monitor adjustment
Locked
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Dear all, I am wondering if someone could give us some advice about how to adjust the parameters of the computer monitor in order to obtain the best/real view of microscopic images? The same image of immunofluorescent staining showed different background noises on different computers. On one computer the specific fluorescent signal is very strong with very little background noise. However, when we opened the same image on another computer, the background non-specific noise increased a lot compared to the specific signal. We think this could result from the difference in the configuration of the computer monitor (or graphic card). Can anyone give us some advice? Shall we adjust the configuration of the monitor or graphic card? Which parameters shall we adjust, brightness, contrast, gamma, matiz, digital vibrance, etc? Our monitor is LG and the graphic card is NVIDIA. Thank you very much. Best regards, Dr. Konstantín Levitskiy Servicio de Microscopía InstitutodeBiomedicinadeSevilla - IBiS Campus del Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío Avda. Manuel Siurot s/nº 41013 Sevilla Tlfno: 955 92 3030 Email: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] Web: <http://www.ibis-sevilla.es/> www.ibis-sevilla.es |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Hello Konstantin, If your original images are more then 8 bit there is no "real" view because you would have to map 12 bit or whatever you camera resolution onto 8, and there are many ways to do that. My understanding that adjusting a monitor can be tricky. You can view a gradient color strip, you can find them online. Or try a third monitor. Or just measure the background in gray units. Mike ________________________________ From: Confocal Microscopy List <[hidden email]> on behalf of Konstantín Levitskiy <[hidden email]> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 6:42 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: monitor adjustment ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.umn.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwa%3FA0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&data=01%7C01%7Cmmodel%40KENT.EDU%7C242f28fe392f48fb517008d4490746e4%7Ce5a06f4a1ec44d018f73e7dd15f26134%7C1&sdata=qZM4Hmwl2S7BT3UxNCrizzHHwwfopuASF8RluY8B1sw%3D&reserved=0 Post images on https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imgur.com&data=01%7C01%7Cmmodel%40KENT.EDU%7C242f28fe392f48fb517008d4490746e4%7Ce5a06f4a1ec44d018f73e7dd15f26134%7C1&sdata=AJlfwPfHxLixmt%2FYz5ZSxcO3y5eRmMopCRhqmEV2YXU%3D&reserved=0 and include the link in your posting. ***** Dear all, I am wondering if someone could give us some advice about how to adjust the parameters of the computer monitor in order to obtain the best/real view of microscopic images? The same image of immunofluorescent staining showed different background noises on different computers. On one computer the specific fluorescent signal is very strong with very little background noise. However, when we opened the same image on another computer, the background non-specific noise increased a lot compared to the specific signal. We think this could result from the difference in the configuration of the computer monitor (or graphic card). Can anyone give us some advice? Shall we adjust the configuration of the monitor or graphic card? Which parameters shall we adjust, brightness, contrast, gamma, matiz, digital vibrance, etc? Our monitor is LG and the graphic card is NVIDIA. Thank you very much. Best regards, Dr. Konstantín Levitskiy Servicio de Microscopía InstitutodeBiomedicinadeSevilla - IBiS Campus del Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío Avda. Manuel Siurot s/nº 41013 Sevilla Tlfno: 955 92 3030 Email: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] Web: <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibis-sevilla.es%2F&data=01%7C01%7Cmmodel%40KENT.EDU%7C242f28fe392f48fb517008d4490746e4%7Ce5a06f4a1ec44d018f73e7dd15f26134%7C1&sdata=y3XLqHIL1EBiY0WOeDG3cChG5Trq3E62RbnXqBdQskE%3D&reserved=0> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.ibis-sevilla.es&data=01%7C01%7Cmmodel%40KENT.EDU%7C242f28fe392f48fb517008d4490746e4%7Ce5a06f4a1ec44d018f73e7dd15f26134%7C1&sdata=%2By02V0%2FjazLMTGpw%2BKop7qmZDJQWuegUGWh%2ByKE4Hfo%3D&reserved=0 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Konstantín Levitskiy
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Hi Konstantin You could have a look at this -no commercial interest. http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast.php <http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast.php> HTH Mark > On 30/01/2017, at 11:42 AM, Konstantín Levitskiy <[hidden email]> wrote: > > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. > ***** > > Dear all, > > > > I am wondering if someone could give us some advice about how to adjust the > parameters of the computer monitor in order to obtain the best/real view of > microscopic images? The same image of immunofluorescent staining showed > different background noises on different computers. On one computer the > specific fluorescent signal is very strong with very little background > noise. However, when we opened the same image on another computer, the > background non-specific noise increased a lot compared to the specific > signal. We think this could result from the difference in the configuration > of the computer monitor (or graphic card). Can anyone give us some advice? > Shall we adjust the configuration of the monitor or graphic card? Which > parameters shall we adjust, brightness, contrast, gamma, matiz, digital > vibrance, etc? Our monitor is LG and the graphic card is NVIDIA. Thank you > very much. > > > > Best regards, > > Dr. Konstantín Levitskiy > > Servicio de Microscopía > > InstitutodeBiomedicinadeSevilla - IBiS > > Campus del Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío > > Avda. Manuel Siurot s/nº > > 41013 Sevilla > > Tlfno: 955 92 3030 > > Email: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] > > Web: <http://www.ibis-sevilla.es/> www.ibis-sevilla.es > > Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ FISHR Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology School of Physiology & Pharmacology Faculty of Biomedical Sciences University of Bristol Bristol BS8 1TD UK [hidden email] |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Thanks for the suggestion. We will try the color calibration system, if it is free of charge. -----Mensaje original----- De: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] En nombre de Mark Cannell Enviado el: lunes, 30 de enero de 2017 13:47 Para: [hidden email] Asunto: Re: monitor adjustment ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Hi Konstantin You could have a look at this -no commercial interest. http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast.php <http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast.php> HTH Mark > On 30/01/2017, at 11:42 AM, Konstantín Levitskiy <[hidden email]> wrote: > > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. > ***** > > Dear all, > > > > I am wondering if someone could give us some advice about how to > adjust the parameters of the computer monitor in order to obtain the > best/real view of microscopic images? The same image of > immunofluorescent staining showed different background noises on > different computers. On one computer the specific fluorescent signal > is very strong with very little background noise. However, when we > opened the same image on another computer, the background non-specific > noise increased a lot compared to the specific signal. We think this > could result from the difference in the configuration of the computer monitor (or graphic card). Can anyone give us some advice? > Shall we adjust the configuration of the monitor or graphic card? > Which parameters shall we adjust, brightness, contrast, gamma, matiz, > digital vibrance, etc? Our monitor is LG and the graphic card is > NVIDIA. Thank you very much. > > > > Best regards, > > Dr. Konstantín Levitskiy > > Servicio de Microscopía > > InstitutodeBiomedicinadeSevilla - IBiS > > Campus del Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío > > Avda. Manuel Siurot s/nº > > 41013 Sevilla > > Tlfno: 955 92 3030 > > Email: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] > > Web: <http://www.ibis-sevilla.es/> www.ibis-sevilla.es > > Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ FISHR Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology School of Physiology & Pharmacology Faculty of Biomedical Sciences University of Bristol Bristol BS8 1TD UK [hidden email] |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Konstantin, risking to ask the obvious, did you use the exactly same program for viewing the images on both computers? In my experience the difference from one program to the next may be bigger than between monitors, e.g. due to different scaling as mentioned in another post, or smoothing (e.g. in Powerpoint). If it is really the monitor, you might want to try to attach both to the same computer with the image in question spreading on both, and play around with the settings until they look sufficiently similar. Using a third and fourth reference to figure out what is 'normal' probably also helps. Steffen Am 30.01.2017 um 16:35 schrieb Konstantín Levitskiy: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. > ***** > > Thanks for the suggestion. We will try the color calibration system, if it is free of charge. > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] En nombre de Mark Cannell > Enviado el: lunes, 30 de enero de 2017 13:47 > Para: [hidden email] > Asunto: Re: monitor adjustment > > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. > ***** > > Hi Konstantin > > You could have a look at this -no commercial interest. > > http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast.php <http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast.php> > > HTH > Mark >> On 30/01/2017, at 11:42 AM, Konstantín Levitskiy <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. >> ***** >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> I am wondering if someone could give us some advice about how to >> adjust the parameters of the computer monitor in order to obtain the >> best/real view of microscopic images? The same image of >> immunofluorescent staining showed different background noises on >> different computers. On one computer the specific fluorescent signal >> is very strong with very little background noise. However, when we >> opened the same image on another computer, the background non-specific >> noise increased a lot compared to the specific signal. We think this >> could result from the difference in the configuration of the computer monitor (or graphic card). Can anyone give us some advice? >> Shall we adjust the configuration of the monitor or graphic card? >> Which parameters shall we adjust, brightness, contrast, gamma, matiz, >> digital vibrance, etc? Our monitor is LG and the graphic card is >> NVIDIA. Thank you very much. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Dr. Konstantín Levitskiy >> >> Servicio de Microscopía >> >> InstitutodeBiomedicinadeSevilla - IBiS >> >> Campus del Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío >> >> Avda. Manuel Siurot s/nº >> >> 41013 Sevilla >> >> Tlfno: 955 92 3030 >> >> Email: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >> >> Web: <http://www.ibis-sevilla.es/> www.ibis-sevilla.es >> >> > Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ FISHR > Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology > School of Physiology & Pharmacology > Faculty of Biomedical Sciences > University of Bristol > Bristol > BS8 1TD UK > > [hidden email] > -- -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat. Head of the Core Facility Bioimaging at the Biomedical Center Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Walter-Brendel-Zentrum für Experimentelle Medizin Address: Biomedical Center Großhaderner Straße 9 D-82152 Planegg-Martinsried Phone: +49/89/2180-71518 skype: steffendietzel e-mail: [hidden email] fax-to-e-mail: +49/89/2180-9971518 http://www.bioimaging.bmc.med.uni-muenchen.de -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Biomedical Center (BMC) Head of the Core Facility Bioimaging Großhaderner Straße 9 D-82152 Planegg-Martinsried Germany http://www.bioimaging.bmc.med.uni-muenchen.de |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Hi Steffen. That's the first thing we thought about. We used the same program to open the image on both computers, when we observed the difference. Thanks. Konstantin -----Mensaje original----- De: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] En nombre de Steffen Dietzel Enviado el: martes, 31 de enero de 2017 12:04 Para: [hidden email] Asunto: Re: monitor adjustment ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Konstantin, risking to ask the obvious, did you use the exactly same program for viewing the images on both computers? In my experience the difference from one program to the next may be bigger than between monitors, e.g. due to different scaling as mentioned in another post, or smoothing (e.g. in Powerpoint). If it is really the monitor, you might want to try to attach both to the same computer with the image in question spreading on both, and play around with the settings until they look sufficiently similar. Using a third and fourth reference to figure out what is 'normal' probably also helps. Steffen Am 30.01.2017 um 16:35 schrieb Konstantín Levitskiy: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. > ***** > > Thanks for the suggestion. We will try the color calibration system, if it is free of charge. > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] > En nombre de Mark Cannell Enviado el: lunes, 30 de enero de 2017 13:47 > Para: [hidden email] > Asunto: Re: monitor adjustment > > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. > ***** > > Hi Konstantin > > You could have a look at this -no commercial interest. > > http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast.php > <http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast.php> > > HTH > Mark >> On 30/01/2017, at 11:42 AM, Konstantín Levitskiy <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. >> ***** >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> I am wondering if someone could give us some advice about how to >> adjust the parameters of the computer monitor in order to obtain the >> best/real view of microscopic images? The same image of >> immunofluorescent staining showed different background noises on >> different computers. On one computer the specific fluorescent signal >> is very strong with very little background noise. However, when we >> opened the same image on another computer, the background >> non-specific noise increased a lot compared to the specific signal. >> We think this could result from the difference in the configuration of the computer monitor (or graphic card). Can anyone give us some advice? >> Shall we adjust the configuration of the monitor or graphic card? >> Which parameters shall we adjust, brightness, contrast, gamma, matiz, >> digital vibrance, etc? Our monitor is LG and the graphic card is >> NVIDIA. Thank you very much. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Dr. Konstantín Levitskiy >> >> Servicio de Microscopía >> >> InstitutodeBiomedicinadeSevilla - IBiS >> >> Campus del Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío >> >> Avda. Manuel Siurot s/nº >> >> 41013 Sevilla >> >> Tlfno: 955 92 3030 >> >> Email: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >> >> Web: <http://www.ibis-sevilla.es/> www.ibis-sevilla.es >> >> > Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ FISHR > Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology > School of Physiology & Pharmacology > Faculty of Biomedical Sciences > University of Bristol > Bristol > BS8 1TD UK > > [hidden email] > -- -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat. Head of the Core Facility Bioimaging at the Biomedical Center Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Walter-Brendel-Zentrum für Experimentelle Medizin Address: Biomedical Center Großhaderner Straße 9 D-82152 Planegg-Martinsried Phone: +49/89/2180-71518 skype: steffendietzel e-mail: [hidden email] fax-to-e-mail: +49/89/2180-9971518 http://www.bioimaging.bmc.med.uni-muenchen.de -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Biomedical Center (BMC) Head of the Core Facility Bioimaging Großhaderner Straße 9 D-82152 Planegg-Martinsried Germany http://www.bioimaging.bmc.med.uni-muenchen.de |
|
|
In reply to this post by Konstantín Levitskiy
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** As far as I know, if you're working on a Mac you are forced to view all content with substantial gamma. This, of course, causes images with great subtle intensity at low intensities on the acquisition PC to suddenly loose features when viewed on the desktop. Default setting is 2.2! The only other option I've found is to use a setting in the Color control to set it to 1.8 instead, but I haven't found a way to make it 1.0. Here's one of many links about this https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201681 I discovered hits "feature" when making a slide for a lecture on perception of intensities that included two pairs of abutting squares of gray. One pair was 255 and 254 and the other was 0 and 1. I could easily see the difference at the high end (which is usually not the case) and couldn't see any difference at the low end, which is usually pretty easy. That started my search for forced gamma any my horror in discovering the absence of control on Mac. I assume they do this because people find high contrast more aesthetically pleasing. |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Hi Wendy, Modern computer monitors typically target the sRGB colorspace (some pro monitors and high end Apple devices support wider color gamut output but these are less common). For an sRGB device, a gamma of 2.2 is correct, with any other gamma giving exaggerated or compressed gradients. The 1.8 setting in MacOS is historical from before sRGB standardization and you should not be using it. Windows has always used 2.2, and so there is no explicit setting for it as far as I know. There is also no option to set the gamma to 1.0 because such a setting would be almost unusable with an LCD monitor. The problem with viewing image data that many people run into is that depending on what you are doing, you may be viewing either raw sensor data (which is not gamma corrected) or processed sensor data (which is gamma corrected). Consumer grade hardware usually hides this complexity from the user. Mike On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Wendy Salmon <[hidden email]> wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. > ***** > > As far as I know, if you're working on a Mac you are forced to view all content with substantial gamma. This, of course, causes images with great subtle intensity at low intensities on the acquisition PC to suddenly loose features when viewed on the desktop. Default setting is 2.2! The only other option I've found is to use a setting in the Color control to set it to 1.8 instead, but I haven't found a way to make it 1.0. Here's one of many links about this https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201681 > > I discovered hits "feature" when making a slide for a lecture on perception of intensities that included two pairs of abutting squares of gray. One pair was 255 and 254 and the other was 0 and 1. I could easily see the difference at the high end (which is usually not the case) and couldn't see any difference at the low end, which is usually pretty easy. That started my search for forced gamma any my horror in discovering the absence of control on Mac. I assume they do this because people find high contrast more aesthetically pleasing. |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** There are now 4K and 5K monitors being produced that are not that expensive--Would these be superior to the other high resolution monitors? I see better in the microscope than I do on my current Dell ultra sharp ( 3 year old monitors) Bob Robert M. Zucker, PhD Toxicology Assessment Division National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 109 TW Alexander Drive Mail Drop B105-04 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 USA Tele:919-541-1585 shipping address USEPA Attn: Robert Zucker ( B105-04) 4930 Old Page Road Durham, NC 27703 Courier Address (Fed. Exp., etc.) for Chemicals/Samples Attn: (Robert Zucker) Chemical Services, Room E-178 Building E Loading Dock 109 TW Alexander Drive RTP, NC 27709 USA -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Giacomelli Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 12:26 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: monitor adjustment ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Hi Wendy, Modern computer monitors typically target the sRGB colorspace (some pro monitors and high end Apple devices support wider color gamut output but these are less common). For an sRGB device, a gamma of 2.2 is correct, with any other gamma giving exaggerated or compressed gradients. The 1.8 setting in MacOS is historical from before sRGB standardization and you should not be using it. Windows has always used 2.2, and so there is no explicit setting for it as far as I know. There is also no option to set the gamma to 1.0 because such a setting would be almost unusable with an LCD monitor. The problem with viewing image data that many people run into is that depending on what you are doing, you may be viewing either raw sensor data (which is not gamma corrected) or processed sensor data (which is gamma corrected). Consumer grade hardware usually hides this complexity from the user. Mike On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Wendy Salmon <[hidden email]> wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. > ***** > > As far as I know, if you're working on a Mac you are forced to view > all content with substantial gamma. This, of course, causes images > with great subtle intensity at low intensities on the acquisition PC > to suddenly loose features when viewed on the desktop. Default > setting is 2.2! The only other option I've found is to use a setting > in the Color control to set it to 1.8 instead, but I haven't found a > way to make it 1.0. Here's one of many links about this > https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201681 > > I discovered hits "feature" when making a slide for a lecture on perception of intensities that included two pairs of abutting squares of gray. One pair was 255 and 254 and the other was 0 and 1. I could easily see the difference at the high end (which is usually not the case) and couldn't see any difference at the low end, which is usually pretty easy. That started my search for forced gamma any my horror in discovering the absence of control on Mac. I assume they do this because people find high contrast more aesthetically pleasing. |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** That disappointment is normal. The human eye will always* pick up more dynamic range than a CCD chip, because we have a combination of hardware and processing 'software' designed specially for range. In photography terms our eye has about twenty 'stops' of range whereas current cameras have a range in the area of 9 to 12 stops. That means we can see full detail in a scenario where a camera will 'see' blown highlights and black shadows. Also, your eye has 300 to 400 megapixels against the two or three in your camera. It's not a fair fight. (*) Someone said you could never beat the Abbe limit and then look what happened. I am sure someone will eventually make a camera that beats us at range, assuming they have not done already. Best, Tim Timothy Feinstein, Ph.D. Research Scientist University of Pittsburgh Department of Developmental Biology On 1/31/17, 12:31 PM, "Confocal Microscopy List on behalf of Zucker, Robert" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: >***** >To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.umn.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwa%3FA0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=%2FphgBHGaayNtZU81DbcdC7%2FArzqThX6mNlZxmXeBeGA%3D&reserved=0 >Post images on https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imgur.com&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=5WUJ7FfZCKdcrfwDHYTwzfWwc3110QkKNw%2BoIVk4fVU%3D&reserved=0 and include the link in your posting. >***** > >There are now 4K and 5K monitors being produced that are not that expensive--Would these be superior to the other high resolution monitors? >I see better in the microscope than I do on my current Dell ultra sharp ( 3 year old monitors) >Bob > > >Robert M. Zucker, PhD >Toxicology Assessment Division >National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory >U.S. Environmental Protection Agency >109 TW Alexander Drive >Mail Drop B105-04 >Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 USA >Tele:919-541-1585 > >shipping address >USEPA >Attn: Robert Zucker ( B105-04) >4930 Old Page Road >Durham, NC 27703 > > >Courier Address (Fed. Exp., etc.) for Chemicals/Samples >Attn: (Robert Zucker) >Chemical Services, Room E-178 >Building E Loading Dock >109 TW Alexander Drive >RTP, NC 27709 USA > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Giacomelli >Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 12:26 PM >To: [hidden email] >Subject: Re: monitor adjustment > >***** >To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.umn.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwa%3FA0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=%2FphgBHGaayNtZU81DbcdC7%2FArzqThX6mNlZxmXeBeGA%3D&reserved=0 >Post images on https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imgur.com&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=5WUJ7FfZCKdcrfwDHYTwzfWwc3110QkKNw%2BoIVk4fVU%3D&reserved=0 and include the link in your posting. >***** > >Hi Wendy, > >Modern computer monitors typically target the sRGB colorspace (some pro monitors and high end Apple devices support wider color gamut output but these are less common). For an sRGB device, a gamma of 2.2 is correct, with any other gamma giving exaggerated or compressed gradients. The 1.8 setting in MacOS is historical from before sRGB standardization and you should not be using it. Windows has always used 2.2, and so there is no explicit setting for it as far as I know. >There is also no option to set the gamma to 1.0 because such a setting would be almost unusable with an LCD monitor. > >The problem with viewing image data that many people run into is that depending on what you are doing, you may be viewing either raw sensor data (which is not gamma corrected) or processed sensor data (which is gamma corrected). Consumer grade hardware usually hides this complexity from the user. > >Mike > >On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Wendy Salmon <[hidden email]> wrote: >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.umn.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwa%3FA0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=%2FphgBHGaayNtZU81DbcdC7%2FArzqThX6mNlZxmXeBeGA%3D&reserved=0 >> Post images on https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imgur.com&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=5WUJ7FfZCKdcrfwDHYTwzfWwc3110QkKNw%2BoIVk4fVU%3D&reserved=0 and include the link in your posting. >> ***** >> >> As far as I know, if you're working on a Mac you are forced to view >> all content with substantial gamma. This, of course, causes images >> with great subtle intensity at low intensities on the acquisition PC >> to suddenly loose features when viewed on the desktop. Default >> setting is 2.2! The only other option I've found is to use a setting >> in the Color control to set it to 1.8 instead, but I haven't found a >> way to make it 1.0. Here's one of many links about this >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsupport.apple.com%2Fen-us%2FHT201681&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=jqygV%2FoJjOT1kovfW8Ij5Utd49EW8tXwEADBYg401VM%3D&reserved=0 >> >> I discovered hits "feature" when making a slide for a lecture on perception of intensities that included two pairs of abutting squares of gray. One pair was 255 and 254 and the other was 0 and 1. I could easily see the difference at the high end (which is usually not the case) and couldn't see any difference at the low end, which is usually pretty easy. That started my search for forced gamma any my horror in discovering the absence of control on Mac. I assume they do this because people find high contrast more aesthetically pleasing. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Konstantín Levitskiy
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks, Mike! |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tim Feinstein
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Don't the new full 16 bit sCMOS cameras have more dynamic range in a single shot than our eyes without the benefit of pupil adjustments and our brain combining sequential "exposures"? ========================================================================= Michael Cammer, Microscopy Core & Skirball Institute, NYU Langone Medical Center Cell: 914-309-3270 Office: Skirball 2nd Floor main office, back right http://ocs.med.nyu.edu/microscopy & http://microscopynotes.com/ -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Feinstein, Timothy N Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 1:21 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: monitor adjustment ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.umn.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FA0-3Dconfocalmicroscopy&d=DQIGaQ&c=j5oPpO0eBH1iio48DtsedbOBGmuw5jHLjgvtN2r4ehE&r=oU_05LztNstAydlbm5L5GDu_vAdjXk3frDLx_CqKkuo&m=JlVxmBinNpmTZzfPGxOUbbu_hIakGmmarPNWmGWMXXk&s=7QJoEtHILnBPmyTYAZlT-aW_LcQEavnZmHQqIdmPyKE&e= Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.imgur.com&d=DQIGaQ&c=j5oPpO0eBH1iio48DtsedbOBGmuw5jHLjgvtN2r4ehE&r=oU_05LztNstAydlbm5L5GDu_vAdjXk3frDLx_CqKkuo&m=JlVxmBinNpmTZzfPGxOUbbu_hIakGmmarPNWmGWMXXk&s=6ydz7HFF6ua4dZOPIS5DYlSBp5CzLm1tOJq8nAApjSc&e= and include the link in your posting. ***** That disappointment is normal. The human eye will always* pick up more dynamic range than a CCD chip, because we have a combination of hardware and processing 'software' designed specially for range. In photography terms our eye has about twenty 'stops' of range whereas current cameras have a range in the area of 9 to 12 stops. That means we can see full detail in a scenario where a camera will 'see' blown highlights and black shadows. Also, your eye has 300 to 400 megapixels against the two or three in your camera. It's not a fair fight. (*) Someone said you could never beat the Abbe limit and then look what happened. I am sure someone will eventually make a camera that beats us at range, assuming they have not done already. Best, Tim Timothy Feinstein, Ph.D. Research Scientist University of Pittsburgh Department of Developmental Biology On 1/31/17, 12:31 PM, "Confocal Microscopy List on behalf of Zucker, Robert" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: >***** >To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flists.umn.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FA0-253Dconfocalmicroscopy-26data-3D01-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-26sdata-3D-252FphgBHGaayNtZU81DbcdC7-252FArzqThX6mNlZxmXeBeGA-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DQIGaQ&c=j5oPpO0eBH1iio48DtsedbOBGmuw5jHLjgvtN2r4ehE&r=oU_05LztNstAydlbm5L5GDu_vAdjXk3frDLx_CqKkuo&m=JlVxmBinNpmTZzfPGxOUbbu_hIakGmmarPNWmGWMXXk&s=9wP0XQ2gPO0gKQHZLrM2akxq0dr8MxCaB3HHa3PTr7w&e= >Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.imgur.com-26data-3D01-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-26sdata-3D5WUJ7FfZCKdcrfwDHYTwzfWwc3110QkKNw-252BoIVk4fVU-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DQIGaQ&c=j5oPpO0eBH1iio48DtsedbOBGmuw5jHLjgvtN2r4ehE&r=oU_05LztNstAydlbm5L5GDu_vAdjXk3frDLx_CqKkuo&m=JlVxmBinNpmTZzfPGxOUbbu_hIakGmmarPNWmGWMXXk&s=2x8rm7Kol7cEKWbNF8jHqqICt7xfOhnI_e2lW_ht3gQ&e= and include the link in your posting. >***** > >There are now 4K and 5K monitors being produced that are not that expensive--Would these be superior to the other high resolution monitors? >I see better in the microscope than I do on my current Dell ultra sharp ( 3 year old monitors) >Bob > > >Robert M. Zucker, PhD >Toxicology Assessment Division >National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory >U.S. Environmental Protection Agency >109 TW Alexander Drive >Mail Drop B105-04 >Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 USA >Tele:919-541-1585 > >shipping address >USEPA >Attn: Robert Zucker ( B105-04) >4930 Old Page Road >Durham, NC 27703 > > >Courier Address (Fed. Exp., etc.) for Chemicals/Samples >Attn: (Robert Zucker) >Chemical Services, Room E-178 >Building E Loading Dock >109 TW Alexander Drive >RTP, NC 27709 USA > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Giacomelli >Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 12:26 PM >To: [hidden email] >Subject: Re: monitor adjustment > >***** >To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flists.umn.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FA0-253Dconfocalmicroscopy-26data-3D01-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-26sdata-3D-252FphgBHGaayNtZU81DbcdC7-252FArzqThX6mNlZxmXeBeGA-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DQIGaQ&c=j5oPpO0eBH1iio48DtsedbOBGmuw5jHLjgvtN2r4ehE&r=oU_05LztNstAydlbm5L5GDu_vAdjXk3frDLx_CqKkuo&m=JlVxmBinNpmTZzfPGxOUbbu_hIakGmmarPNWmGWMXXk&s=9wP0XQ2gPO0gKQHZLrM2akxq0dr8MxCaB3HHa3PTr7w&e= >Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.imgur.com-26data-3D01-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-26sdata-3D5WUJ7FfZCKdcrfwDHYTwzfWwc3110QkKNw-252BoIVk4fVU-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DQIGaQ&c=j5oPpO0eBH1iio48DtsedbOBGmuw5jHLjgvtN2r4ehE&r=oU_05LztNstAydlbm5L5GDu_vAdjXk3frDLx_CqKkuo&m=JlVxmBinNpmTZzfPGxOUbbu_hIakGmmarPNWmGWMXXk&s=2x8rm7Kol7cEKWbNF8jHqqICt7xfOhnI_e2lW_ht3gQ&e= and include the link in your posting. >***** > >Hi Wendy, > >Modern computer monitors typically target the sRGB colorspace (some pro monitors and high end Apple devices support wider color gamut output but these are less common). For an sRGB device, a gamma of 2.2 is correct, with any other gamma giving exaggerated or compressed gradients. The 1.8 setting in MacOS is historical from before sRGB standardization and you should not be using it. Windows has always used 2.2, and so there is no explicit setting for it as far as I know. >There is also no option to set the gamma to 1.0 because such a setting would be almost unusable with an LCD monitor. > >The problem with viewing image data that many people run into is that depending on what you are doing, you may be viewing either raw sensor data (which is not gamma corrected) or processed sensor data (which is gamma corrected). Consumer grade hardware usually hides this complexity from the user. > >Mike > >On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Wendy Salmon <[hidden email]> wrote: >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flists.umn.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FA0-253Dconfocalmicroscopy-26data-3D01-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-26sdata-3D-252FphgBHGaayNtZU81DbcdC7-252FArzqThX6mNlZxmXeBeGA-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DQIGaQ&c=j5oPpO0eBH1iio48DtsedbOBGmuw5jHLjgvtN2r4ehE&r=oU_05LztNstAydlbm5L5GDu_vAdjXk3frDLx_CqKkuo&m=JlVxmBinNpmTZzfPGxOUbbu_hIakGmmarPNWmGWMXXk&s=9wP0XQ2gPO0gKQHZLrM2akxq0dr8MxCaB3HHa3PTr7w&e= >> Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.imgur.com-26data-3D01-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-26sdata-3D5WUJ7FfZCKdcrfwDHYTwzfWwc3110QkKNw-252BoIVk4fVU-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DQIGaQ&c=j5oPpO0eBH1iio48DtsedbOBGmuw5jHLjgvtN2r4ehE&r=oU_05LztNstAydlbm5L5GDu_vAdjXk3frDLx_CqKkuo&m=JlVxmBinNpmTZzfPGxOUbbu_hIakGmmarPNWmGWMXXk&s=2x8rm7Kol7cEKWbNF8jHqqICt7xfOhnI_e2lW_ht3gQ&e= and include the link in your posting. >> ***** >> >> As far as I know, if you're working on a Mac you are forced to view >> all content with substantial gamma. This, of course, causes images >> with great subtle intensity at low intensities on the acquisition PC >> to suddenly loose features when viewed on the desktop. Default >> setting is 2.2! The only other option I've found is to use a setting >> in the Color control to set it to 1.8 instead, but I haven't found a >> way to make it 1.0. Here's one of many links about this >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fsupport.apple.com-252Fen-2Dus-252FHT201681-26data-3D01-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-26sdata-3DjqygV-252FoJjOT1kovfW8Ij5Utd49EW8tXwEADBYg401VM-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DQIGaQ&c=j5oPpO0eBH1iio48DtsedbOBGmuw5jHLjgvtN2r4ehE&r=oU_05LztNstAydlbm5L5GDu_vAdjXk3frDLx_CqKkuo&m=JlVxmBinNpmTZzfPGxOUbbu_hIakGmmarPNWmGWMXXk&s=N7-h1OtDs0jAPGsBQ7mIY2wOHB-FiRKpX-ZyIAQToVk&e= >> >> I discovered hits "feature" when making a slide for a lecture on perception of intensities that included two pairs of abutting squares of gray. One pair was 255 and 254 and the other was 0 and 1. I could easily see the difference at the high end (which is usually not the case) and couldn't see any difference at the low end, which is usually pretty easy. That started my search for forced gamma any my horror in discovering the absence of control on Mac. I assume they do this because people find high contrast more aesthetically pleasing. ------------------------------------------------------------ This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by return email and delete the original message. Please note, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The organization accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. ================================= |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tim Feinstein
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** My disagreement is normal. The human eye -- intrascene, snapshot -- is ~7-bit (~100 fold) for black-white, green, red, and ~5-bit for blue (~64 fold). Try doing a PALm/STORM experiment by eye. Step out from a bright room to outside at night, "total darkness" (no city or even town lighting ... walking back to a bungalow on the hill above MBL works great, shield eyes from automobile headlights - flashlight and keys recommended) and look up at the stars. Not much happening (oops, moonless night too). Wait ~15 minutes for your eyes to dark adapt. Now lots of stars, including some in color ("do not look at flashlight with remaining eye" during the adaption period). A 16-bit digital CCD or sCMOS with a good lens (ex. nice telescope), could be acquiring data the whole time (either multiple exposures, denoise, sum them, or one long exposure if aimed at a location without bright stars). Warning - anecdote, without any data, ahead: My recollection from my time at UIC is that Ted Inoue brought a telescope to the office, put an early scientific CCD camera (original Hamamatsu C4480? circa 1993?), set it up outside the front door, pointed it upward at the 'blue sky' (not near sun or moon), acquire image(s) and saw stars (contrast adjustment and maybe some background subtraction ... maybe also multiple exposures). If there are any microscopists who are also astronomers, I encourage you to test this out with modern equipment and post the data online (my guess is personally owned telescopes have gotten better in 20+ years, maybe not to the same extent as our 'pro' microscopes). End anecdote. // Dr. John Russ has a lot of excellent content online, some of which addresses eye vs camera. http://www.drjohnruss.com/download.html On that page is (ok, an article more about optical illusions than dynamic range issues): At several meetings in the US and overseas, I have been asked to present a plenary lecture on the characteristics of our*human visual system*and how it interacts with the images that are obtained from various kinds of microscopy (and other scientific images). The basic message is that humans are not very good observers, that our vision system ignores a lot of information, that having names and labels for recognized features is very important, and that we often think we see what we expect to see. After one recent presentation, urged on by several of the people at the conference, I have prepared a written version of the paper which was serialized in the Proceedings of the Royal Microscopy Society. It is about 25,000 words long, has more than 80 illustrations, and can be*downloaded* <http://www.drjohnruss.com/downloads/seeing.pdf>as a 6 MB Acrobat (pdf) file. In the presentation I include a few Quicktime movies, which are shown in the pdf file as single still frames. This is probably sufficient for the reader to understand the message, but if anyone wants the actual 600K of *.mov files they can also be downloaded (Figures*23* <http://www.drjohnruss.com/downloads/Fig_23.mov>,*27* <http://www.drjohnruss.com/downloads/Fig_27.mov>,*35* <http://www.drjohnruss.com/downloads/Fig_35.mov>and*36* <http://www.drjohnruss.com/downloads/Fig_36.mov>). John Russ 2004 Proc RMS direct link is http://www.drjohnruss.com/downloads/seeing.pdf // Sincerely, George p.s. of course before going up the hill above MBL, acquire refreshments at http://www.thecaptainkidd.com On 1/31/2017 12:21 PM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. > ***** > > That disappointment is normal. The human eye will always* pick up more dynamic range than a CCD chip, because we have a combination of hardware and processing 'software' designed specially for range. In photography terms our eye has about twenty 'stops' of range whereas current cameras have a range in the area of 9 to 12 stops. That means we can see full detail in a scenario where a camera will 'see' blown highlights and black shadows. Also, your eye has 300 to 400 megapixels against the two or three in your camera. It's not a fair fight. > > (*) Someone said you could never beat the Abbe limit and then look what happened. I am sure someone will eventually make a camera that beats us at range, assuming they have not done already. > > Best, > > > Tim > > Timothy Feinstein, Ph.D. > Research Scientist > University of Pittsburgh Department of Developmental Biology > > > > > > > > On 1/31/17, 12:31 PM, "Confocal Microscopy List on behalf of Zucker, Robert" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: > >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.umn.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwa%3FA0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=%2FphgBHGaayNtZU81DbcdC7%2FArzqThX6mNlZxmXeBeGA%3D&reserved=0 >> Post images on https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imgur.com&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=5WUJ7FfZCKdcrfwDHYTwzfWwc3110QkKNw%2BoIVk4fVU%3D&reserved=0 and include the link in your posting. >> ***** >> >> There are now 4K and 5K monitors being produced that are not that expensive--Would these be superior to the other high resolution monitors? >> I see better in the microscope than I do on my current Dell ultra sharp ( 3 year old monitors) >> Bob >> >> >> Robert M. Zucker, PhD >> Toxicology Assessment Division >> National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory >> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency >> 109 TW Alexander Drive >> Mail Drop B105-04 >> Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 USA >> Tele:919-541-1585 >> >> shipping address >> USEPA >> Attn: Robert Zucker ( B105-04) >> 4930 Old Page Road >> Durham, NC 27703 >> >> >> Courier Address (Fed. Exp., etc.) for Chemicals/Samples >> Attn: (Robert Zucker) >> Chemical Services, Room E-178 >> Building E Loading Dock >> 109 TW Alexander Drive >> RTP, NC 27709 USA >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Giacomelli >> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 12:26 PM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: monitor adjustment >> >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.umn.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwa%3FA0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=%2FphgBHGaayNtZU81DbcdC7%2FArzqThX6mNlZxmXeBeGA%3D&reserved=0 >> Post images on https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imgur.com&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=5WUJ7FfZCKdcrfwDHYTwzfWwc3110QkKNw%2BoIVk4fVU%3D&reserved=0 and include the link in your posting. >> ***** >> >> Hi Wendy, >> >> Modern computer monitors typically target the sRGB colorspace (some pro monitors and high end Apple devices support wider color gamut output but these are less common). For an sRGB device, a gamma of 2.2 is correct, with any other gamma giving exaggerated or compressed gradients. The 1.8 setting in MacOS is historical from before sRGB standardization and you should not be using it. Windows has always used 2.2, and so there is no explicit setting for it as far as I know. >> There is also no option to set the gamma to 1.0 because such a setting would be almost unusable with an LCD monitor. >> >> The problem with viewing image data that many people run into is that depending on what you are doing, you may be viewing either raw sensor data (which is not gamma corrected) or processed sensor data (which is gamma corrected). Consumer grade hardware usually hides this complexity from the user. >> >> Mike >> >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Wendy Salmon <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> ***** >>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.umn.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwa%3FA0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=%2FphgBHGaayNtZU81DbcdC7%2FArzqThX6mNlZxmXeBeGA%3D&reserved=0 >>> Post images on https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imgur.com&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=5WUJ7FfZCKdcrfwDHYTwzfWwc3110QkKNw%2BoIVk4fVU%3D&reserved=0 and include the link in your posting. >>> ***** >>> >>> As far as I know, if you're working on a Mac you are forced to view >>> all content with substantial gamma. This, of course, causes images >>> with great subtle intensity at low intensities on the acquisition PC >>> to suddenly loose features when viewed on the desktop. Default >>> setting is 2.2! The only other option I've found is to use a setting >>> in the Color control to set it to 1.8 instead, but I haven't found a >>> way to make it 1.0. Here's one of many links about this >>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsupport.apple.com%2Fen-us%2FHT201681&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=jqygV%2FoJjOT1kovfW8Ij5Utd49EW8tXwEADBYg401VM%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> I discovered hits "feature" when making a slide for a lecture on perception of intensities that included two pairs of abutting squares of gray. One pair was 255 and 254 and the other was 0 and 1. I could easily see the difference at the high end (which is usually not the case) and couldn't see any difference at the low end, which is usually pretty easy. That started my search for forced gamma any my horror in discovering the absence of control on Mac. I assume they do this because people find high contrast more aesthetically pleasing. -- George McNamara, PhD Houston, TX 77054 [hidden email] https://www.linkedin.com/in/georgemcnamara https://works.bepress.com/gmcnamara/75/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/myncbi/browse/collection/44962650 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tim Feinstein
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** **(SEMI)COMMERICAL POSTING** Disclaimer: These are from my point of view, and do not have anything to do with where I work (Bitplane/Andor/Oxford Instruements). I'm not advocatating commerical cameras or any particular software. Dear Tim, First, there exist digital cameras which have a greater dynamic range than human eyes, take a look at: http://web.media.mit.edu/~hangzhao/modulo.html They are not commerically available, nor are they a quantiative device - yet. It is an elegant solution which allows for very high dynamic range. Similarly, courtesy the work of Mark Levoy (Stanford/Google), there are now a wealth of options for computational photography, which all for a form of opportunistic imaging to dramatically expand the range of CMOS camera.s Nice link: https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/hdrp/hasinoff-hdrplus-sigasia16-preprint.pdf I suggest that in time these methods will be implemented in silico, and will allow for quantiative high dynamic range imaging. Forms of these methods are already commercially available in several devices, for example Google Pixel phones (I have one GREAT! ) Nice little page with a few more details: https://research.googleblog.com/2014/10/hdr-low-light-and-high-dynamic-range.html That being said, my personal camera has about 12 megapixels- if your camera still has 2-3 megapixels, it's time to get a new camera. ;) - yeah, I know you meant a CCD/sCMOS on a 'scope.. :) Seriously, quoting a 300+ megapixel resolution for the eye is very misleading. At best, a normal "perfect' vision (20/20) has accuity slightly better than 1 arc minute. This means allows us to calculate a chart at what resolution at one distance can we discern, suffice it to say, a '2k' monitor at normal viewing distances (12-20 inches) exceeds normal human visual accuity. Really, a good "Full HD", which is about 2 mega pixels is that most people can see at time at most viewing distances. Citing 300+ megapixels is assuming that we could simultaneously see the entire field of view at maximal acquity, which is not the case. Only a small region of our eye and our perception can see at full acuity. This measn that for most people focusing on a region, 3 megapixels is sufficent, and just more than 6 megapixels will surpass Nyquist sampling for our central vision. Sure, if you want to completely fool a human eye in every direction simultaneously - faster than your eye could move, then yes, you'd need 300 megapixels, but even the 8 mega pixel "5k " monitors are over kill and exceed our current visual accuity at normal viewing distances. Anyway, thanks for letting me put my $0.02 in! Cheers Arvonn Bitplane Support: [hidden email] On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:26 PM Feinstein, Timothy N <[hidden email]> wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. > ***** > > That disappointment is normal. The human eye will always* pick up more > dynamic range than a CCD chip, because we have a combination of hardware > and processing 'software' designed specially for range. In photography > terms our eye has about twenty 'stops' of range whereas current cameras > have a range in the area of 9 to 12 stops. That means we can see full > detail in a scenario where a camera will 'see' blown highlights and black > shadows. Also, your eye has 300 to 400 megapixels against the two or three > in your camera. It's not a fair fight. > > (*) Someone said you could never beat the Abbe limit and then look what > happened. I am sure someone will eventually make a camera that beats us at > range, assuming they have not done already. > > Best, > > > Tim > > Timothy Feinstein, Ph.D. > Research Scientist > University of Pittsburgh Department of Developmental Biology > > > > > > > > On 1/31/17, 12:31 PM, "Confocal Microscopy List on behalf of Zucker, > Robert" <[hidden email] on behalf of > [hidden email]> wrote: > > >***** > >To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.umn.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwa%3FA0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=%2FphgBHGaayNtZU81DbcdC7%2FArzqThX6mNlZxmXeBeGA%3D&reserved=0 > >Post images on > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imgur.com&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=5WUJ7FfZCKdcrfwDHYTwzfWwc3110QkKNw%2BoIVk4fVU%3D&reserved=0 > and include the link in your posting. > >***** > > > >There are now 4K and 5K monitors being produced that are not that > expensive--Would these be superior to the other high resolution monitors? > >I see better in the microscope than I do on my current Dell ultra sharp ( > 3 year old monitors) > >Bob > > > > > >Robert M. Zucker, PhD > >Toxicology Assessment Division > >National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory > >U.S. Environmental Protection Agency > >109 TW Alexander Drive > >Mail Drop B105-04 > >Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 USA > >Tele:919-541-1585 <(919)%20541-1585> > > > >shipping address > >USEPA > >Attn: Robert Zucker ( B105-04) > >4930 Old Page Road > >Durham, NC 27703 > > > > > >Courier Address (Fed. Exp., etc.) for Chemicals/Samples > >Attn: (Robert Zucker) > >Chemical Services, Room E-178 > >Building E Loading Dock > >109 TW Alexander Drive > >RTP, NC 27709 USA > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] > On Behalf Of Michael Giacomelli > >Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 12:26 PM > >To: [hidden email] > >Subject: Re: monitor adjustment > > > >***** > >To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.umn.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwa%3FA0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=%2FphgBHGaayNtZU81DbcdC7%2FArzqThX6mNlZxmXeBeGA%3D&reserved=0 > >Post images on > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imgur.com&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=5WUJ7FfZCKdcrfwDHYTwzfWwc3110QkKNw%2BoIVk4fVU%3D&reserved=0 > and include the link in your posting. > >***** > > > >Hi Wendy, > > > >Modern computer monitors typically target the sRGB colorspace (some pro > monitors and high end Apple devices support wider color gamut output but > these are less common). For an sRGB device, a gamma of 2.2 is correct, > with any other gamma giving exaggerated or compressed gradients. The 1.8 > setting in MacOS is historical from before sRGB standardization and you > should not be using it. Windows has always used 2.2, and so there is no > explicit setting for it as far as I know. > >There is also no option to set the gamma to 1.0 because such a setting > would be almost unusable with an LCD monitor. > > > >The problem with viewing image data that many people run into is that > depending on what you are doing, you may be viewing either raw sensor data > (which is not gamma corrected) or processed sensor data (which is gamma > corrected). Consumer grade hardware usually hides this complexity from the > user. > > > >Mike > > > >On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Wendy Salmon <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> ***** > >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > >> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.umn.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwa%3FA0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=%2FphgBHGaayNtZU81DbcdC7%2FArzqThX6mNlZxmXeBeGA%3D&reserved=0 > >> Post images on > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imgur.com&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=5WUJ7FfZCKdcrfwDHYTwzfWwc3110QkKNw%2BoIVk4fVU%3D&reserved=0 > and include the link in your posting. > >> ***** > >> > >> As far as I know, if you're working on a Mac you are forced to view > >> all content with substantial gamma. This, of course, causes images > >> with great subtle intensity at low intensities on the acquisition PC > >> to suddenly loose features when viewed on the desktop. Default > >> setting is 2.2! The only other option I've found is to use a setting > >> in the Color control to set it to 1.8 instead, but I haven't found a > >> way to make it 1.0. Here's one of many links about this > >> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsupport.apple.com%2Fen-us%2FHT201681&data=01%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7C6f9979298a5243db9d4608d44a0242e1%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=jqygV%2FoJjOT1kovfW8Ij5Utd49EW8tXwEADBYg401VM%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> I discovered hits "feature" when making a slide for a lecture on > perception of intensities that included two pairs of abutting squares of > gray. One pair was 255 and 254 and the other was 0 and 1. I could easily > see the difference at the high end (which is usually not the case) and > couldn't see any difference at the low end, which is usually pretty easy. > That started my search for forced gamma any my horror in discovering the > absence of control on Mac. I assume they do this because people find high > contrast more aesthetically pleasing. > |
«
Return to Confocal Microscopy List
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |