Macro DoF

J

J-see

Senior Member
A tenth of a millimeter = 100 micron but that's still pretty small. ;)

65.000 images for one shot. Me thinks he needs big SDcards.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
I just watched it again and he indeed says a DoF of 1/10 of a micron which seems pretty implausible.

The individual color waves have with a width between 380 and 780 nanometers which already is 0.38 to 0.78µ. A DoF of 0.1µ would not even register on any system.
 
1

10 Gauge

Senior Member
I didn't watch it again, but if I recall from the first time around he states the DOF twice in the video and contradicts himself. One time saying 1/10 of a mm (plausible at 100 microns) and one time 1/10 of a micron. I'm thinking the 100 micron figure is the acurate one.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
10 Gauge said:
I didn't watch it again, but if I recall from the first time around he states the DOF twice in the video and contradicts himself. One time saying 1/10 of a mm (plausible at 100 microns) and one time 1/10 of a micron. I'm thinking the 100 micron figure is the acurate one.
Click to expand...

Yeah he must have mixed up the wrong sizes. I even checked a DoF calculator to see what is required for a DoF or 0.1µ. You basically need to shoot an FX sensor using an aperture of f/1.4 at 800:1 magnification.
 
1

10 Gauge

Senior Member
Maybe they are just using that thick of a line out of the taken image right in the center of the lenses DoF, and the ACTUAL DoF from the images taken isn't that narrow? Who knows... lol
 
Bourbon Neat

Bourbon Neat

Senior Member
Ink on paper will measure between 1 and maybe 6 microns. Let's say the average to be 3 microns. A member here showed a macro image of a portion of paper currency and stated it was stacked images. Really doubtful that it was done with the likes of what GigaPixel uses. So the 1/10 micron to me is plausible.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
Bourbon Neat said:
Ink on paper will measure between 1 and maybe 6 microns. Let's say the average to be 3 microns. A member here showed a macro image of a portion of paper currency and stated it was stacked images. Really doubtful that it was done with the likes of what GigaPixel uses. So the 1/10 micron to me is plausible.
Click to expand...

Your sensor pixel is between 4 and 5 micron for most cams. You'd not even see 1µ in a shot. Sharp that is.

With a crop sensor you'd need f/1.2 at 50:1 to have a DoF of 1µ, 9:1 for 6.2µ

Also keep in mind macro magnifies which is why we see stuff usually too small for our eyes to notice. It doesn't imply it is sharp or that the DoF is minuscule.

Btw, usually we prefer a large DoF so I don't even understand why he'd require one the size of 0.1µ.
 
Last edited:
J

J-see

Senior Member
I'm reading on their site and the basic setup used a Canon T3i and their MP-E 65mm macro. I wish Nikon had a macro like that.

They're pretty expensive images if you have to replace the shutter every 3-4 shots.

Then again; at a complete system cost of 48.000$ it won't be that much of an issue.
 
Last edited:
Bourbon Neat

Bourbon Neat

Senior Member
We don't know and I am sure they are not ready to divulge their secrets, but they may not even use a shutter. Open or remove it and begin scanning in motion. Certainly they are rigged with some bad arsed processors and solid state drives.

Are you able to take a single image of any quality from a video? It could be that it is a video all the way around.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
They do use individual pictures:

Capture Time:
How long it takes to capture the individual photographs. The average capture rate is approximately 900-1200 individual photographs per hour. The higher the resolution, higher the magnification, and smaller the size of the specimen, the greater the number of individual photographs needed.
Click to expand...

Scalable Macro Imaging for Science, Research & Education

Maybe you get a discount at Canon for shutter replacements. ;)
 
Last edited:
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
10 Gauge said:
I didn't watch it again, but if I recall from the first time around he states the DOF twice in the video and contradicts himself. One time saying 1/10 of a mm (plausible at 100 microns) and one time 1/10 of a micron. I'm thinking the 100 micron figure is the acurate one.
Click to expand...

See why I like written articles vs videos?
 
Top