www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Blackberry screen pixels
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Blackberry screen pixels

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Technical and Studio Photography -- Macro and Close-up
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nanometer



Joined: 30 Apr 2016
Posts: 288
Location: Tucson, AZ

PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:51 pm    Post subject: Blackberry screen pixels Reply with quote

Mitty 20x, 2um steps, zerene DMAP

2 layers of screen assembly facing each other. They had an adhesive connection which probably accounts for the bubbles in the colored image as I had to separate them. ~60um width so pixels about 20um long.



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 20269
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Blackberry screen pixels Reply with quote

Nice images!
nanometer wrote:
Mitty 20x
...
~60um width so pixels about 20um long

I'm having a little trouble with these numbers. 60 µm times 20X would be only 1200 µm = 1.2 mm on camera sensor. And 20 µm pixels would be 50 pixels per mm = 1270 pixels/inch. I don't see anything in the list of Blackberry screen resolutions that is nearly so large.

Is there a conversion factor missing someplace?

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nanometer



Joined: 30 Apr 2016
Posts: 288
Location: Tucson, AZ

PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I meant that the image was ~60um wide, and there are 3 'pixels' in the image width. I guess 20um might be the pixel spacing if they are only the small blocks which it looks like they are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 20269
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, apparently I was not clear.

I took your words as meaning that the horizontal distance between white circles is about 20 um on the original subject.

Then I'm questioning whether that number is correct.

Again, if the image as shown is about 60 um wide on subject, and it was shot at 20X, then the image area as shown was only about 1.2 mm wide on sensor.

Did you really use such a small sensor, or such a small part of a larger sensor? Or are you running at a lot more than 20X optical magnification? Or have I misunderstood and/or botched my own calculations? Or something else?

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nanometer



Joined: 30 Apr 2016
Posts: 288
Location: Tucson, AZ

PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a crop. Technically, it's greater than 20x--all I meant was it is 20x over the full frame of the sensor, but I cropped out a 60um width.

Like stating zooms vs. sensor size in photography, the lens is what the lens is--only the crop factor changes. Maybe that's not how we are supposed to state things here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 20269
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hate to sound either thick or pushy, but this one's bothering me. Let me "think out loud".

Exif data inside your images says that they were shot with a Sony SLT-A99V camera using a 200 mm lens. In combination with a 20X Mitutoyo objective, the 200 mm lens would give 20X optical magnification on sensor. The web tells me that an SLT-A99 has a 35.8 x 23.8 mm sensor, with pixel pitch of 5.93 microns. At 20X optical magnification, each camera pixel would correspond to 5.93/20 = 0.2965 microns on subject. So then a field width of 60 microns on subject would be 60/0.2965 = 202 pixels on sensor. But the image that you're showing us is 1024 pixels wide, about 5 times bigger than even an actual-pixels crop would be. My conclusion is that the 60 um number is wrong.

Let me try it from a different angle. Sensor dimensions of SLT-A99 are listed as 6038 x 4025 pixels. (Crosscheck: 35.8mm/6038 = 0.005929 mm/pixel, consistent with the 5.93 um spec.) Assuming that the posted image is just an actual-pixels crop, 1024 pixels wide, then it represents an area on sensor that is 35.8*1024/6038 = 6.07 mm wide. Then 6.07mm/20X = 0.304 mm = 304 um on subject, again, about 5X larger than your 60 um number. 304 um for the entire image width turns out to be right at 90 um between white circles. That would be 282 pixels per inch, much more in line with the numbers posted at https://developer.blackberry.com/design/bb10/screen_sizes.html for Blackberry screens.

Can you walk me through your process that concluded the image width is 60 um?

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nanometer



Joined: 30 Apr 2016
Posts: 288
Location: Tucson, AZ

PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok. I simply looked at my imaged micrometer scale wrong. It's ~500 um across. The width of the sensor is ~6000pix/1.8mm, and this image is 1700 pix wide which was re-sampled to 1024 to meet your max image size requirements. My confusion came from the scale ticks for my microscope which are 10um, and this scale has 100um gradations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 20269
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aha, the old tick mark problem! That explains everything.

So, working forward from 1700 pixels, 20X, and sensor size, I calculate 504 µm wide for the whole image, 148 µm per pixel = 172 ppi. That makes sense to me for an early Blackberry.

Thanks for resolving my confusion.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nanometer



Joined: 30 Apr 2016
Posts: 288
Location: Tucson, AZ

PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry to waste your time on the issue! Anyway, I learned to be more careful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Technical and Studio Photography -- Macro and Close-up All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group