Re: Learning to see
- From: Charles <ckraft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 05:09:10 GMT
On 13 Sep 2005 08:13:57 -0700, "justbeats" <steve_beats@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>A mild troll to stimulate debate (from a comment on another thread)
>
>Resolution and contrast are the only properties affecting detectability
>of details through the microscope eyepiece (ignoring aberrations). They
>are controlled by physical parameters related to objectives and
>condenser (N.A.) and the lighting technique employed (contrast).
>Despite this, with all other things being equal, an experienced
>microscopist is able to "see" more detail than an inexperienced
>one.
>
>So operator ability plays a role too, particularly when working at the
>limits of detectability. So what is it that the experienced operator
>has learned that the inexperienced has yet to master?
>
> Cheers
> Beats
>
>PS. This topic repeatedly appears in various guises in astronomy
>forums, but rarely here. I'm sure much of my own improved "ability to
>see" was learned at the telescope but applied directly to the
>microscope. More on my theories later...
I wonder if another example of what the OP was bringing up is the
ability of a trained X-Ray technician or Dr. to see things in an X-ray
film that a novice wouldn't see. The developed film is the same for
both, but one can see things the other misses.
.
- References:
- Learning to see
- From: justbeats
- Learning to see
- Prev by Date: Re: Learning to see
- Next by Date: Oblique Lighting Condensor Options
- Previous by thread: Re: Learning to see
- Next by thread: Re: Learning to see
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
