I try to scan microscopic cuts hoping to reach at least 100x
magnification (9600 dpi scan -> 72 dpi screen).
I tried it on a Mac using Epson Scan, set at 9600 dpi, using the
transparency mode. I set the glass slides directly on the scanning glass
(both upside down and upright).
When I inspect the images, they seem to be much lower resolution (say
4800 dpi).
How do I best do that? Any experience?

TIA

Marc

--
Switzerland/Europe
<http://www.heusser.com>
remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail

"Marc Heusser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
in message news:marc.heusser-(E-Mail Removed)...
>I try to scan microscopic cuts hoping to reach at least 100x
> magnification (9600 dpi scan -> 72 dpi screen).
> I tried it on a Mac using Epson Scan, set at 9600 dpi, using the
> transparency mode. I set the glass slides directly on the scanning glass
> (both upside down and upright).
> When I inspect the images, they seem to be much lower resolution (say
> 4800 dpi).
> How do I best do that? Any experience?
>
> TIA
>
> Marc
>
> --
> Switzerland/Europe
> <http://www.heusser.com>
> remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail

No flatbed scanner has enough resolution to scan a microscope slide. Not to
magnify 100X.

You need a microscope with a digital camera attached.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

>I set the glass slides directly on the scanning glass (both upside down
>and upright). When I inspect the images, they seem to be much lower
>resolution (say
> 4800 dpi).

If you look at your film holders, you will see they don't place the image to
be scanned directly on the glass. They suspend the film slightly off the
glass. If you are scanning a mounted film slide, the slide mount keeps the
film slightly of the glass. From your description, it sounds like your
image is right on the glass as opposed to in a mount. You need to make sure
your image is also slightly off the glass if you want the best resolution.

There is no use scanning over 4800 ppi. Anything over 4800 ppi is
interpolated resolution. In other words, it is just "made up" pixel
information based on the software's best guess. Many people feel there
isn't any real resolution gained over 2400 ppi.

Doug
--
www.BetterScanning.com

In article <ylZog.122$(E-Mail Removed)>,
" -" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >I set the glass slides directly on the scanning glass (both upside down
> >and upright). When I inspect the images, they seem to be much lower
> >resolution (say
> > 4800 dpi).
>
> If you look at your film holders, you will see they don't place the image to
> be scanned directly on the glass. They suspend the film slightly off the
> glass. If you are scanning a mounted film slide, the slide mount keeps the
> film slightly of the glass. From your description, it sounds like your
> image is right on the glass as opposed to in a mount. You need to make sure
> your image is also slightly off the glass if you want the best resolution.

Actually the microscope slides have a thick glass, and a thin one. I
used both configurations, the thick one below gave the better scan. The
actual tissue was therefore some 0.8 mm above the glass plate of the
scanner. Maybe it needs more? I'll try to fix them int the film holders
somehow. Would you know where the actual plane of focus lies?

> There is no use scanning over 4800 ppi. Anything over 4800 ppi is
> interpolated resolution. In other words, it is just "made up" pixel
> information based on the software's best guess. Many people feel there
> isn't any real resolution gained over 2400 ppi.

Epson claims a 4800x9600 optical resolution - it should be either 4800
or 9600 that gives the best resolution. 2400 ppi definitely gives a
worse scan. Epson claims an interpolated resolution of 12800 is possible.

In article <_QYog.57596$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"CSM1" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> No flatbed scanner has enough resolution to scan a microscope slide. Not to
> magnify 100X.
>
> You need a microscope with a digital camera attached.

I'd certainly get a better picture this way - I do not have a
photographic adapter though for my microscope (an 20y old Olympus CH2,
goes up to 600x)

But IF the scanner actuall gives the above mentioned 4800x9600
resolution, when looking at the picture at 72 dpi screen resolution I
should get a magnification of 67 to 134, ie roughly 100x. Unless the
picture is not as sharp as given by the scanner's specs. And the scanner
does scan in the transmissive mode.

Thank you both

Marc

--
Switzerland/Europe
<http://www.heusser.com>
remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail

> actual tissue was therefore some 0.8 mm above the glass plate of the
> scanner. Maybe it needs more? I'll try to fix them int the film holders
> somehow. Would you know where the actual plane of focus lies?


Theoretically, it is supposed to be 1 mm but with these scanners the true
optimum scanner height quite often varies.


> Epson claims a 4800x9600 optical resolution - it should be either 4800
> or 9600 that gives the best resolution. 2400 ppi definitely gives a
> worse scan. Epson claims an interpolated resolution of 12800 is possible.

The key word is "claims." You find many posts on the internet
discussing this. Most people find that true optical resolution maxxes out
at somewhere around 2400 for the 4180 and even it successor, the 4490. They
are good scanners for their price but you just have to keep things in
perspective. Microtek and Canon flatbeds have the same "issue."

Doug
--
www.BetterScanning.com

"Marc Heusser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
in message news:marc.heusser-(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <ylZog.122$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> " -" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > >I set the glass slides directly on the scanning glass (both upside
down
> > >and upright). When I inspect the images, they seem to be much lower
> > >resolution (say
> > > 4800 dpi).
> >
> > If you look at your film holders, you will see they don't place the
image to
> > be scanned directly on the glass. They suspend the film slightly off
the
> > glass. If you are scanning a mounted film slide, the slide mount keeps
the
> > film slightly of the glass. From your description, it sounds like your
> > image is right on the glass as opposed to in a mount. You need to make
sure
> > your image is also slightly off the glass if you want the best
resolution.
>
> Actually the microscope slides have a thick glass, and a thin one. I
> used both configurations, the thick one below gave the better scan. The
> actual tissue was therefore some 0.8 mm above the glass plate of the
> scanner. Maybe it needs more? I'll try to fix them int the film holders
> somehow. Would you know where the actual plane of focus lies?
>
> > There is no use scanning over 4800 ppi. Anything over 4800 ppi is
> > interpolated resolution. In other words, it is just "made up" pixel
> > information based on the software's best guess. Many people feel there
> > isn't any real resolution gained over 2400 ppi.
>
> Epson claims a 4800x9600 optical resolution - it should be either 4800
> or 9600 that gives the best resolution. 2400 ppi definitely gives a
> worse scan. Epson claims an interpolated resolution of 12800 is possible.
>
> In article <_QYog.57596$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "CSM1" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > No flatbed scanner has enough resolution to scan a microscope slide. Not
to
> > magnify 100X.
> >
> > You need a microscope with a digital camera attached.
>
> I'd certainly get a better picture this way - I do not have a
> photographic adapter though for my microscope (an 20y old Olympus CH2,
> goes up to 600x)
>
> But IF the scanner actuall gives the above mentioned 4800x9600
> resolution, when looking at the picture at 72 dpi screen resolution I
> should get a magnification of 67 to 134, ie roughly 100x. Unless the
> picture is not as sharp as given by the scanner's specs. And the scanner
> does scan in the transmissive mode.
>
> Thank you both
>
> Marc
>
> --
> Switzerland/Europe
> <http://www.heusser.com>
> remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail


This company has lens adapters for microscopes to various Digital Cameras.
You have to choose the one for your camera and microscope.
http://www.zarfenterprises.com/

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
Reply address is false.
--

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:24:28 +0200, Marc Heusser
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Actually the microscope slides have a thick glass, and a thin one. I
>used both configurations, the thick one below gave the better scan. The
>actual tissue was therefore some 0.8 mm above the glass plate of the
>scanner. Maybe it needs more? I'll try to fix them int the film holders
>somehow. Would you know where the actual plane of focus lies?

I don't know if getting a new scanner is an option but a film scanner
would considerably improve the result and simplify the workflow.

For example, Nikon scanners have a special holder/adapter for glass
microscope slides. Virtually all Nikon scanners can use this optional
adapter which has to be purchased separately.

Reading the Nikon manual there are actually two such adapters:

FH-8G1 - for high end 9000 ED and 8000 ED scanners.
FH-G1 - for all other Nikon scanners i.e. 5000 ED, 4000 ED, COOLSCAN V
ED and COOLSCAN IV ED.

For more check the relevant Nikon site in your region:
http://www.nikonusa.com/
http://www.europe-nikon.com/support
http://www.nikon-asia.com/

Don.

Marc Heusser wrote:
> In article <ylZog.122$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> " -" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> I set the glass slides directly on the scanning glass (both upside down
>>> and upright). When I inspect the images, they seem to be much lower
>>> resolution (say
>>> 4800 dpi).
>> If you look at your film holders, you will see they don't place the image to
>> be scanned directly on the glass. They suspend the film slightly off the
>> glass. If you are scanning a mounted film slide, the slide mount keeps the
>> film slightly of the glass. From your description, it sounds like your
>> image is right on the glass as opposed to in a mount. You need to make sure
>> your image is also slightly off the glass if you want the best resolution.
>
> Actually the microscope slides have a thick glass, and a thin one. I
> used both configurations, the thick one below gave the better scan. The
> actual tissue was therefore some 0.8 mm above the glass plate of the
> scanner. Maybe it needs more? I'll try to fix them int the film holders
> somehow. Would you know where the actual plane of focus lies?
>
>> There is no use scanning over 4800 ppi. Anything over 4800 ppi is
>> interpolated resolution. In other words, it is just "made up" pixel
>> information based on the software's best guess. Many people feel there
>> isn't any real resolution gained over 2400 ppi.
>
> Epson claims a 4800x9600 optical resolution - it should be either 4800
> or 9600 that gives the best resolution. 2400 ppi definitely gives a
> worse scan. Epson claims an interpolated resolution of 12800 is possible.
>
> In article <_QYog.57596$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "CSM1" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> No flatbed scanner has enough resolution to scan a microscope slide. Not to
>> magnify 100X.
>>
>> You need a microscope with a digital camera attached.
>
> I'd certainly get a better picture this way - I do not have a
> photographic adapter though for my microscope (an 20y old Olympus CH2,
> goes up to 600x)
>
> But IF the scanner actuall gives the above mentioned 4800x9600
> resolution, when looking at the picture at 72 dpi screen resolution I
> should get a magnification of 67 to 134, ie roughly 100x. Unless the
> picture is not as sharp as given by the scanner's specs. And the scanner
> does scan in the transmissive mode.
>
> Thank you both
>
> Marc
>
Finding the focus is not difficult. You need a
flat scale and something of know thickness to set
it on. Best bet is a machinists scale, like the
flat bar from a machinists square (or use an
architects scale). Set one end on the glass and
place a support of known thickness, e.g., a coin,
at a specific distance and scan and check distance
for best focus/ For example, 10mm high at 200mm
length (or 1mm high per 20mm linear).

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Don <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

....
> I don't know if getting a new scanner is an option but a film scanner
> would considerably improve the result and simplify the workflow.
>
> For example, Nikon scanners have a special holder/adapter for glass
> microscope slides. Virtually all Nikon scanners can use this optional
> adapter which has to be purchased separately.

I will check - If I can I'd currently avoid the expense - but it
certainly is the better option. Acutally I found a new review comparing
the Epson V750 (newer, better successor of the 4990) compared to the
Nikon 4000 - the dedicated film scanner IS better. And having a
dedicated holder does make it easier. Thank you for the tip.

In article
<NiEpg.294135$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"George E. Cawthon" <GeorgeC-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Finding the focus is not difficult. You need a
> flat scale and something of know thickness to set
> it on.

Thank you - easy and very useful :-)

I guess I'll make do with my current scanner - at least up to when I'll
get a dedicated Nikonn scanner for my slides. (I do have a few thousand
photo slides too - although a commercial service might be useful there.)

Marc

--
Switzerland/Europe
<http://www.heusser.com>
remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 11:02:24 +0200, Marc Heusser
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I will check - If I can I'd currently avoid the expense - but it
>certainly is the better option. Acutally I found a new review comparing
>the Epson V750 (newer, better successor of the 4990) compared to the
>Nikon 4000 - the dedicated film scanner IS better. And having a
>dedicated holder does make it easier. Thank you for the tip.

You're most welcome.

BTW, you don't need an expensive scanner for this. Even an entry model
like the LS-50 also known as Coolscan V will do. I think they can be
had for as little as Euro/$ 600 possibly even less if you shop around.

Don.