010

The musical, as I recall, was proclaimed by Pinth-Garnell to be "simply terrible."

[John Oreopoulos]

The point of a documentary like this would not be to have a "how to" guide to microscopy. It's would be more a history and an account of the most recent advances. Sure, you can show Kohler illumination and why this is useful, but a step by step guide for techniques is not needed. That would be useful for another set of videos. I would refer people to JOVE (Journal of visualized experiments) for "how to" videos (this is peer reviewed and would recommend that if you have a unique way of doing something you should submit a video to this "journal"):

http://www.jove.com/

I'm still thinking that a proper microscopy documentary would be modeled around Carl Sagan's Cosmos series which was sort of a history of astronomy for the lay person, explaining our place in the universe and the significance of various astronomical discoveries in the past, how the implications of these discoveries changed our thinking, etc. The same must be true of the world of the very small, the world that the microscope reveals to us. Probably the best thing to do would be to put together a list of important people in the history of microscopy and important discoveries made with microscopes that changed the world in some way or had a big impact. This need not be limited to optical microscopy; EM, AFM, etc. should all be included as well. 

John

On 10-Mar-09, at 2:09 PM, Carl Boswell wrote:

That reminds me of a professor I knew who taught Pathology to med students.  One day, to wake up the audience and emphasize a point, he fired off a starter's pistol.  Needless to say, he got everyone's attention.  When it came time for the next exam, the answer many students gave for the question pertaining to that "exciting" portion of the lecture was that a gun was fired.  My point is, would anyone remember how to align the condensor, or just hum the tune?

C

 

Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D.
Molecular and Cellular Biology
University of Arizona
520-954-7053
FAX [phone]

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:20 AM

Subject: Re: A microscopy documentary

We should make a musical.  Anybody got any talent?  Imagine a big Broadway number that explains Kohler illumination.  John.

Jeffrey L. Travis wrote:

The closest thing to a microscopy documentary I can recall is the Saturday Night Live segment of "Leonard Pinth-Garnell's Bad Musicals" which featured a musical based on the life of Leewenhoek.  This sketch originally aired on December 10, 1977.  A synopsis can be found here: 
http://snlarc.jt.org/detail.php?i=1977121010 

The musical, as I recall, was proclaimed by Pinth-Garnell to be "simply terrible." 

[Badri Roysam]

Its hard to compete with a story about Einstein and God's equation, but
there is nevertheless a compelling story on microscopy waiting to be told
for a general audience..


Badri Roysam
Professor, Department of Electrical, Computer and Systems Engineering
Associate Director, NSF Center for Subsurface Sensing & Imaging Systems (CenSSIS ERC)
Co-Director, Rensselaer Center for Open Source Software
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
110 8th Street, Troy, New York 12180-3590, USA.
Office(JEC 7010): 518-276-8067, Assistant: 518-276-8525, Lab(JEC 6308): 518-276-8207, Fax: [phone]
Email: [hidden email], Web: http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/~roysam



----- Original Message -----
From: John Oreopoulos [mailto:[hidden email]]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: A microscopy documentary

> The point of a documentary like this would not be to have a "how to"  
> guide to microscopy. It's would be more a history and an account of  
> the most recent advances. Sure, you can show Kohler illumination and  
> why this is useful, but a step by step guide for techniques is not  
> needed. That would be useful for another set of videos. I would refer  
> people to JOVE (Journal of visualized experiments) for "how to"  
> videos (this is peer reviewed and would recommend that if you have a  
> unique way of doing something you should submit a video to this  
> "journal"):
>
> http://www.jove.com/
>
> I'm still thinking that a proper microscopy documentary would be  
> modeled around Carl Sagan's Cosmos series which was sort of a history  
> of astronomy for the lay person, explaining our place in the universe  
> and the significance of various astronomical discoveries in the past,  
> how the implications of these discoveries changed our thinking, etc.  
> The same must be true of the world of the very small, the world that  
> the microscope reveals to us. Probably the best thing to do would be  
> to put together a list of important people in the history of  
> microscopy and important discoveries made with microscopes that  
> changed the world in some way or had a big impact. This need not be  
> limited to optical microscopy; EM, AFM, etc. should all be included  
> as well.
>
> John
>
>
> On 10-Mar-09, at 2:09 PM, Carl Boswell wrote:
>
> > That reminds me of a professor I knew who taught Pathology to med  
> > students.  One day, to wake up the audience and emphasize a point,  
> > he fired off a starter's pistol.  Needless to say, he got  
> > everyone's attention.  When it came time for the next exam, the  
> > answer many students gave for the question pertaining to that  
> > "exciting" portion of the lecture was that a gun was fired.  My  
> > point is, would anyone remember how to align the condensor, or just  
> > hum the tune?
> > C
> >
> > Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D.
> > Molecular and Cellular Biology
> > University of Arizona
> > 520-954-7053
> > FAX [phone]
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: John Runions
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:20 AM
> > Subject: Re: A microscopy documentary
> >
> > We should make a musical.  Anybody got any talent?  Imagine a big  
> > Broadway number that explains Kohler illumination.  John.
> >
> > Jeffrey L. Travis wrote:
> >>
> >> The closest thing to a microscopy documentary I can recall is the  
> >> Saturday Night Live segment of "Leonard Pinth-Garnell's Bad  
> >> Musicals" which featured a musical based on the life of  
> >> Leewenhoek.  This sketch originally aired on December 10, 1977.  A  
> >> synopsis can be found here:
> >> http://snlarc.jt.org/detail.php?i=1977121010
> >>
> >> The musical, as I recall, was proclaimed by Pinth-Garnell to be  
> >> "simply terrible."
> >
> > --
> > (Sent from my cra%#y non-Blackberry electronic device that still  
> > has wires)
> > *********************************
> > John Runions, Ph.D.
> > School of Life Sciences
> > Oxford Brookes University
> > Oxford, UK
> > OX3 0BP
> >
> > email:  [hidden email]
> > phone: [phone]
> > Runions’ lab web site
> >
> > Visit The Illuminated Plant Cell dot com
> > Oxford Brookes Master's in Bioimaging with Molecular Technology
>
>

[Goodhouse, Joseph G.]

Looks like its time for another Ken Burns Special.


Joe Goodhouse
Confocal Core Lab Manager
Dept. of Molecular Biology
Princeton University
609-258-5432

Visit us at http://www.molbio1.princeton.edu/facility/confocal/   


-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Badri Roysam
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:10 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: A microscopy documentary

Its hard to compete with a story about Einstein and God's equation, but
there is nevertheless a compelling story on microscopy waiting to be
told for a general audience..


Badri Roysam
Professor, Department of Electrical, Computer and Systems Engineering
Associate Director, NSF Center for Subsurface Sensing & Imaging Systems
(CenSSIS ERC) Co-Director, Rensselaer Center for Open Source Software
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 110 8th Street, Troy, New York
12180-3590, USA.
Office(JEC 7010): 518-276-8067, Assistant: 518-276-8525, Lab(JEC 6308):
518-276-8207, Fax: [phone]
Email: [hidden email], Web: http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/~roysam



----- Original Message -----
From: John Oreopoulos [mailto:[hidden email]]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: A microscopy documentary

> The point of a documentary like this would not be to have a "how to"  
> guide to microscopy. It's would be more a history and an account of
> the most recent advances. Sure, you can show Kohler illumination and
> why this is useful, but a step by step guide for techniques is not
> needed. That would be useful for another set of videos. I would refer
> people to JOVE (Journal of visualized experiments) for "how to"
> videos (this is peer reviewed and would recommend that if you have a
> unique way of doing something you should submit a video to this
> "journal"):
>
> http://www.jove.com/
>
> I'm still thinking that a proper microscopy documentary would be
> modeled around Carl Sagan's Cosmos series which was sort of a history
> of astronomy for the lay person, explaining our place in the universe
> and the significance of various astronomical discoveries in the past,
> how the implications of these discoveries changed our thinking, etc.
> The same must be true of the world of the very small, the world that
> the microscope reveals to us. Probably the best thing to do would be
> to put together a list of important people in the history of
> microscopy and important discoveries made with microscopes that
> changed the world in some way or had a big impact. This need not be
> limited to optical microscopy; EM, AFM, etc. should all be included as

> well.
>
> John
>
>
> On 10-Mar-09, at 2:09 PM, Carl Boswell wrote:
>
> > That reminds me of a professor I knew who taught Pathology to med
> > students.  One day, to wake up the audience and emphasize a point,
> > he fired off a starter's pistol.  Needless to say, he got everyone's

> > attention.  When it came time for the next exam, the answer many
> > students gave for the question pertaining to that "exciting" portion

> > of the lecture was that a gun was fired.  My point is, would anyone
> > remember how to align the condensor, or just hum the tune?
> > C
> >
> > Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D.
> > Molecular and Cellular Biology
> > University of Arizona
> > 520-954-7053
> > FAX [phone]
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: John Runions
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:20 AM
> > Subject: Re: A microscopy documentary
> >
> > We should make a musical.  Anybody got any talent?  Imagine a big
> > Broadway number that explains Kohler illumination.  John.
> >
> > Jeffrey L. Travis wrote:
> >>
> >> The closest thing to a microscopy documentary I can recall is the
> >> Saturday Night Live segment of "Leonard Pinth-Garnell's Bad
> >> Musicals" which featured a musical based on the life of Leewenhoek.

> >> This sketch originally aired on December 10, 1977.  A synopsis can
> >> be found here:
> >> http://snlarc.jt.org/detail.php?i=1977121010
> >>
> >> The musical, as I recall, was proclaimed by Pinth-Garnell to be
> >> "simply terrible."
> >
> > --
> > (Sent from my cra%#y non-Blackberry electronic device that still has

> > wires)
> > *********************************
> > John Runions, Ph.D.
> > School of Life Sciences
> > Oxford Brookes University
> > Oxford, UK
> > OX3 0BP
> >
> > email:  [hidden email]
> > phone: [phone]
> > Runions' lab web site
> >
> > Visit The Illuminated Plant Cell dot com Oxford Brookes Master's in
> > Bioimaging with Molecular Technology
>
>

[neeraj Gohad-3]

For someone who loves microscopy and is a fan of documentaries I think this a fantastic idea. I can imagine watching a two or three part ‘Modern Marvels’ type series on the History Channel or the National Geographic. I am a big fan of the ‘Modern Marvels’ series and Microscopy is perfect for it. They have really nice way of discussing a topic where they start off with the history of the topic, its evolution, then discuss the present day state of affairs, applications and then go on to discuss the cutting edge and future research about that particular topic. Microscopy has all the elements and more, such a series can definitely include all aspects of Microscopy, optical, electron, AFM etc.  Wonder why networks like these or Nova/PBS haven’t already looked into this topic?

 

Regards,

 

Neeraj.

 

Neeraj V. Gohad, PhD

Postdoctoral Fellow,

Okeanos Research Group

Department of Biological Sciences

132 Long Hall,Clemson University

Clemson, SC-29634

864-656-3597

[hidden email]

 

 

 

From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Oreopoulos
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 2:33 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: A microscopy documentary

 

The point of a documentary like this would not be to have a "how to" guide to microscopy. It's would be more a history and an account of the most recent advances. Sure, you can show Kohler illumination and why this is useful, but a step by step guide for techniques is not needed. That would be useful for another set of videos. I would refer people to JOVE (Journal of visualized experiments) for "how to" videos (this is peer reviewed and would recommend that if you have a unique way of doing something you should submit a video to this "journal"):

 

http://www.jove.com/

 

I'm still thinking that a proper microscopy documentary would be modeled around Carl Sagan's Cosmos series which was sort of a history of astronomy for the lay person, explaining our place in the universe and the significance of various astronomical discoveries in the past, how the implications of these discoveries changed our thinking, etc. The same must be true of the world of the very small, the world that the microscope reveals to us. Probably the best thing to do would be to put together a list of important people in the history of microscopy and important discoveries made with microscopes that changed the world in some way or had a big impact. This need not be limited to optical microscopy; EM, AFM, etc. should all be included as well. 

 

John

 

 

On 10-Mar-09, at 2:09 PM, Carl Boswell wrote:

That reminds me of a professor I knew who taught Pathology to med students.  One day, to wake up the audience and emphasize a point, he fired off a starter's pistol.  Needless to say, he got everyone's attention.  When it came time for the next exam, the answer many students gave for the question pertaining to that "exciting" portion of the lecture was that a gun was fired.  My point is, would anyone remember how to align the condensor, or just hum the tune?

C

 

Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D.
Molecular and Cellular Biology
University of Arizona
520-954-7053
FAX [phone]

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:20 AM

Subject: Re: A microscopy documentary

 

We should make a musical.  Anybody got any talent?  Imagine a big Broadway number that explains Kohler illumination.  John.

Jeffrey L. Travis wrote:

The closest thing to a microscopy documentary I can recall is the Saturday Night Live segment of "Leonard Pinth-Garnell's Bad Musicals" which featured a musical based on the life of Leewenhoek.  This sketch originally aired on December 10, 1977.  A synopsis can be found here: 
http://snlarc.jt.org/detail.php?i=1977121010 

The musical, as I recall, was proclaimed by Pinth-Garnell to be "simply terrible." 

 

-- 

(Sent from my cra%#y non-Blackberry electronic device that still has wires)

*********************************
John Runions, Ph.D.
School of Life Sciences
Oxford Brookes University
Oxford, UK
OX3 0BP 

email:  [hidden email]
phone: [phone]

Runions’ lab web site

 

Visit The Illuminated Plant Cell dot com
Oxford Brookes Master's in Bioimaging with Molecular Technology

 

[John Oreopoulos]

While not exactly what I had in mind, this nonetheless is an excellent example of conveying science to the general public. This short video is titled "Why Science is Important" (watch with "HD off" for faster streaming):

http://whyscience.co.uk/

More importantly, the layout of this website shows that it is possible to put something like this together by utilizing the wealth of knowledge out there in the people doing science (or microscopy, etc.).

John Oreopoulos

On 10-Mar-09, at 8:40 PM, Neeraj Gohad wrote:

For someone who loves microscopy and is a fan of documentaries I think this a fantastic idea. I can imagine watching a two or three part ‘Modern Marvels’ type series on the History Channel or the National Geographic. I am a big fan of the ‘Modern Marvels’ series and Microscopy is perfect for it. They have really nice way of discussing a topic where they start off with the history of the topic, its evolution, then discuss the present day state of affairs, applications and then go on to discuss the cutting edge and future research about that particular topic. Microscopy has all the elements and more, such a series can definitely include all aspects of Microscopy, optical, electron, AFM etc.  Wonder why networks like these or Nova/PBS haven’t already looked into this topic?

 

Regards,

 

Neeraj.

 

Neeraj V. Gohad, PhD

Postdoctoral Fellow,

Okeanos Research Group

Department of Biological Sciences

132 Long Hall,Clemson University

Clemson, SC-29634

864-656-3597

[hidden email]

 

 

 

From: Confocal Microscopy List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Oreopoulos
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 2:33 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: A microscopy documentary

 

The point of a documentary like this would not be to have a "how to" guide to microscopy. It's would be more a history and an account of the most recent advances. Sure, you can show Kohler illumination and why this is useful, but a step by step guide for techniques is not needed. That would be useful for another set of videos. I would refer people to JOVE (Journal of visualized experiments) for "how to" videos (this is peer reviewed and would recommend that if you have a unique way of doing something you should submit a video to this "journal"):

 

http://www.jove.com/

 

I'm still thinking that a proper microscopy documentary would be modeled around Carl Sagan's Cosmos series which was sort of a history of astronomy for the lay person, explaining our place in the universe and the significance of various astronomical discoveries in the past, how the implications of these discoveries changed our thinking, etc. The same must be true of the world of the very small, the world that the microscope reveals to us. Probably the best thing to do would be to put together a list of important people in the history of microscopy and important discoveries made with microscopes that changed the world in some way or had a big impact. This need not be limited to optical microscopy; EM, AFM, etc. should all be included as well. 

 

John

 

 

On 10-Mar-09, at 2:09 PM, Carl Boswell wrote:

That reminds me of a professor I knew who taught Pathology to med students.  One day, to wake up the audience and emphasize a point, he fired off a starter's pistol.  Needless to say, he got everyone's attention.  When it came time for the next exam, the answer many students gave for the question pertaining to that "exciting" portion of the lecture was that a gun was fired.  My point is, would anyone remember how to align the condensor, or just hum the tune?

C

 

Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D.
Molecular and Cellular Biology
University of Arizona
520-954-7053
FAX [phone]

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:20 AM

Subject: Re: A microscopy documentary

 

We should make a musical.  Anybody got any talent?  Imagine a big Broadway number that explains Kohler illumination.  John.

Jeffrey L. Travis wrote:

The closest thing to a microscopy documentary I can recall is the Saturday Night Live segment of "Leonard Pinth-Garnell's Bad Musicals" which featured a musical based on the life of Leewenhoek.  This sketch originally aired on December 10, 1977.  A synopsis can be found here: 
http://snlarc.jt.org/detail.php?i=1977121010 

The musical, as I recall, was proclaimed by Pinth-Garnell to be "simply terrible." 

 

-- 

(Sent from my cra%#y non-Blackberry electronic device that still has wires)

*********************************
John Runions, Ph.D.
School of Life Sciences
Oxford Brookes University
Oxford, UK
OX3 0BP 

email:  [hidden email]
phone: [phone]

Runions’ lab web site

 

Visit The Illuminated Plant Cell dot com
Oxford Brookes Master's in Bioimaging with Molecular Technology

 

[Ron Anderson-4]

There was a proposal to fund a NOVA show on microscopy presented when I
was a council member of the Microscopy Society of America back in the
late 1980s, or so. A script was professionally written that accompanied
the proposal, which I thought was excellent at the time. Updating would
be needed now, obviously. The proposal died when we discovered it would
cost $500,000 1980 dollars to actually create and broadcast the show.

Perhaps someone can find the proposal and script? I looked and can't
find it.

Ron Anderson

José A. Feijó wrote:

> check bioclips.com , a lot of stuff there on the subject, specially
> the presentation I tried to send but was rejected (dresdencinema2007_web)
>
>
> ****************************
> not sure if it will pass, but I attach a presentation from
> Dresden_Cinema festival with a bunch of links and incredible stories.
> I haven't followed the trend, but I believe that was one of the plans
> of the organizers
>
> Badri Roysam escreveu:
>> I agree - this is a definite need. There ought to be a show on Nova or such
>> other program on microscopy. I am happy to contribute to such an effort!
>>
>>
>> Badri Roysam
>> Professor, Department of Electrical, Computer and Systems Engineering
>> Associate Director, NSF Center for Subsurface Sensing & Imaging Systems (CenSSIS ERC)
>> Co-Director, Rensselaer Center for Open Source Software
>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
>> 110 8th Street, Troy, New York 12180-3590, USA.
>> Office(JEC 7010): 518-276-8067, Assistant: 518-276-8525, Lab(JEC 6308): 518-276-8207, Fax: [phone]
>> Email: [hidden email], Web: http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/~roysam
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: John Oreopoulos [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: A microscopy documentary
>>
>>
>>  
>>> I'm a big fan of the documentary movie genre and the other day, while  
>>> re-watching a couple episodes of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series, I  
>>> thought to myself, "Why has no one put together a documentary about  
>>> the history of microscopy?" Is anyone out there aware of such a  
>>> thing? If not, would there be interest in the community to try and  
>>> put something together by making use of the many open source tools on  
>>> the web like youtube, etc. to do such a thing? I myself have never  
>>> been a part of any home-made movie effort, but I would be willing to  
>>> work with people to get a pet project like this going.
>>>
>>> There is a BBC documentary called Light Fantastic by Simon Schaffer  
>>> which documents the history of optics and its impact on the world,  
>>> and this is very much in the spirit of the kind of thing I had in  
>>> mind, but it would be nice to see something exclusive for microscopy,  
>>> perhaps talking about the stories of the scientists behind important  
>>> developments in microscopy as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> John Oreopoulos, BSc,
>>> PhD Candidate
>>> University of Toronto
>>> Institute For Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering
>>> Centre For Studies in Molecular Imaging
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    
>> .
>>
>>  
>
> --
>
>
> **********************************************************
> Jose' A. Feijo', Prof.                    
> ----------------------------------------------------------        
> Dep. Biologia Vegetal, Fac.Ciencias, Universidade Lisboa
> PT-1749-016 Lisboa, PORTUGAL
>
> tel. [phone]/24, fax  [phone]
>
> and/ e
>
> Inst.Gulbenkian Ciencia, PT-2780-156 Oeiras, PORTUGAL
>
> tel. [phone]/19, fax [phone]
> __________________________________________________________
> e.mail: [hidden email]                          
> URL: http://www.igc.gulbenkian.pt/code/research.php?lang=en&unit_id=38
> **********************************************************

[JOEL B. SHEFFIELD]

Hi All,

I may have missed it, but it seems to me that one should not omit the
operator of the fsu website, Michael Davidson, from this discussion.  
His site provides both historical and practical information at all
levels.  I would think that he might be very helpful if such a
project were to get off the ground.

I would also suggest that such a project be coordinated through a
microscopy organization (MSA), and that sources of funding be
explored:  NSF (through science education)?, Microscope companies?
etc.


Joel

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu

Date sent:       Mon, 9 Mar 2009 17:48:11 -0400
Send reply to:   Confocal Microscopy List
<[hidden email]>
From:           "Jeffrey L. Travis" <[hidden email]>
Subject:         Re: A microscopy documentary
To:             [hidden email]

> The closest thing to a microscopy documentary I can recall is the
> Saturday Night Live segment of "Leonard Pinth-Garnell's Bad Musicals"
> which featured a musical based on the life of Leewenhoek.  This sketch
> originally aired on December 10, 1977.  A synopsis can be found here:
> http://snlarc.jt.org/detail.php?i=1977121010
>
> The musical, as I recall, was proclaimed by Pinth-Garnell to be "simply
> terrible."



Joel B. Sheffield, Ph.D
Department of Biology
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
Voice: 215 204 8839
e-mail: [hidden email]
URL:  http://astro.temple.edu/~jbs