related question for the imaging gurus; has anyone tried the Intel play
microscope set-up with their research microscopes. The intel microscope is less
than 100 dollars (cheap solution for grossing pictures?).
abizar
www.innogenex.com

"Tarpley, John" wrote:

> While I agree with Geoff's comments regarding the use of a high quality
> scanner for 35 mm slides, the one thing this option does not give you that
> digital photography does is instant access to the photograph. You must still
> wait for the film processing and if, unfortunately, the photo isn't quite
> what you need then you must set up again and shoot another roll of film.
> With digital photography you see the final results instantly, know if you've
> gotten the results you want, and can send out the photos without delay.
> Another good point for Geoff's idea is that his recommendation will probably
> be the cheapest way to go since you already have a high quality 35mm setup.
> So if cost is a factor and the time required for processing is not an issue,
> then a scanner can be an excellent solution. If on the other hand immediate
> access to the photo is more important then digital photography is the way to
> go. My solution is to combine both approaches. I have both 35mm capability
> and digital. That way I have the best of both worlds.
>
> John E. Tarpley 5-1-A
> Associate Scientist
> Amgen Inc.
> One Amgen Center Drive
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
> These Opinions are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff McAuliffe [mailto:mcauliff@UMDNJ.EDU]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 8:17 AM
> To: Hoye, Glenda F. (Fka Hood)
> Cc: 'Histonet@pathology.swmed.edu'
> Subject: Re: cameras, computers
>
> "Hoye, Glenda F. (Fka Hood)" wrote:
>
> > Hello.
> > I'm in the midst of researching digital cameras for microscopic
> photography,
> > and the computerization requirements for the software to handle the
> > digitized pictures. I'm sure there are many of you who have experience
> that
> > I could learn from, so if you would be so kind to contact me off Histonet,
> I
> > would really appreciate it.
> >
> > At present I'm doing photomicrography with a 35 mm camera mounted on my
> > Olympus CH2 scope. I get wonderful prints and slides, but I'd like to
> > advance a little. Just don't know what to look for.
>
> Dear Glenda:
>
>     Keep your 35 mm microscope-mounted camera! Just buy a high-quality slide
> scanner and you will have the best of both worlds. Film images from the
> camera
> you already have give you over 20 million pixel resolution, permanent
> storage
> (30-50 years or more), and a slide to show at meetings and seminars. You
> won't
> get any of these features with a digital camera which will be out of date if
> not
> obsolete in 2 years. Once your film images are digitalized with a slide
> scanner,
> you can manipulate them, e-mail them, inport them into grants, reports, etc,
> etc. A high-quality scanner for 35 mm film (Polaroid SprintScan or Nikon
> CoolScan is $2000 or less.
>
> Geoff
> --
> **********************************************
> Geoff McAuliffe, Ph.D.
> Neuroscience and Cell Biology
> Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
> 675 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854
> voice: (732)-235-4583; fax: -4029
> mcauliff@umdnj.edu
> **********************************************