Re: [Microscope] Re: Micrometer Eyepieces
It is amazing what image processing can do in this area and a great
many more. I worked with a little of it in the early days but it has
progressed a very great deal since I used Turbo C on a 386 that took
all day to process the image I was working on. And I was just barely
scratching the surface with tools that can be compared to a stone ax
compared to what you have today. Merely visualizing the data was a
big step then. It took me 3 months to get a look at a 3D
representation of the surface using the XT I started on.
What you are doing is in the sub micron range is really outstanding
work if you are using visible light images to gather data. Even if
you are using shorter wavelengths it is still very difficult work to
make instruments that are that precise.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Kleinberg" <Microscopeman@...>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Microscope] Re: Micrometer Eyepieces
: Hello Aaron,
: Your statement (below) is generally accurate when using an
: reticle or a filar micrometer.
: However, you should be aware, with a little technology, that this
: overcome. My company develops vision metrology software solutions
: work with compound microscope optics, and measure features on
: semiconductor devices, MEMS, MOEMS, and photolithography masks in
: 0.25 micron - 0.5 micron range routinely. More importantly, these
: measurement tools address 3-Sigma and 6-Sigma rules for gage
: with standard deviation of a range of these measurements in the
: to low double-digit nanometer range. Not unreliable in the least.
: Not trying to argue your statement in general, just thought you
: interest to know that diffraction errors can be mapped and removed
: reliably in image processing for metrology applications.
: Aaron wrote:
: >Measurements with a compound microscope of objects less than
: >0.5 micron are unreliable owing to difraction
: ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
: $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
: Yahoo! Groups Links
- Hello John.
I think that my request for some guidance started this thread i.e:-
either a C.Z.J.x15 or a Watson x 10 eyepiece? I noted with great interest Rene's
very prompt and comprehensive reply and took his advise on the C.Z.J. X15.
Many thanks to Rene and to all the other contributors.
As you have so rightly stated John it's' horses for courses'. For my application
'close enough is indeed good enough.
Once again, thanks to everybody,
John Raffensperger <chiphead@...> wrote:
Fully agreeing with the discussions on accuracy and
traceability but would add the following:
I don't know what the original poster was after, but
let's keep in mind the intended use.
If the application is for absolute science or
industrial/commercial purposes, then accuracy and
traceability are paramount.
On the other hand, if the purpose is amateur use then
"about" may be close enough, especially if the primary
use will be comparisons, or relative measurments.
(e.g. this feature is half the same feature on the
I mention this in the spririt of not descouraging
someone from trying something, even if it isn't
"Better is the enemy of the good." - There is always
a better way, but something is better than nothing,
and sometimes good enough is good enough.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]