These are always a constant source of amazement to me! Microscopic "pottery" made by an amoeba!
Olympus 40/0.95 S Plan Apo, Canon 350D, bright-field illumination (slightly oblique), 24 stacked images using Helicon Focus
Amoeba test
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
- Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
- Wolfgang Bettighofer
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:42 pm
- Location: Kiel, Germany
Re: Amoeba test
Charles Krebs wrote:These are always a constant source of amazement to me! Microscopic "pottery" made by an amoeba!
Hi Charles,
very nice! You did a great job in parameterizing the stacking software. But what amoeba? The surface looks like Difflugia and the shape like Lesquereusia.
So long, Wolfgang
- Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
Yes, I thought that very same thing! I have seen such amazing variations of these tests. It really is a shame they are so difficult to photograph well. Stacking is a big help, but my biggest problem has been the "depth" required by the subject and my inability to get a nice sharp image (of the deeper sections) due to spherical aberration. And this is even with a 40X that has a correction collar. I'm beginning to think that I should try to collect some specimens and try it "dry" with a 40X objective designed for use without a coverslip.The surface looks like Difflugia and the shape like Lesquereusia.
- Wolfgang Bettighofer
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:42 pm
- Location: Kiel, Germany
Looking at your picture I have no idea what could be done better...Charles Krebs wrote:... I'm beginning to think that I should try to collect some specimens and try it "dry" with a 40X objective designed for use without a coverslip.The surface looks like Difflugia and the shape like Lesquereusia.
Some words to objectives designed for use without a coverslip. Are there any for brightfield use? In former times I used a 40/0.95 objective with correction collar. For me this was not satisfying. Since the time I'm using a 40/1.00 oil I'm happy.
Have you ever tested a 40x oil?
Cheers, Wolfgang
- Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
Wolfgang...
I have a 40X Zeiss Plan Apo oil. Unfortunately it has some of the dreaded "delamination" so common in those objectives. It still provides a very good image, and does make things simpler as far as not needing to fiddle around with an adjustment collar. But I am not convinced that it really is better when a subject is rather "deep" in the water under the coverglass.Have you ever tested a 40x oil?
- Wolfgang Bettighofer
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:42 pm
- Location: Kiel, Germany
OK, good to know that one can handle the 40/0,95. I gave it up, years ago, but you show that one can handle.Charles Krebs wrote:Wolfgang...I have a 40X Zeiss Plan Apo oil. Unfortunately it has some of the dreaded "delamination" so common in those objectives. It still provides a very good image, and does make things simpler as far as not needing to fiddle around with an adjustment collar. But I am not convinced that it really is better when a subject is rather "deep" in the water under the coverglass.Have you ever tested a 40x oil?
But I think that the appr. homogenous immersion could make it possible to image subjects in deep water a little better than "dry" objectives (I don't know the correct expression). Unfortunately I'm not able to test...
Cheers, Wolfgang