Recently I explored the use of a USB microscope for field studies, and documentation of cave minerals in particular. So I got a dirt-cheap USB microscope, the Supereyes B005 for $28. While its optics and sensor are not precisely impressive, the Supereyes has some features that turn out to be relevant. Here I describe my experience with this setup.
The Microscope
The microscope consists of a 11m diameter cylinder with a 640x480 (0.3MP) CMOS sensor, and given the price that is really all one can expect. There was a time when 640x480 was a real image. It has 4 LEDs for illumination and a mini-tripod. Mounting is obviously crucial for microscopy, as any motion easily blurs the image.
The Supereyes B005 comes with a little tripod, that I don't use, because I work on uneven ground. But this mini-tripod has a standard tripod screw, so the microscope holder/clamp fits on a Joby Gorillapod (a flexible tripod). I have the "original"-sized GorillaPod, whose dimensions are a good match with the microscope, and it has a quick-release plate. With this modification, the microscope can be readily used on uneven ground, and the tripod is flexible enough to position the lens directly above the surface. Some other USB microscopes I checked out come with their own stand, and are not tripod mountable, so this is an important advantage of this model.
The Supereyes B005 USB microscope mounted on a Joby GorillaPod flexible tripod.
The Supereyes software is basic, but it works.
It has a dimmable light (4 LEDs). Exposure can compensate for light level, but I still find this useful as it sometimes helps to avoid specular reflections (glare) off a crystal surface. The dimmer can also be used to switch the light off, which helps conserve battery. Obviously, this thing is powered through USB from my laptop.
It has a white diffuser/spacer/cap (as probably do all USB microscopes). This is crucial, as the spacer has the minimum distance from the surface needed and this is the only way the microscope can be used handheld.
The software is rudimentary, as many others have pointed out. It took me two sessions to figure it out. I had to install it as 'run as administrator'; it took me a little while to find the folder where all the images are stored, and the microscope needs to be plugged in before the software is launched. Because the software is so basic, I can at least understand its behavior, and that's a good thing.
As a scientist, I like to have a scale next to the mineral grains I am photographing. Luckily it comes with a transparent 50mm scale. The scale is cheaply made but highly functional, and it perfectly agreed with another ruler I compared it with. It doesn't have length units used in 3 countries; instead it has the length units used in 193 countries. My only concern was how to transport this little scale without losing it. I ended up adding it to my camera filter box, a 58mm UV filter, ruler and filter separated by a square sheet of paper. Speaking of scale, the minimum field of view (at maximum magnification when held a minimum distance from the surface) is about 9mm x 6.5mm.
Operation in the field
To my surprise the microscope worked well in the field/cave. It quickly revealed the shape and sizes of mineral grains that I could barely make out with my eyes, and allowed me to document this evidence.
I first explored the rock surface by using the microscope handheld; its illumination was plenty. While holding the microscope in one hand, stably touching the surface, I pressed the shutter button with the other. The shutter button is wisely mounted on the cable rather than on the microscope body, where it would cause disastrous shaking. However, it is not mounted far enough away on the cable. Often the microscope still moves when I press the button, and that is a shame because it could be easily placed farther away. A picture can also be captured from the computer, but pressing on a little button with my touch-pad operated cursor was less practical -- by the way, it was near freezing in the cave. I also used the flexible tripod, which worked fine too, one just has to re-position and re-adjust at each spot.
Left: Microscope image acquired on-site of soft white mineral grains on the cave floor.
Right: Lab/studio macro photo of a grain from the same batch. This was my first macrophotography session (using a Canon 100mm IS macro lens), and improvements in background and lighting could have been made.
As an aside, minerals can fall apart after they leave the cave due to the difference in temperature, and often permits are required to take any sample out of a cave, so in-situ documentation is the way to go.
Upon returning from the field, the photos didn't look as good to me as they did initially. I concluded that this is a limitation due to resolution, that essential evidence is captured, and the images could be included in a publication if displayed at a small size appropriate for its resolution.
Since I did have a permit to take a few samples, I also photographed the same samples in a studio/lab setup with a macro lens and a DLSR. Needless to say, these photos were of higher resolution. The macro session took longer to set up than did the microscope in the cave.
Focus stacking
Who would use focus stacking with a 0.3MP sensor and plastic lenses? Well, I would. And it worked.
A central problem for macrophotography is the small depth of field, so for rough objects/surfaces, most of the image is generally out of focus. The image below shows the focus stacked image obtained from 4 photos, manually focused at four depths. I tried ImageJ with an "Extended depth of field" plugin, which didn't work so well, but this was my first time using that software, and then resorted to Photoshop CS6. The focus stacking works remarkably well. Again, these photos were acquired with a microscope where optics + electronics + mini-tripod + software cost only $28.
Four photos are successfully combined into a focus stacked image.
Discussion
This worked well enough that I consider upgrading to a better microscope, in terms of optics and sensor size. Lighting and mount are okay with this model. Problem is that the "better" models are often not tripod mountable. They usually sell with stands that are unsuitable for outdoor use. Also they do not necessarily have dimmable LEDs and their stubbier body may be too short for my flexible mini tripod. There is one high-end DinoLite model with built-in focus stacking.
I have not yet tried macro photography on-site, but recently purchased a reverse lens adapter. This is not only the least expensive way to do macrophotography, it is also the most weight efficient, which matters for the remote places I am going to. Undoubtedly, such a macro setup will be more time consuming than the microscope, as it will involve a serious tripod, lighting, and a macro focusing rail. Hence, two unassuming properties of the microscope are important: 1. It has built-in self-sufficient care-free lighting. Such continuous lighting is feasible powerwise, because the illuminated area is small. It is also diffuse enough to serve many circumstances. 2. Its light weight and small size are multiplied in the tripod. And if it can be rested on the surface, it can even be operated in handheld mode.
I never understood the difference between microscopy with reflected light and macrophotography. My Canon T2i has many more pixels than my USB microscope, and my DSLR lens has a much larger diameter than my Supereyes, but camera and lens also cost 20 times as much. Somehow, I cannot drag my camera over a surface as I do with my microscope, but maybe all it takes is an appropriately designed tube and LED lights?
Summary points
* Inexpensive Supereyes B005 USB microscope was used for photo documentation in a remote, rugged, and dark environment.
* Setup time is short.
* Even focus stacking works.
List of items
* USB microscope: Supereyes B005 $28
* Flexible mini tripod: Joby GorillaPod original $16
* This requires a lil' laptop or tablet. Works with Windows and Mac. Probably doesn't work with Android or Linux. 
Hi Norbert, thanks for taking the time to post your experiences with this useful and cheap microscope; this is very helpful information that I'm sure a lot of people will find interesting and inspiring, especially considering that most people worldwide really are poor.
That's a great first posting by the way. Wecome to Mindat!
Cheers, Mike (tu) 
norbert Scritto:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Recently I explored the use of a USB microscope
> for field studies, and documentation of cave
> minerals in particular. So I got a dirt-cheap USB
> microscope, the Supereyes B005 for $28. While its
> optics and sensor are not precisely impressive,
> the Supereyes has some features that turn out to
> be relevant. Here I describe my experience with
> this setup.
>
> The Microscope
>
> The microscope consists of a 11m diameter cylinder
> with a 640x480 (0.3MP) CMOS sensor, and given the
> price that is really all one can expect. There was
> a time when 640x480 was a real image. It has 4
> LEDs for illumination and a mini-tripod. Mounting
> is obviously crucial for microscopy, as any motion
> easily blurs the image.
>
> The Supereyes B005 comes with a little tripod,
> that I don't use, because I work on uneven ground.
> But this mini-tripod has a standard tripod screw,
> so the microscope holder/clamp fits on a Joby
> Gorillapod (a flexible tripod). I have the
> "original"-sized GorillaPod, whose dimensions are
> a good match with the microscope, and it has a
> quick-release plate. With this modification, the
> microscope can be readily used on uneven ground,
> and the tripod is flexible enough to position the
> lens directly above the surface. Some other USB
> microscopes I checked out come with their own
> stand, and are not tripod mountable, so this is an
> important advantage of this model.
>
>
> The Supereyes B005 USB microscope mounted on a
> Joby GorillaPod flexible tripod.
> The Supereyes software is basic, but it works.
>
> It has a dimmable light (4 LEDs). Exposure can
> compensate for light level, but I still find this
> useful as it sometimes helps to avoid specular
> reflections (glare) off a crystal surface. The
> dimmer can also be used to switch the light off,
> which helps conserve battery. Obviously, this
> thing is powered through USB from my laptop.
>
> It has a white diffuser/spacer/cap (as probably do
> all USB microscopes). This is crucial, as the
> spacer has the minimum distance from the surface
> needed and this is the only way the microscope can
> be used handheld.
>
> The software is rudimentary, as many others have
> pointed out. It took me two sessions to figure it
> out. I had to install it as 'run as
> administrator'; it took me a little while to find
> the folder where all the images are stored, and
> the microscope needs to be plugged in before the
> software is launched. Because the software is so
> basic, I can at least understand its behavior, and
> that's a good thing.
>
> As a scientist, I like to have a scale next to the
> mineral grains I am photographing. Luckily it
> comes with a transparent 50mm scale. The scale is
> cheaply made but highly functional, and it
> perfectly agreed with another ruler I compared it
> with. It doesn't have length units used in 3
> countries; instead it has the length units used in
> 193 countries. My only concern was how to
> transport this little scale without losing it. I
> ended up adding it to my camera filter box, a 58mm
> UV filter, ruler and filter separated by a square
> sheet of paper. Speaking of scale, the minimum
> field of view (at maximum magnification when held
> a minimum distance from the surface) is about 9mm
> x 6.5mm.
>
> Operation in the field
>
> To my surprise the microscope worked well in the
> field/cave. It quickly revealed the shape and
> sizes of mineral grains that I could barely make
> out with my eyes, and allowed me to document this
> evidence.
>
> I first explored the rock surface by using the
> microscope handheld; its illumination was plenty.
> While holding the microscope in one hand, stably
> touching the surface, I pressed the shutter button
> with the other. The shutter button is wisely
> mounted on the cable rather than on the microscope
> body, where it would cause disastrous shaking.
> However, it is not mounted far enough away on the
> cable. Often the microscope still moves when I
> press the button, and that is a shame because it
> could be easily placed farther away. A picture
> can also be captured from the computer, but
> pressing on a little button with my touch-pad
> operated cursor was less practical -- by the way,
> it was near freezing in the cave. I also used the
> flexible tripod, which worked fine too, one just
> has to re-position and re-adjust at each spot.
>
>
> Left: Microscope image acquired on-site of soft
> white mineral grains on the cave floor.
> Right: Lab/studio macro photo of a grain from the
> same batch. This was my first macrophotography
> session (using a Canon 100mm IS macro lens), and
> improvements in background and lighting could have
> been made.
>
> As an aside, minerals can fall apart after they
> leave the cave due to the difference in
> temperature, and often permits are required to
> take any sample out of a cave, so in-situ
> documentation is the way to go.
>
> Upon returning from the field, the photos didn't
> look as good to me as they did initially. I
> concluded that this is a limitation due to
> resolution, that essential evidence is captured,
> and the images could be included in a publication
> if displayed at a small size appropriate for its
> resolution.
>
> Since I did have a permit to take a few samples, I
> also photographed the same samples in a studio/lab
> setup with a macro lens and a DLSR. Needless to
> say, these photos were of higher resolution. The
> macro session took longer to set up than did the
> microscope in the cave.
>
> Focus stacking
>
> Who would use focus stacking with a 0.3MP sensor
> and plastic lenses? Well, I would. And it
> worked.
>
> A central problem for macrophotography is the
> small depth of field, so for rough
> objects/surfaces, most of the image is generally
> out of focus. The image below shows the focus
> stacked image obtained from 4 photos, manually
> focused at four depths. I tried ImageJ with an
> "Extended depth of field" plugin, which didn't
> work so well, but this was my first time using
> that software, and then resorted to Photoshop CS6.
> The focus stacking works remarkably well. Again,
> these photos were acquired with a microscope where
> optics + electronics + mini-tripod + software cost
> only $28.
>
>
> Four photos are successfully combined into a focus
> stacked image.
>
> Discussion
>
> This worked well enough that I consider upgrading
> to a better microscope, in terms of optics and
> sensor size. Lighting and mount are okay with this
> model. Problem is that the "better" models are
> often not tripod mountable. They usually sell with
> stands that are unsuitable for outdoor use. Also
> they do not necessarily have dimmable LEDs and
> their stubbier body may be too short for my
> flexible mini tripod. There is one high-end
> DinoLite model with built-in focus stacking.
>
> I have not yet tried macro photography on-site,
> but recently purchased a reverse lens adapter.
> This is not only the least expensive way to do
> macrophotography, it is also the most weight
> efficient, which matters for the remote places I
> am going to. Undoubtedly, such a macro setup will
> be more time consuming than the microscope, as it
> will involve a serious tripod, lighting, and a
> macro focusing rail. Hence, two unassuming
> properties of the microscope are important: 1. It
> has built-in self-sufficient care-free lighting.
> Such continuous lighting is feasible powerwise,
> because the illuminated area is small. It is also
> diffuse enough to serve many circumstances. 2.
> Its light weight and small size are multiplied in
> the tripod. And if it can be rested on the
> surface, it can even be operated in handheld
> mode.
>
> I never understood the difference between
> microscopy with reflected light and
> macrophotography. My Canon T2i has many more
> pixels than my USB microscope, and my DSLR lens
> has a much larger diameter than my Supereyes, but
> camera and lens also cost 20 times as much.
> Somehow, I cannot drag my camera over a surface as
> I do with my microscope, but maybe all it takes is
> an appropriately designed tube and LED lights?
>
> Summary points
> * Inexpensive Supereyes B005 USB microscope was
> used for photo documentation in a remote, rugged,
> and dark environment.
> * Setup time is short.
> * Even focus stacking works.
>
> List of items
> * USB microscope: Supereyes B005 $28
> * Flexible mini tripod: Joby GorillaPod original
> $16
> * This requires a lil' laptop or tablet. Works
> with Windows and Mac. Probably doesn't work with
> Android or Linux. > I tried ImageJ with an "Extended depth of field" plugin, which didn't work so well, ...
Hi,
did you get the usb microscope sending image directly to ImageJ or did you acquire images with the proprietray software and then you processed them with ImageJ or Photoshop?
Luca
