Re: Digital Reflex on microscope
From: Richard J Kinch (nobody_at_nowhere.com)
Date: 06/28/04
- Next message: Gordon Couger: "Re: Lyme Disease in blood"
- Previous message: Doing: "I got pics of Bart making Maggie Simpson PREGNANT"
- In reply to: David Littlewood: "Re: Digital Reflex on microscope"
- Next in thread: David Littlewood: "Re: Digital Reflex on microscope"
- Reply: David Littlewood: "Re: Digital Reflex on microscope"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:01:39 -0500
David Littlewood writes:
> The later models all have much wider lenses which
> appear to be less suited to fitting to an eyepiece.
This is a problem of higher resolution. More pixels means the lens must be
larger to gather more light to continue to illuminate each pixel at the
same intensity compared to a lower resolution camera.
Lower resolution cameras tend to be roughly the scale of the human eye,
which is what makes them suitable for afocal (behind-the-eyepiece)
photomicrography. The 5 and 8 megapixel cameras of late are relatively
huge in scale.
- Next message: Gordon Couger: "Re: Lyme Disease in blood"
- Previous message: Doing: "I got pics of Bart making Maggie Simpson PREGNANT"
- In reply to: David Littlewood: "Re: Digital Reflex on microscope"
- Next in thread: David Littlewood: "Re: Digital Reflex on microscope"
- Reply: David Littlewood: "Re: Digital Reflex on microscope"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]