I received my Amscope MU1000 camera today and thought i would post some initial impressions of the camera. Positive: The software istalled easily on my W7 platform. When i hooked up the USB camera, the drivers installed properly and functioned as they were supposed to. This is not always the case with Chinese software. The program ToupView is surprisingly easy to use and (once you locate them) has adjustments for White Balance and exposure settings. The WB is a bit odd as it is a sliding scale that adjusts the color temperature. This does allow fine tuning of the color of your specimen. Live view is good, but occasionally flares out as brightness changes. Shutterless, so very minimal vibration effects. Negative: While advertised as a 6.1 megapixel camera, it is not. The basic chip is 800 X 600 pixels. The larger value is derived from software interpolation and actually gives lower resolution than a typical HD webcam! The negative lens that projects the image to the chip suffers from severe radial astigmatism. This is very bothersome with higher magnification images. There is no way to adjust the camera for differing magnifications. What you have on your scope objective is what you get. In my case 0.66 to 4 X. Overall: Not bad, but not good. You can get a lot more resolution for the same money with other cameras. It is quite easy to use and lacks shutter vibration problems, but with the minimal resolution this is not a significant factor. http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,240122#msg-240122 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:37:49 +0000 Phorum 5.2.15a http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,288935#msg-288935 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,288935#msg-288935 [www.touptek.com]

May be this can fix your problem.

Also their FAQ is great

Field]]> Field Yu Mineral Photography Fri, 22 Mar 2013 23:24:55 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,288920#msg-288920 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,288920#msg-288920 macrorail.com]

Worth looking at just for the slide show of micro specimens..... and I was wrong about the degree of control over the stepping. 1.6um is the standard offering. It seems that this can be further improved to 0.6um stepping, which should fully satisfy *any* maiden's prayer. Lovely shots of a Zeiss research grade 'scope intedgrated with this robotics rig.... all I need is to rob a bank...... . For those using Google as their web browser, turning on the auto-translate feature may help further.]]> Owen Lewis Mineral Photography Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:13:42 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,288889#msg-288889 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,288889#msg-288889
The “Fusion” program is actually a multi-focus processing program. To make use of it, you will have to take multiple images in accordance with the information provided in Owen’s and my previous post. However, my experience with that program has not been encouraging. I would suggest that you try the free CombineZ software.

You didn’t mention which model of camera you have, but here are two examples taken with a 1.3MP version of the same camera that you have. The first is a single image that shows the depth of field problem. The second image is a composite of only six separate images that were carefully hand stepped with the microscope focus knob and processed with CombineZ. A better result could have resulted from a greater number of smaller increments, but for hand stepped it's not too bad.

Cheers,
Gene

[attachment 44572 Hemimorphitesingleimage.jpg]
Hemimorphite single image
[attachment 44575 Hemimorphite.jpg]
Hemimorphite stack of 6 images]]> Mineralogical Research Company Mineral Photography Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:40:27 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,288886#msg-288886 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,288886#msg-288886
As you say, the field is opening up. Not only are there cameras, the differential focussing of which can be software controlled by a suitable image stacker program (Helicon Focus) but there are also software controlled movable stages that are, perhaps, the best approach of all for those prepared to buy at the cost and complexity.

Here's a 'new kid on the block' you may not yet have seen. Scroll down for some nice pics.
[www.tuplaneta.es]

The products are so new that the company web-site is not yet up and running but the initial specs are impressive and the price interesting for those that are interested in the stepping stage approach to the problem. The stepping of the stage is in increments down to 1.6um!. Cost for stand, stage and robotics is > EUR 1,200 and another EUR 90.00 gets youi a software licence. I shall be waytching developments of this product line closely! :)-D]]> Owen Lewis Mineral Photography Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:33:15 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,288872#msg-288872 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,288872#msg-288872
Thanks for the clear explanation of multi-focus imaging. I find myself having to explain the basics of this technique over and over again to ad nauseam. To that end, I have tried to create a simplified text/graphical explanation that hopefully is easy to understand. Perhaps it can be improved on, but here is the first iteration. You can click on it for a larger version.

I would also like to mention that Zerene Stacker software is perhaps now the de-facto standard for stacking software. Zerene Stacker interfaces directly with the StackShot automated stage, so that the number of images and increment size are all seamlessly controlled from within the program. This greatly reduces the amount of effort and tedium involved with multi-focus imaging.

Cheers,
Gene

[attachment 44568 MultiFocusIncrementing.jpg]]]> Mineralogical Research Company Mineral Photography Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:08:43 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,288843#msg-288843 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,288843#msg-288843
You are experiencing difficulty with the depth-of-field limitation inherent in any optical system. Basically, this is the range of distances from the lens that can be imaged simultaneously in sharp focus by any given optical system. As a general rule, the higher the level of magnification of an optical system, the less the depth of field will be. Because of the way our brains work, we are able to overcome this limitation to a fair extent when viewing directly through a microscope (etc) but since a camera will capture only a static 2D view, the depth-of-field limitation is starkly reproduced in every camera image.

Thanks to fast PCs, digital cameras and inventive minds, it is now possible to remove the depth-of-field limitation from digital camera images. This is done by making not just one but many images, all of which have different and marginally overlapping camera focus settings. These multiple images are then combined into one single image with an apparent depth-of-field equal to the sum of the depths-of-field of all the different images recorded. This is done using an 'image-stacking' software program. Two good ones are Combine ZP (freeware) and Helicon Focus ( a commercial product).

Be warned that making the necessary set of images and combining them is time-consuming and laborious, However, if you have a camera the focussing of which can be remotely controlled from a computer, the Helicon Focus program becomes well worth the cost of buying it because of the time and work it will save you by making automatically a whole series of differently focussed images for you to give you a final product with the depth of field that you need.]]> Owen Lewis Mineral Photography Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:10:56 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,288830#msg-288830 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,288830#msg-288830 I tried to use the "Fusion" program coming in the CD ROM with the Amscope, it works but gives me a blurry result. So far, seems I didn't get mutch for my money. Some idea how make it work better ?
Thanks,
Jean-Michel Maes
Museo Entomologico de Leon
NICARAGUA]]> Jean-Michel Mineral Photography Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:18:31 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,283931#msg-283931 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,283931#msg-283931 Jonathan Levinger Mineral Photography Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:54:32 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,283527#msg-283527 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,283527#msg-283527 Direct link is now at
[www.bigcatchusa.com]]]> David Von Bargen Mineral Photography Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:16:50 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,283486#msg-283486 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,283486#msg-283486 Jonathan Levinger Mineral Photography Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:35:59 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,275282#msg-275282 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,275282#msg-275282
I don’t believe that mismatch between your camera and microscope is a major problem. Your system is oversampled, for that microscope/camera, and is not gaining anything from having 10MP. The small pixel size means lower sensitivity, about ¼ that of a 3MP camera, and will necessarily result in longer exposure times. This may be part of your problem with vibrations. Even on a foam support, high frequency vibrations may be getting through. I notice on screen vibrations with my set up and it is well isolated by foam, etc.. My suggestion would be to increase illumination if possible, thereby causing the software to shorten the exposure time appropriately. This will help with vibrations. A 150W halogen fiber optic illuminator is a must for this.

As far as depth of field is concerned, it is the nature of the beast. Resolution and depth of field are mutually exclusive. If you want high resolution, then you must pay the piper by having less depth of field. There are ways around this (multi-focus technique), but it would not be conducive to getting images out in a timely manner.

I would also suggest updating the Toupview software to the latest version. It has a “One Touch” color balance feature that works very well and relieves one of the fiddling with the sliders.

Lastly, keep in mind that it is hard to compete with many of the photos presented on Mindat. The best of these are carefully set up "studio" shots, utilizing sophisticated techniques and equipment that do not lend themselves to field work. Practicing in a non-rushed environment, not in the field, may allow you to better develop your technique.

Gene]]> Mineralogical Research Company Mineral Photography Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:00:51 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,275276#msg-275276 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,275276#msg-275276
It is not only apparent that you are aware of Nyquist, but that you have optimized your astrophotography to its fullest. Your deep sky images are superb; nice work! And BTW, it’s not uncommon to find people doing both macro/microphotography and astrophotography. I have not yet applied myself to other than simple solar system astrophotography, but do visual observing from my observatory. And because of my engineering background, I fear that I spend far more time working on it than using it.

Anyway, I wouldn’t obsess over your objectives. They are what they are; ultimately limited by the immutable laws of optical physics and you can only aspire to squeezing out every bit of performance from them.

Cheers,
Gene]]> Mineralogical Research Company Mineral Photography Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:18:17 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,275266#msg-275266 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,275266#msg-275266
[gemmacaelestis.ca]

but had never much thought about them for mineral microphotography. Now you've got me obsessing about the optical resolution of my macro lenses!

Which just goes to show again what a great resource MinDat is.....

Tony]]> Tony Peterson Mineral Photography Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:30:49 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,275261#msg-275261 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,275261#msg-275261
Thank you for an interesting and eventually informative discussion. I bought a MU1000 camera as an upgrade from the MD800 AmScope camera I had been using. I much prefer the simplicity of the software for the MD800 and in many instances this camera/software combination takes "better" pictures than the MU1000 and its software. I am an AmScope Zm-2T microscope on a rack mount rather than the pole mount. .

I found this discussion while searching for another driver for the MU1000 hoping to find one more straightforward than what I have now. Red Green & Blue sliders I understand; hue, temp, and whatever else is on there I don't understand and since I only have about 5-10 minutes at most to get a sample photo taken, processed through PhotoShop Elements and stored in my reports, I don't have time to waste sliding sliders just to see what the do.

Now, having read these posts I have temporarily set aside the color correction problem and and wondering if much of my problem with focus and lack of depth of field may not be because of a mis-match between the camera and the scope, I am photographing rock chip samples where the chip size is on the order of .5 - 2mm and the features I am trying to illustrate are individual sand grains, grain/matrix boundaries etc. The grains are around 0.05mm - 0.5 mm across.

The attached photo is about the best I have done so far and I think it was more luck and than skill.

My camera/microscope set up is in an RV mobil lab setting less than 200 feet from drilling rig so vibrations were a significant problem. I reduced them some by setting the microscope on a 2 inch thick piece of foam.

Any thoughts or commenst will be very much appreciated]]> Darryl Maddox Mineral Photography Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:34:51 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,264387#msg-264387 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,264387#msg-264387 Reiner Mielke Mineral Photography Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:44:38 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,264374#msg-264374 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,264374#msg-264374
It seems strange that the camera should stop working afer a few minutes. It sounds more likely that it's a hardware problem than a software problem if the problem repeats on different computers. Can you restart the camera if you wait 15 minutes before trying it again?

Have you tried running the camera on ToupSee instead of ToupView? [www.bigcatchusa.com]

Gene]]> Mineralogical Research Company Mineral Photography Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:33:10 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,264327#msg-264327 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,264327#msg-264327 wilma Mineral Photography Sun, 24 Jun 2012 04:31:44 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,255060#msg-255060 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,255060#msg-255060
If you have installed the software on a computer and the camera worked for a few days and then quit I can only think of a few possible problems.

1. The computer is having a problem, but you say that you tried it on another computer.
2. Some other software or device on the computer is conflicting.
3. The camera itself has an intermittent problem, or the USB cable is possibly intermittent.
4. It is a known problem that web cams or built in cameras can conflict with the MU500 type cameras.

When you do an install of the ToupView software, make sure that you don't connect the camera to the computer until the installation is competed. Then plug the camera in and you will get the standard search for driver window and you can follow through with that.

I hope that this helps...
Gene]]> Mineralogical Research Company Mineral Photography Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:44:09 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,255039#msg-255039 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,255039#msg-255039 I am Dushyant form India,

I have amscope MU500 with installation CD..

everything goes right two days.. than Problem started..

when i started the camera my pc showed that USB Device Not Recognized(One of the USB device connected to this computer has malfunctioned)

I try reinstall Driver..

Try to other PC..

Try Gene link (http://www.bigcatchusa.com/downloads.php)..

but problem still alive..

pls. help me...

Dushyant]]> Dushyant patel Mineral Photography Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:40:44 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,255037#msg-255037 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,255037#msg-255037 I am Dushyant,

I have Amscope MU500 camera with installation CD..

Problem is its work fine two days... then started
when i started the camera my pc showed that USB Device Not Recognized(One of the usb device connected to this computer has malfunctioned)

I reinstall driver , try in other PC.., try Gene. yours link (http://www.bigcatchusa.com/downloads.php) but its not effective..

so pls. help me what to do..

Dushyant]]> Duahyant Mineral Photography Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:11:24 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,250558#msg-250558 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,250558#msg-250558
Thank you for your help.
Now i'm ok.]]> naykyar Mineral Photography Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:41:18 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,250281#msg-250281 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,250281#msg-250281
You can download software, ToupView_EM, that should work with your camera from here.
If you want a simpler to use software, then down load the Light Version.

The first listing at the top of the page should be the correct version for your camera. Also, see the installation information at the bottom of the page.

Gene]]> Mineralogical Research Company Mineral Photography Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:41:03 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,250208#msg-250208 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,250208#msg-250208 I 'm naykyar from Myanmar.
I would like to request for Amscope MU1000 camera software, may i?
I bought Amscope T360B 10M with MU 1000 camera but havn't install CD.
Now i didn't use with Computer.:-(
Please help me.

:-)]]> naykyar Mineral Photography Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:04:32 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,242798#msg-242798 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,242798#msg-242798
I used the previously posted image just to illustrate that even a 1.3MP camera can yield pretty good images if the camera sensor is a good match for the optical system being used. I’m not trying to imply that just matching a sensor to the optics is going to produce excellent images, but that this is one aspect of making a good image, especially if you are using a small size sensor.

In the case of the previously posted image, the microscope used was a Nikon SMZ800 with 1X ED Plan Objective (NA= 0.09), which gives a maximum resolution of ~3.7um on the object plane. Actually, I have measured it to be a bit better than the calculated value. The scope was set to 4X and it has a 0.7X relay lens in the photo tube, yielding a total magnification of ~2.8X. Referred to the image plane (the sensor), a feature that is at the limit of resolution (3.7um) would be 2.8 X 3.7um = 10.4 in extent. Since the pixel size for this camera sensor is 3.6um X3.6um, the Nyquist sampling rate would be 10.4/3.6um ~2.9. In other words, the image of a minimum discernable feature, referred to the sensor, covers 2.9 pixels. This satisfies the Nyquist minimum sampling rate, which is ~2.5 to 3.

From the above, it can be seen that if the pixel size is increased, the image becomes under sampled and resolution is lost. If the pixel size were reduced, the image becomes oversampled, and there is little or no gain in resolution. With the 10MP camera (1.4um pixels) the sampling rate would be ~7, which isn’t necessarily bad. However, other factors come into play with smaller pixels. Each of the smaller pixels has only ~0.15 the area of the 3.6um pixel. The sensitivity of the sensor is directly proportional to the area of a pixel, so the smaller pixel will require ~6X more light to achieve an equivalent exposure. Also, the well depth of the smaller pixel is less, so dynamic range suffers and signal to noise ratio suffers as well. Some of this could be corrected by clever hardware and/or software, but it will never be as good as that of the sensor with larger pixels.

There are a number of interacting parameters to play with when trying to optimize an image for proper sampling. These include the following:
Numerical Aperture (NA)
Magnification
Pixel size
Sensor size

Object illumination is related to the above, as well. For sensors with small pixels the signal to noise ratio is improved, up to a point, by using higher intensity illumination. Illuminators that are built into the microscope are practically useless. Halogen fiber optic illuminators are best and can be used with diffusers and still provide adequate illumination.

As further examples of what can be done with a small sensor, I have added two more images taken with a 1.3MP sensor. Keep in mind that a larger sensor, such as a full frame or APS-C, with larger pixels can certainly produce far better images. These larger sensors have up to 20+MPs, with pixel sizes up to 7.2um. Some of these sensors have areas that are up to 35 times greater than the 1.3MP sensor is being discussed here. But, for a camera that costs $129, the 1.3MP camera performs admirably.

© minresco

© minresco

Please forgive any mistakes in the above, as I had to fire this off quickly so as to get some shut eye.

Happy Thanksgiving!
Gene]]> Mineralogical Research Company Mineral Photography Thu, 24 Nov 2011 02:26:40 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,242656#msg-242656 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,242656#msg-242656 Joe]]> Joe Mulvey Mineral Photography Wed, 23 Nov 2011 02:52:11 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,242651#msg-242651 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,242651#msg-242651
Good points all. My best lenses were the old anastigmats. They suffered from some pincushion distortion, but had very high contrast. With a high saturation film like Kodachrome, I got beautiful images. Vibration was/is the bane of my existence also.

I would love to try one of the cooled CCD cameras (shutterless) such as are used for fluorescence microscopy and astrophotography, but my budget doesn't allow for this luxury.]]> Henry Barwood Mineral Photography Wed, 23 Nov 2011 01:09:51 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,242620#msg-242620 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,242620#msg-242620
I see this discussion with some interest, as I still wait to find affordable high resolution microscope camera. I would also like to make good pictures from a 0.1 mm speck. But with optical photography the limitation is the resolution of the lens. Practical the limit is in the 3-1 µm range depending on the N/A of the lens and its quality and it is more difficult to be vibration free in that range. So you will get at maximun 100 sharp data points for 100 µm. Well, some can be done with picture processing. So for me now the end for reflected light photography is in the field of view range of 1 mm, well sometimes 0.5 mm, but a still-picture with less than 1000 sharp pixels suffers from sharpness. (transmission microscopy is a different story)

I adapted a Panasonic Lumix D2 on a Leitz Ortholux I body (no relay lens), this works reasonable, and I believe that you can match this adaption only with a very expensive high end microscope camera. Interestingly the key was to minimize camera vibration. Typical I reduce the 4000 pixels of the camera in post process to around 1000.

I still hate that I have a shutter and wait for the day the vido grabber cameras go into the 12 Mpixel range.

Volker]]> Volker Betz Mineral Photography Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:56:24 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,242238#msg-242238 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,242238#msg-242238
Out of curiosity, can you post the details of the photo you used to illustrate your point? I used to take images like that with film and enlarging lens on bellows extensions. Have really never duplicated that with digital imagers.Of course, I'm usually trying to image some 0.1 mm speck!

Henry]]> Henry Barwood Mineral Photography Sat, 19 Nov 2011 03:38:24 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,242176#msg-242176 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,242176#msg-242176
We are rapidly deteriorating into a battle of "one upmanship" while saying the same thing. So I will call this exchange at an end and say "adios".

Ron]]> Ronald J. Pellar Mineral Photography Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:10:16 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,242097#msg-242097 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,13,240122,242097#msg-242097
Nyquist criteria is not correctly stated as “the minimum samples required to accurately reproduce a sine wave of a particular frequency”. The Nyquist theorem states that you can reproduce any complex waveform, in this case a function of spatial frequencies, by sampling it at a frequency that is at least two times the highest frequency contained in the band limited waveform. Band limited meaning that the Fourier series for the function must not have an infinite number of terms. Because physical systems have a finite number of terms, good reproducibility is usually achievable. The Nyquist - Shannon sampling theorems are far reaching and cannot be described in just a few words. The mathematical treatments are explicit and rigorous.

Let me try to simplify. We are talking about Nyquist sampling rate for the image plane, which in our case, is coincident with the sensor. That is, an image is on the sensor and we want to determine the optimum Nyquist sampling rate. For that reason, the optics and their transfer functions are not relevant. We just want to reconstruct the image on the sensor as faithfully as possible by choosing the best Nyquist sampling rate. The literature states that number is 2.5 – 3 for imaging sensors. I will agree that oversampling is not necessarily bad, only that is not an elegant solution, nor is it economical. For the case in question, the MU1000 camera (remember that is what this thread was originally about) pixels are wasted on a low resolution, NA~0.1, stereo microscope. A sensor, of the same physical size, with fewer and larger pixels would give better results and would be more economical. Binning (down sampling) is possible, but at added hardware or software expense. It can be a good thing to do if you are already stuck with too many pixels, but choosing the proper sensor to begin with makes more sense. And this is, in effect, what Henry is doing when he runs in a lower resolution mode of the 10MP camera.

This image is an example of the results that are achievable with just a 1.3MP sensor that has been optimally matched to the objective.

© Minresco

Since no one else has chimed into this thread, I can assume that no one is interested in our blathering, so it has become a waste of bandwidth. At that, I thank you for the stimulating exchange! Perhaps we can find more agreement, at another time and on a different subject. I suspect that Henry certainly didn’t expect this when he first posted his observations, regarding his new camera.

Cheers,
Gene]]> Mineralogical Research Company Mineral Photography Fri, 18 Nov 2011 03:01:26 +0000