I was out computer shopping one day and saw one of the cheap (like $50)
microscope set-up.  I came back to my lab and was joking around with one
of the Docs about acquiring one of these.  I was immediately told that
the resolution on these things is pretty bad which would make image
analysis some what difficult.  I guess it all depends on what your
intended purpose is.  If you just want something cheap to get some quick
pictures than it's probably fine.  But if you want something more
substantial your best bet is a 35mm shot.  

I would also like to add that there is John Russ' book "Handbook on
Image Analysis" is a good reference.  It is a very technical read, but
if you can get through it you get a much better appreciation of all this
digital stuff.



Margaret


Abizar Lakdawalla wrote:
> 
> 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
> > **********************************************