Re: large field of view, high NA objective, which camera?
Locked
 
|
Shalin Mehta |
Re: large field of view, high NA objective, which camera?
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Thank you Kurt and Guy (and others offline) for your responses, Kurt's evaluation of field of view is quite informative. We are considering a 12.5x 0.5NA objective. The issue then is which camera can capture such large space-bandwidth product. At 500nm, 0.5NA provides ~0.6 um optical resolution. With 12.5x magnification, the optical resolution in image plane is 7.5 um. For Nyquist sampling, we need a camera with pixel size of 3.5um. That translates to about 6000 pixels on one side even for nominal field of view of 22mm. So, I wonder what monochrome cameras are on the market with pixel size in the range of 3-4um and chip size of at least 5000 pixels on one side (25 MPixels). We can use consumer CMOS sensors, since the project (really, the proposal) is about transmitted light imaging. Are there scientific cameras on market that use consumer CMOS sensors without Bayer filter in front? We need the camera electronics to be able to sync the exposure through TTL trigger. In absence of 25 megapixel, what is the next best option? Thanks, Shalin > > On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Guy Cox <[hidden email]> wrote: >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >> ***** >> >> I may be missing something here but I thought the field number was largely a property of the eyepiece. A WF eyepiece uses a field lens to reduce the final magnification a bit but in the process substantially increase the FOV. Of course the actual diameter of the tube has to allow this and that is why most manufacturers went to 25mm lens mounts rather than RMS when they went to infinity correction. In this regard the old East German Zeiss lenses were better than the West German ones. But of course after German reunification the West German company could not possibly accept that the East German company actually did some things better. >> >> Guy >> >> Guy Cox, Honorary Associate Professor >> School of Medical Sciences >> >> Australian Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, >> Madsen, F09, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kurt Thorn >> Sent: Saturday, 1 March 2014 5:39 AM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: Is field of view of objective constrained by field number of microscope? >> >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >> ***** >> >> Hi Shalin - >> >> I've done some qualitative investigations of this on our microscopes, and you can access information beyond the nominal field number of the microscope. The vignetting seems to mostly occur in the C-mount and camera adapter, so if you remove these you can get a bigger image. See >> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=108 for some details. >> >> However, there's no guarantee what the performance of the objective beyond the nominal field number will be. In particular, the NA may be lower, there may be problems with field curvature and there will likely be aberrations. In fact, even at the periphery of the nominal objective FOV the point spread functions are more aberrated - see >> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=770 >> >> I hope that helps. >> >> Kurt >> >> On 2/28/2014 9:22 AM, Shalin Mehta wrote: >>> ***** >>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >>> ***** >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I have a question about the maximum usable field of view of commercial >>> objectives, if the only constraint is the mostly-flat field of view. >>> We would like to find a commercial low mag, high NA objective and >>> extract as much field of view as possible. >>> >>> Is the usable field of view of an objective constrained by the field >>> number of the microscope? i.e., if the field number of the microscope >>> is 26 mm, is the diameter of the field of view constrained to 26mm/mag >>> of the objective? >>> >>> Are there stops in the objective that enforce this specification? If >>> we are to use a tube lens of same focal length as the commercial >>> microscope, but larger diameter, can we have a field of view larger >>> than specified by the field number? Having a flat field of view will >>> be great, but slight imperfection is not a problem. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Shalin >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Kurt Thorn >> Director, Nikon Imaging Center >> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/ |
|
|
Julio Vazquez |
Re: large field of view, high NA objective, which camera?
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Hi Shalin, Just a few ideas: For $ 8,000, you can get the Leica M-Monochrom. This has a 5212 x 3472 pixel full-frame chip (monochrome), so should give you a huge field of view. I have no idea if this chip is used elsewhere. Maybe more appropriate: Pixelink may have some options, such as PL-H9616B (4872 x 3248 pixels) and PL-H9629 (6576 x 4384 pixels); they come in color or monochrome; use Google, and/or search the Pixelink web site (Product finder) for cameras with high resolution. Other: Zeiss Axiocam 506 mono: 12.5 x 10.0 mm sensor; 2752 x 2208 pixels (4.54 micron pixel size); twice the FOV of a conventional 2/3" camera PCO Edge/Edge Gold 5.5: 2560 x 2160 pixels (6.5 micron pixel size); 16 x 14 mm sensor SPOT FLEX camera; $ 9,000; 2K x 2K pixels, 7.4 micron pixel size; Kodak KAI-4020-M chip; $ 9,000 Alternatively, you may use a 0.5 x coupler to expand the field of view, at the expense of resolution. Julio Vazquez Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Seattle, WA 98109 http://www.fhcrc.org/en.html == On Mar 3, 2014, at 3:33 PM, Shalin Mehta wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > Thank you Kurt and Guy (and others offline) for your responses, > > Kurt's evaluation of field of view is quite informative. We are > considering a 12.5x 0.5NA objective. The issue then is which camera can > capture such large space-bandwidth product. > > At 500nm, 0.5NA provides ~0.6 um optical resolution. With 12.5x > magnification, the optical resolution in image plane is 7.5 um. For > Nyquist sampling, we need a camera with pixel > size of 3.5um. That translates to about 6000 pixels on one side even > for nominal field of view of 22mm. > > So, I wonder what monochrome cameras are on the market with pixel size > in the range of 3-4um and chip size of at least 5000 pixels on one > side (25 MPixels). We can use consumer CMOS sensors, since the > project (really, the proposal) is about transmitted light imaging. Are > there scientific cameras on market that use consumer CMOS sensors without > Bayer filter in front? We need the camera electronics to be able to > sync the exposure through TTL trigger. > > In absence of 25 megapixel, what is the next best option? > > Thanks, > Shalin >> >> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Guy Cox <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> ***** >>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >>> ***** >>> >>> I may be missing something here but I thought the field number was largely a property of the eyepiece. A WF eyepiece uses a field lens to reduce the final magnification a bit but in the process substantially increase the FOV. Of course the actual diameter of the tube has to allow this and that is why most manufacturers went to 25mm lens mounts rather than RMS when they went to infinity correction. In this regard the old East German Zeiss lenses were better than the West German ones. But of course after German reunification the West German company could not possibly accept that the East German company actually did some things better. >>> >>> Guy >>> >>> Guy Cox, Honorary Associate Professor >>> School of Medical Sciences >>> >>> Australian Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, >>> Madsen, F09, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kurt Thorn >>> Sent: Saturday, 1 March 2014 5:39 AM >>> To: [hidden email] >>> Subject: Re: Is field of view of objective constrained by field number of microscope? >>> >>> ***** >>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >>> ***** >>> >>> Hi Shalin - >>> >>> I've done some qualitative investigations of this on our microscopes, and you can access information beyond the nominal field number of the microscope. The vignetting seems to mostly occur in the C-mount and camera adapter, so if you remove these you can get a bigger image. See >>> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=108 for some details. >>> >>> However, there's no guarantee what the performance of the objective beyond the nominal field number will be. In particular, the NA may be lower, there may be problems with field curvature and there will likely be aberrations. In fact, even at the periphery of the nominal objective FOV the point spread functions are more aberrated - see >>> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=770 >>> >>> I hope that helps. >>> >>> Kurt >>> >>> On 2/28/2014 9:22 AM, Shalin Mehta wrote: >>>> ***** >>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >>>> ***** >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I have a question about the maximum usable field of view of commercial >>>> objectives, if the only constraint is the mostly-flat field of view. >>>> We would like to find a commercial low mag, high NA objective and >>>> extract as much field of view as possible. >>>> >>>> Is the usable field of view of an objective constrained by the field >>>> number of the microscope? i.e., if the field number of the microscope >>>> is 26 mm, is the diameter of the field of view constrained to 26mm/mag >>>> of the objective? >>>> >>>> Are there stops in the objective that enforce this specification? If >>>> we are to use a tube lens of same focal length as the commercial >>>> microscope, but larger diameter, can we have a field of view larger >>>> than specified by the field number? Having a flat field of view will >>>> be great, but slight imperfection is not a problem. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Shalin >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kurt Thorn >>> Director, Nikon Imaging Center >>> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/ |
|
|
Kurt Thorn |
Re: large field of view, high NA objective, which camera?
|
|
In reply to this post by Shalin Mehta
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Hi Shalin - On 3/3/2014 3:33 PM, Shalin Mehta wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > Thank you Kurt and Guy (and others offline) for your responses, > > Kurt's evaluation of field of view is quite informative. We are > considering a 12.5x 0.5NA objective. The issue then is which camera can > capture such large space-bandwidth product. > > At 500nm, 0.5NA provides ~0.6 um optical resolution. With 12.5x > magnification, the optical resolution in image plane is 7.5 um. For > Nyquist sampling, we need a camera with pixel > size of 3.5um. That translates to about 6000 pixels on one side even > for nominal field of view of 22mm. > > So, I wonder what monochrome cameras are on the market with pixel size > in the range of 3-4um and chip size of at least 5000 pixels on one > side (25 MPixels). We can use consumer CMOS sensors, since the > project (really, the proposal) is about transmitted light imaging. Are > there scientific cameras on market that use consumer CMOS sensors without > Bayer filter in front? We need the camera electronics to be able to > sync the exposure through TTL trigger. > > In absence of 25 megapixel, what is the next best option? D3200 DSLR uses a CMOS sensor that is 6000 x 4000 3.85 um pixels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D3200 If you're willing to compromise on pixel size or pixel number, there are machine vision cameras that may work. For example: http://www.adimec.com/en/Service_Menu/Industrial_camera_products/High_performance_cameras_for_the_machine_vision_applications and http://www.isvi-corp.com/index.php have 25 megapixel CMOS cameras that have 4.5 um pixels. For CCD sensors, there is a 9 megapixel Sony chip with 3.7 um pixels. Here is a camera based on it http://www.artemisccd.com/artemis-ccd-fs-range.html There are also some very large (29 MP) Kodak sensors with 5.5 um pixels (e.g. http://www.ccd.com/aspen_cg29050.html) It would be great to have a camera database somewhere to make finding cameras like this easier! Kurt > > Thanks, > Shalin >> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Guy Cox <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> ***** >>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >>> ***** >>> >>> I may be missing something here but I thought the field number was largely a property of the eyepiece. A WF eyepiece uses a field lens to reduce the final magnification a bit but in the process substantially increase the FOV. Of course the actual diameter of the tube has to allow this and that is why most manufacturers went to 25mm lens mounts rather than RMS when they went to infinity correction. In this regard the old East German Zeiss lenses were better than the West German ones. But of course after German reunification the West German company could not possibly accept that the East German company actually did some things better. >>> >>> Guy >>> >>> Guy Cox, Honorary Associate Professor >>> School of Medical Sciences >>> >>> Australian Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, >>> Madsen, F09, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kurt Thorn >>> Sent: Saturday, 1 March 2014 5:39 AM >>> To: [hidden email] >>> Subject: Re: Is field of view of objective constrained by field number of microscope? >>> >>> ***** >>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >>> ***** >>> >>> Hi Shalin - >>> >>> I've done some qualitative investigations of this on our microscopes, and you can access information beyond the nominal field number of the microscope. The vignetting seems to mostly occur in the C-mount and camera adapter, so if you remove these you can get a bigger image. See >>> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=108 for some details. >>> >>> However, there's no guarantee what the performance of the objective beyond the nominal field number will be. In particular, the NA may be lower, there may be problems with field curvature and there will likely be aberrations. In fact, even at the periphery of the nominal objective FOV the point spread functions are more aberrated - see >>> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=770 >>> >>> I hope that helps. >>> >>> Kurt >>> >>> On 2/28/2014 9:22 AM, Shalin Mehta wrote: >>>> ***** >>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >>>> ***** >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I have a question about the maximum usable field of view of commercial >>>> objectives, if the only constraint is the mostly-flat field of view. >>>> We would like to find a commercial low mag, high NA objective and >>>> extract as much field of view as possible. >>>> >>>> Is the usable field of view of an objective constrained by the field >>>> number of the microscope? i.e., if the field number of the microscope >>>> is 26 mm, is the diameter of the field of view constrained to 26mm/mag >>>> of the objective? >>>> >>>> Are there stops in the objective that enforce this specification? If >>>> we are to use a tube lens of same focal length as the commercial >>>> microscope, but larger diameter, can we have a field of view larger >>>> than specified by the field number? Having a flat field of view will >>>> be great, but slight imperfection is not a problem. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Shalin >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kurt Thorn >>> Director, Nikon Imaging Center >>> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/ > -- Kurt Thorn Director, Nikon Imaging Center http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/ |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Have you considered astronomical cameras? They typically don't have Bayer mosaics. The super-duper ones used in the major observatories cost a huge amount, but there are a lot aimed at the amateur / semi- professional market which are affordable. For example, QHYCCD have cameras up to 11 megapixels. That was just a quick search, but I'm sure there are more out there, and your requirements seem very similar to theirs. Guy Guy Cox, Honorary Associate Professor School of Medical Sciences Australian Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, Madsen, F09, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kurt Thorn Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2014 11:28 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: large field of view, high NA objective, which camera? ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Hi Shalin - On 3/3/2014 3:33 PM, Shalin Mehta wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > Thank you Kurt and Guy (and others offline) for your responses, > > Kurt's evaluation of field of view is quite informative. We are > considering a 12.5x 0.5NA objective. The issue then is which camera > can capture such large space-bandwidth product. > > At 500nm, 0.5NA provides ~0.6 um optical resolution. With 12.5x > magnification, the optical resolution in image plane is 7.5 um. For > Nyquist sampling, we need a camera with pixel size of 3.5um. That > translates to about 6000 pixels on one side even for nominal field of > view of 22mm. > > So, I wonder what monochrome cameras are on the market with pixel size > in the range of 3-4um and chip size of at least 5000 pixels on one > side (25 MPixels). We can use consumer CMOS sensors, since the project > (really, the proposal) is about transmitted light imaging. Are there > scientific cameras on market that use consumer CMOS sensors without > Bayer filter in front? We need the camera electronics to be able to > sync the exposure through TTL trigger. > > In absence of 25 megapixel, what is the next best option? D3200 DSLR uses a CMOS sensor that is 6000 x 4000 3.85 um pixels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D3200 If you're willing to compromise on pixel size or pixel number, there are machine vision cameras that may work. For example: http://www.adimec.com/en/Service_Menu/Industrial_camera_products/High_performance_cameras_for_the_machine_vision_applications and http://www.isvi-corp.com/index.php have 25 megapixel CMOS cameras that have 4.5 um pixels. For CCD sensors, there is a 9 megapixel Sony chip with 3.7 um pixels. Here is a camera based on it http://www.artemisccd.com/artemis-ccd-fs-range.html There are also some very large (29 MP) Kodak sensors with 5.5 um pixels (e.g. http://www.ccd.com/aspen_cg29050.html) It would be great to have a camera database somewhere to make finding cameras like this easier! Kurt > > Thanks, > Shalin >> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Guy Cox <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> ***** >>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >>> ***** >>> >>> I may be missing something here but I thought the field number was largely a property of the eyepiece. A WF eyepiece uses a field lens to reduce the final magnification a bit but in the process substantially increase the FOV. Of course the actual diameter of the tube has to allow this and that is why most manufacturers went to 25mm lens mounts rather than RMS when they went to infinity correction. In this regard the old East German Zeiss lenses were better than the West German ones. But of course after German reunification the West German company could not possibly accept that the East German company actually did some things better. >>> >>> >>> Guy >>> >>> Guy Cox, Honorary Associate Professor School of Medical Sciences >>> >>> Australian Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, Madsen, F09, >>> University of Sydney, NSW 2006 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Confocal Microscopy List >>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kurt Thorn >>> Sent: Saturday, 1 March 2014 5:39 AM >>> To: [hidden email] >>> Subject: Re: Is field of view of objective constrained by field number of microscope? >>> >>> ***** >>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >>> ***** >>> >>> Hi Shalin - >>> >>> I've done some qualitative investigations of this on our >>> microscopes, and you can access information beyond the nominal field >>> number of the microscope. The vignetting seems to mostly occur in >>> the C-mount and camera adapter, so if you remove these you can get a >>> bigger image. See >>> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=108 for some details. >>> >>> However, there's no guarantee what the performance of the objective >>> beyond the nominal field number will be. In particular, the NA may >>> be lower, there may be problems with field curvature and there will >>> likely be aberrations. In fact, even at the periphery of the >>> nominal objective FOV the point spread functions are more aberrated >>> - see >>> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=770 >>> >>> I hope that helps. >>> >>> Kurt >>> >>> On 2/28/2014 9:22 AM, Shalin Mehta wrote: >>>> ***** >>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >>>> ***** >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I have a question about the maximum usable field of view of >>>> commercial objectives, if the only constraint is the mostly-flat field of view. >>>> We would like to find a commercial low mag, high NA objective and >>>> extract as much field of view as possible. >>>> >>>> Is the usable field of view of an objective constrained by the >>>> field number of the microscope? i.e., if the field number of the >>>> microscope is 26 mm, is the diameter of the field of view >>>> constrained to 26mm/mag of the objective? >>>> >>>> Are there stops in the objective that enforce this specification? >>>> If we are to use a tube lens of same focal length as the commercial >>>> microscope, but larger diameter, can we have a field of view >>>> larger than specified by the field number? Having a flat field of >>>> view will be great, but slight imperfection is not a problem. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Shalin >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kurt Thorn >>> Director, Nikon Imaging Center >>> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/ > -- Kurt Thorn Director, Nikon Imaging Center http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/ |
|
|
Andrew York |
Re: large field of view, high NA objective, which camera?
|
|
In reply to this post by Shalin Mehta
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** You mention wanting a camera with 3-4 micron pixels. Does your objective use a tube lens? If so, are you forced to use the standard tube lens? If not, can't you tune your magnification by changing the tube lens? You'll still need an unusual sensor with tons of pixels, but at least you won't be doubly constrained by both pixel number and pixel size. On Mar 3, 2014 6:34 PM, "Shalin Mehta" <[hidden email]> wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > Thank you Kurt and Guy (and others offline) for your responses, > > Kurt's evaluation of field of view is quite informative. We are > considering a 12.5x 0.5NA objective. The issue then is which camera can > capture such large space-bandwidth product. > > At 500nm, 0.5NA provides ~0.6 um optical resolution. With 12.5x > magnification, the optical resolution in image plane is 7.5 um. For > Nyquist sampling, we need a camera with pixel > size of 3.5um. That translates to about 6000 pixels on one side even > for nominal field of view of 22mm. > > So, I wonder what monochrome cameras are on the market with pixel size > in the range of 3-4um and chip size of at least 5000 pixels on one > side (25 MPixels). We can use consumer CMOS sensors, since the > project (really, the proposal) is about transmitted light imaging. Are > there scientific cameras on market that use consumer CMOS sensors without > Bayer filter in front? We need the camera electronics to be able to > sync the exposure through TTL trigger. > > In absence of 25 megapixel, what is the next best option? > > Thanks, > Shalin > > > > On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Guy Cox <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> ***** > >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > >> ***** > >> > >> I may be missing something here but I thought the field number was > largely a property of the eyepiece. A WF eyepiece uses a field lens to > reduce the final magnification a bit but in the process substantially > increase the FOV. Of course the actual diameter of the tube has to allow > this and that is why most manufacturers went to 25mm lens mounts rather > than RMS when they went to infinity correction. In this regard the old > East German Zeiss lenses were better than the West German ones. But of > course after German reunification the West German company could not > possibly accept that the East German company actually did some things > better. > >> > >> > Guy > >> > >> Guy Cox, Honorary Associate Professor > >> School of Medical Sciences > >> > >> Australian Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, > >> Madsen, F09, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] > On Behalf Of Kurt Thorn > >> Sent: Saturday, 1 March 2014 5:39 AM > >> To: [hidden email] > >> Subject: Re: Is field of view of objective constrained by field number > of microscope? > >> > >> ***** > >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > >> ***** > >> > >> Hi Shalin - > >> > >> I've done some qualitative investigations of this on our microscopes, > and you can access information beyond the nominal field number of the > microscope. The vignetting seems to mostly occur in the C-mount and camera > adapter, so if you remove these you can get a bigger image. See > >> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=108 for some details. > >> > >> However, there's no guarantee what the performance of the objective > beyond the nominal field number will be. In particular, the NA may be > lower, there may be problems with field curvature and there will likely be > aberrations. In fact, even at the periphery of the nominal objective FOV > the point spread functions are more aberrated - see > >> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=770 > >> > >> I hope that helps. > >> > >> Kurt > >> > >> On 2/28/2014 9:22 AM, Shalin Mehta wrote: > >>> ***** > >>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > >>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > >>> ***** > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> I have a question about the maximum usable field of view of commercial > >>> objectives, if the only constraint is the mostly-flat field of view. > >>> We would like to find a commercial low mag, high NA objective and > >>> extract as much field of view as possible. > >>> > >>> Is the usable field of view of an objective constrained by the field > >>> number of the microscope? i.e., if the field number of the microscope > >>> is 26 mm, is the diameter of the field of view constrained to 26mm/mag > >>> of the objective? > >>> > >>> Are there stops in the objective that enforce this specification? If > >>> we are to use a tube lens of same focal length as the commercial > >>> microscope, but larger diameter, can we have a field of view larger > >>> than specified by the field number? Having a flat field of view will > >>> be great, but slight imperfection is not a problem. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> Shalin > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Kurt Thorn > >> Director, Nikon Imaging Center > >> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/ > |
|
|
Philippe clemenceau |
commercial response : RE: large field of view, high NA objective, which camera?
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Hi Shalin, Just to give you some options, the company Optronis GmbH makes a 25 MP CMOS camera with 4.5 micron pixels, monochrome. It is the CP80-25-M-72 www.optronis.com I am their US distributor for scientific applications, based in Boston and Sacramento Please contact me off the list server if you are interested. Regards, Philippe Clémenceau, Division Manager, MS in Optical Science [hidden email] Imagine Optic Inc./Axiom Optics Ph:+1 (617) 401 2198 Cell: + 1 (310) 597 1347 1 Broadway, 14th floor Fax: +1(425) 930 9818 Cambridge, MA 02142 www.axiomoptics.com Metrology, Adaptive Optics, Scientific Imaging, Laser Measurements -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Andrew York Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:58 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: large field of view, high NA objective, which camera? ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** You mention wanting a camera with 3-4 micron pixels. Does your objective use a tube lens? If so, are you forced to use the standard tube lens? If not, can't you tune your magnification by changing the tube lens? You'll still need an unusual sensor with tons of pixels, but at least you won't be doubly constrained by both pixel number and pixel size. On Mar 3, 2014 6:34 PM, "Shalin Mehta" <[hidden email]> wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > Thank you Kurt and Guy (and others offline) for your responses, > > Kurt's evaluation of field of view is quite informative. We are > considering a 12.5x 0.5NA objective. The issue then is which camera > can capture such large space-bandwidth product. > > At 500nm, 0.5NA provides ~0.6 um optical resolution. With 12.5x > magnification, the optical resolution in image plane is 7.5 um. For > Nyquist sampling, we need a camera with pixel size of 3.5um. That > translates to about 6000 pixels on one side even for nominal field of > view of 22mm. > > So, I wonder what monochrome cameras are on the market with pixel size > in the range of 3-4um and chip size of at least 5000 pixels on one > side (25 MPixels). We can use consumer CMOS sensors, since the project > (really, the proposal) is about transmitted light imaging. Are there > scientific cameras on market that use consumer CMOS sensors without > Bayer filter in front? We need the camera electronics to be able to > sync the exposure through TTL trigger. > > In absence of 25 megapixel, what is the next best option? > > Thanks, > Shalin > > > > On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Guy Cox <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> ***** > >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > >> ***** > >> > >> I may be missing something here but I thought the field number was > largely a property of the eyepiece. A WF eyepiece uses a field lens > to reduce the final magnification a bit but in the process > substantially increase the FOV. Of course the actual diameter of the > tube has to allow this and that is why most manufacturers went to 25mm > than RMS when they went to infinity correction. In this regard the old > East German Zeiss lenses were better than the West German ones. But > of course after German reunification the West German company could > not possibly accept that the East German company actually did some > things better. > >> > >> > Guy > >> > >> Guy Cox, Honorary Associate Professor School of Medical Sciences > >> > >> Australian Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, Madsen, F09, > >> University of Sydney, NSW 2006 > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Confocal Microscopy List > >> [mailto:[hidden email]] > On Behalf Of Kurt Thorn > >> Sent: Saturday, 1 March 2014 5:39 AM > >> To: [hidden email] > >> Subject: Re: Is field of view of objective constrained by field > >> number > of microscope? > >> > >> ***** > >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > >> ***** > >> > >> Hi Shalin - > >> > >> I've done some qualitative investigations of this on our > >> microscopes, > and you can access information beyond the nominal field number of the > microscope. The vignetting seems to mostly occur in the C-mount and > camera adapter, so if you remove these you can get a bigger image. > See > >> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=108 for some details. > >> > >> However, there's no guarantee what the performance of the objective > beyond the nominal field number will be. In particular, the NA may be > lower, there may be problems with field curvature and there will > likely be aberrations. In fact, even at the periphery of the nominal > objective FOV the point spread functions are more aberrated - see > >> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=770 > >> > >> I hope that helps. > >> > >> Kurt > >> > >> On 2/28/2014 9:22 AM, Shalin Mehta wrote: > >>> ***** > >>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > >>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > >>> ***** > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> I have a question about the maximum usable field of view of > >>> commercial objectives, if the only constraint is the mostly-flat field > >>> We would like to find a commercial low mag, high NA objective and > >>> extract as much field of view as possible. > >>> > >>> Is the usable field of view of an objective constrained by the > >>> field number of the microscope? i.e., if the field number of the > >>> microscope is 26 mm, is the diameter of the field of view > >>> constrained to 26mm/mag of the objective? > >>> > >>> Are there stops in the objective that enforce this specification? > >>> If we are to use a tube lens of same focal length as the > >>> commercial microscope, but larger diameter, can we have a field > >>> of view larger than specified by the field number? Having a flat > >>> field of view will be great, but slight imperfection is not a problem. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> Shalin > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Kurt Thorn > >> Director, Nikon Imaging Center > >> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/ > |
|
|
Shalin Mehta |
Re: large field of view, high NA objective, which camera?
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew York
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Thanks everyone for the inputs. For now, we are considering cameras built using this sensor: http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Collateral/NOIV1SN025KA-D.PDF It is a 25 MPixel CMOS sensor with global/rolling shutter, 4.5 um pixel and 10-bit ADC. Machine vision cameras (from Adimec and ISVI) that Kurt pointed out use this. The electronics for these cameras is capable of handling full-frame at 30fps or higher and a functional set (camera+interface cards+ cables) costs 10-15k. Kurt, the 12.6x 0.5 NA 'lens' is from Olympus Macroview. It is actually a zoom system, which has NA of 0.5 at highest zoom (6.3x) and 2x objective. Shalin On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Andrew York <[hidden email]> wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > You mention wanting a camera with 3-4 micron pixels. Does your objective > use a tube lens? If so, are you forced to use the standard tube lens? If > not, can't you tune your magnification by changing the tube lens? You'll > still need an unusual sensor with tons of pixels, but at least you won't be > doubly constrained by both pixel number and pixel size. > On Mar 3, 2014 6:34 PM, "Shalin Mehta" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >> ***** >> >> Thank you Kurt and Guy (and others offline) for your responses, >> >> Kurt's evaluation of field of view is quite informative. We are >> considering a 12.5x 0.5NA objective. The issue then is which camera can >> capture such large space-bandwidth product. >> >> At 500nm, 0.5NA provides ~0.6 um optical resolution. With 12.5x >> magnification, the optical resolution in image plane is 7.5 um. For >> Nyquist sampling, we need a camera with pixel >> size of 3.5um. That translates to about 6000 pixels on one side even >> for nominal field of view of 22mm. >> >> So, I wonder what monochrome cameras are on the market with pixel size >> in the range of 3-4um and chip size of at least 5000 pixels on one >> side (25 MPixels). We can use consumer CMOS sensors, since the >> project (really, the proposal) is about transmitted light imaging. Are >> there scientific cameras on market that use consumer CMOS sensors without >> Bayer filter in front? We need the camera electronics to be able to >> sync the exposure through TTL trigger. >> >> In absence of 25 megapixel, what is the next best option? >> >> Thanks, >> Shalin >> > >> > On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Guy Cox <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> ***** >> >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >> >> ***** >> >> >> >> I may be missing something here but I thought the field number was >> largely a property of the eyepiece. A WF eyepiece uses a field lens to >> reduce the final magnification a bit but in the process substantially >> increase the FOV. Of course the actual diameter of the tube has to allow >> this and that is why most manufacturers went to 25mm lens mounts rather >> than RMS when they went to infinity correction. In this regard the old >> East German Zeiss lenses were better than the West German ones. But of >> course after German reunification the West German company could not >> possibly accept that the East German company actually did some things >> better. >> >> >> >> >> Guy >> >> >> >> Guy Cox, Honorary Associate Professor >> >> School of Medical Sciences >> >> >> >> Australian Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, >> >> Madsen, F09, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] >> On Behalf Of Kurt Thorn >> >> Sent: Saturday, 1 March 2014 5:39 AM >> >> To: [hidden email] >> >> Subject: Re: Is field of view of objective constrained by field number >> of microscope? >> >> >> >> ***** >> >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >> >> ***** >> >> >> >> Hi Shalin - >> >> >> >> I've done some qualitative investigations of this on our microscopes, >> and you can access information beyond the nominal field number of the >> microscope. The vignetting seems to mostly occur in the C-mount and camera >> adapter, so if you remove these you can get a bigger image. See >> >> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=108 for some details. >> >> >> >> However, there's no guarantee what the performance of the objective >> beyond the nominal field number will be. In particular, the NA may be >> lower, there may be problems with field curvature and there will likely be >> aberrations. In fact, even at the periphery of the nominal objective FOV >> the point spread functions are more aberrated - see >> >> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=770 >> >> >> >> I hope that helps. >> >> >> >> Kurt >> >> >> >> On 2/28/2014 9:22 AM, Shalin Mehta wrote: >> >>> ***** >> >>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> >>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >> >>> ***** >> >>> >> >>> Hello, >> >>> >> >>> I have a question about the maximum usable field of view of commercial >> >>> objectives, if the only constraint is the mostly-flat field of view. >> >>> We would like to find a commercial low mag, high NA objective and >> >>> extract as much field of view as possible. >> >>> >> >>> Is the usable field of view of an objective constrained by the field >> >>> number of the microscope? i.e., if the field number of the microscope >> >>> is 26 mm, is the diameter of the field of view constrained to 26mm/mag >> >>> of the objective? >> >>> >> >>> Are there stops in the objective that enforce this specification? If >> >>> we are to use a tube lens of same focal length as the commercial >> >>> microscope, but larger diameter, can we have a field of view larger >> >>> than specified by the field number? Having a flat field of view will >> >>> be great, but slight imperfection is not a problem. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks >> >>> Shalin >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Kurt Thorn >> >> Director, Nikon Imaging Center >> >> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/ >> |
«
Return to Confocal Microscopy List
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |