Help|Log In|Register|
Home PageMindat NewsThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusManagement TeamContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatSponsor a PageSponsored PagesTop Available PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on MindatThe Mindat Store
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryRandom MineralSearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
StatisticsThe ElementsMember ListBooks & MagazinesMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryHow to Link to MindatDevice Settings
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day Gallery

Initial impressions on MU300 camera.

Posted by Sergey Sayamov  
Initial impressions on MU300 camera.
February 01, 2012 05:37AM
Continuing the topic on MU1000 camera and due to appearance of questions on microscope AmScope SZ with the "kit" camera MU300 I decided to share some results of using this equipment as is, with the included, bad or good, 3MP camera MU300.

I've uploaded some photos to share:

Cobaltite, 5mm crystal, Hakansboda, Sweden

Gypsum, 1mm xls, Belorechenskoye deposit, Adygea, Russia

Sphalerite/chalcopyrite, 1mm xls, Belorechenskoye deposit, Adygea, Russia

Gypsum, 0.5mm xls, Belorechenskoye deposit, Adygea, Russia

I'm estimating this quality myself as "a bit below average" so I'm going to change camera to something which can make better pics. The main reason is very hard control of colours and contrast (seems like these features are software-controlled)

avatar Re: Initial impressions on MU300 camera.
February 01, 2012 07:22PM
Hello Sergey,

I wouldn't dismiss the quality of your camera so quickly, without more experimentation. Your images are a good starting point and may only need some refinement in technique. I won't elaborate here, as this has been discussed ad nauseam in an earlier posts. Amscope MU1000 camera - initial impressions

I have used the 1.3MP version of your camera with reasonably good results and have posted images from it in that earlier discussion. You should be able to as good, or better, than those images with your camera. My first impression is that you are not incrementing your stacks properly. Here are the criteria that I use.

1. Take multiple images of the subject at intervals along the optical, or Z, axis.
2. The depth of field for each image must overlap that of the next image.
3. Take enough images such that the total required depth of field is covered.

Number 2 above can be a pivotal issue, and until I adopted a method for accurately measuring the stack increments, I did not get good results.

As for color balance, some practice is necessary. There are manual controls for all of the camera parameters, such as color balance, exposure, brightness, contrast, saturation and sharpness. These are usually better used than the automatic default settings.

Good luck,

Your Email:


  • Valid attachments: jpg, jpeg, gif, png, pdf
  • No file can be larger than 1000 KB
  • 3 more file(s) can be attached to this message

Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically. If the code is hard to read, then just try to guess it right. If you enter the wrong code, a new image is created and you get another chance to enter it right.

Mineral and/or Locality is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2015, except where stated. relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us Current server date and time: November 27, 2015 21:00:49