Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Microscope] Re: Micrometer Eyepieces

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Couger
    Gregg, 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
    Message 1 of 34 , Oct 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Gregg,

      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.

      Gordon.
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Gregg Kleinberg" <Microscopeman@...>
      To: <Microscope@yahoogroups.com>
      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
      eyepiece
      : reticle or a filar micrometer.
      :
      : However, you should be aware, with a little technology, that this
      can be
      : overcome. My company develops vision metrology software solutions
      that
      : work with compound microscope optics, and measure features on
      : semiconductor devices, MEMS, MOEMS, and photolithography masks in
      the
      : 0.25 micron - 0.5 micron range routinely. More importantly, these
      : measurement tools address 3-Sigma and 6-Sigma rules for gage
      capability,
      : with standard deviation of a range of these measurements in the
      single
      : to low double-digit nanometer range. Not unreliable in the least.
      :
      : Not trying to argue your statement in general, just thought you
      may have
      : interest to know that diffraction errors can be mapped and removed
      : reliably in image processing for metrology applications.
      :
      : Gregg
      :
      : Aaron wrote:
      :
      : >Measurements with a compound microscope of objects less than
      : >
      : >0.5 micron are unreliable owing to difraction
      : >errors.
      : >
      : >
      : >
      :
      :
      :
      : ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
      Sponsor --------------------~-->
      : $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
      : http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/CBYolB/TM
      : ------------------------------------------------------------------
      --~->
      :
      :
      : Yahoo! Groups Links
      :
      :
      :
      :
      :
    • IAN SMITH
      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
      Message 34 of 34 , Oct 6, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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,
        Ian.

        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
        other sample.)

        I mention this in the spririt of not descouraging
        someone from trying something, even if it isn't
        "perfect".

        "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.

        John R.

        Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! Groups Links

        To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Microscope/

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        Microscope-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        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
        http://mail.yahoo.com

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.