Interpretation has always been a major aspect of microscopical
observation, be it introducing the novice to the appearance of
bubbles in different media as you focus up and down (a valuable
exercise), or examination of more complex structures by the most
experienced microscopists. I think that reminding ouselves of this
regularly can only be a good thing.
It seems to me with the comparison of HF with CZ5 (and I think ver 5
is looking to be a great advance on ver 4), we can see that each
program has its own strengths. Sometimes the choice between the two
will be a purely aesthetic one, sometimes because one illustrates a
particular aspect of detail or structure better, or maybe just gives
a better overview (see for example,
created in HF, which although not great in resolution gives a good
idea of the 3D
layout of the diatom and assists in interpretation of other images)
In some cases it looks as though one will just not give an
acceptable image, but the other will. In the end, the interpretation
of what the image is really showing comes down to knowledge,
experience, and inevitably, because we are human, aesthetics and gut
Though we lean on the same balustrade
The colours of the mountain are different
- Zenrin Kushu, coll. by Toyo Eicho
I think, also, seeing the comparisons with a range of different
subjects should help us all be aware of the possibilities and
limitations of these programs.
I raise my glass to Alan Hadley, the author of CZ, and to the
authors of Helicon - an excellent job by all...
--- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, Gordon Couger <gcc@c...> wrote:
> Hi Graham,
> HF has the prettier image bit not seeing the original I can't
> say which is the better representation of the subject. I suspect
> it is HF in most respects and all microscope imagages are not
> true repsetaions of what is there. So picking the one that looks
> the best is not an ethical problem as long as it does not
> materially change the appearance of what you are trying to show
> in the image.
> But we can add false data to images and believe it with out
> knowing it is false I know I have done it my self. Fortuatly I
> found before I made a fool of myself in from of to many people.
> Graham Matthews wrote:
> > 119 Images - that's impressive.
> > Here is another comparison, using a stack of 15 low compression
> > This time there is a very distinct difference between the two
> > The default settings were used for both programs.
> > Graham
> > Yahoo! Groups Links