[HN Gopher] The OpenFlexure 3D printable microscope
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The OpenFlexure 3D printable microscope
        
       Author : enceladus06
       Score  : 174 points
       Date   : 2024-11-12 13:18 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (openflexure.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (openflexure.org)
        
       | hifikuno wrote:
       | This is amazing. I think this would be a fun project for me and
       | the kids to make and have a useful tool to help them with their
       | curiosity.
        
         | dekhn wrote:
         | This scope is nontrivial to build and run. I recommend buying a
         | cheap stereoscope and spending more time enjoying looking at
         | things before jumping to diy.
        
       | ahmadmijot wrote:
       | btw, the OpenFlexure forum link is 404.
        
         | earthtograndma wrote:
         | Working now. https://openflexure.discourse.group/
        
       | roflmaostc wrote:
       | There is a similar project called UC2 where the emphasis is on
       | modularity of the different configurations (simple building
       | blocks) https://github.com/openUC2/UC2-GIT
        
       | moffkalast wrote:
       | I'm wondering now there if are any cheap entry level stereo
       | microscopes or at least any microscopes that work with indirect
       | reflected light instead of through-slide illumination. LEDs have
       | gotten laughably strong, so if we can turn a night forest into
       | day, surely we can illuminate some microbes?
       | 
       | These standard ones are certainly useful for high magnification,
       | but they don't really work at all for anything opaque. For the
       | average person doing this on a hobby level, looking at random
       | objects slightly beyond macro level is far more interesting than
       | having to painfully prepare slides for things you aren't even
       | sure are actually there or not.
        
         | buescher wrote:
         | Cheap is relative, I guess. You can find a used stereo
         | microscope on eBay for well under $100, maybe under $50.
         | Building one out of a pair of binoculars is a classic but
         | relatively advanced DIY project. I'm pretty sure there's a
         | detailed write up of one in either the old Edmund's optics
         | books or Scientific American's amateur scientist collections.
         | Something like this:
         | https://web.archive.org/web/20190123040421/http://www.funsci...
         | 
         | If you're thinking of something like a metallurgical
         | microscope, those are more involved and expensive, but again,
         | eBay.
        
         | Zobat wrote:
         | Bought mine at our local "biological" museum for about $150 (in
         | Sweden where everything is a little more expensive). 20x/40x
         | magnification, indirect or through slide illumination, solid
         | construction.
         | 
         | The leds could be better and/or brighter but works for looking
         | at stuff and for photography with a 3D printed phone holder on
         | one of the ocular lenses.
        
         | dekhn wrote:
         | The cheap stereomicroscopes don't have "indirect reflected
         | light" but it's not hard at all to add a ring illuminator or
         | just arrange a flashlight or other led light that comes in from
         | the side. I emulate darkfield using a side illuminator all the
         | time. You can also replace the installed LED with an LED matrix
         | (like the tiny one adafruit sells) and just illuminate the
         | outermost ring of pixels, this will emulate dark field mask.
        
       | geokon wrote:
       | This is outside my area of expertise .. But I'd be surprised if
       | you can easily best a phone camera without paying obscene dollars
       | for special sensors
       | 
       | A bit of an anecdote, but a lab in our building got some
       | expensive fancy digital microscope. But we noticed that if you
       | took a cheap old school microscope and stuck an iPhone on the
       | lens the resulting images were infinitely more crisp vivid and
       | high-res
       | 
       | The only obstacles are getting consistent colors and calibration
       | as well as making a mount to hold the phone at the right distance
       | from the lens
        
         | addaon wrote:
         | Many of the best cell phone sensors are off-the-shelf Sony
         | sensors that individuals can buy in reasonable quality. The
         | "magic" of cell phone cameras is the combination of these
         | decent sensors, a lot of processing (that you don't want), and
         | really amazing lenses (that, in a microscope application,
         | you're replacing with your own -- better to go microscope
         | optics to focal plane than microscope optics to cell phone
         | optics to focal plane). Certainly at the hobbiest level cell
         | phone cameras are amazing, but I suspect even "advanced
         | hobbiest" or whatever would prefer the same sensor in a C
         | mount.
        
           | geokon wrote:
           | A raw sensor is clearly not easy to just hook up to a
           | computer.
           | 
           | For example look at the top end Raspberrypi sensor. It's a
           | pathetic 12MP. That's like a ten year old phone or so?
           | 
           | I think the processing is also not to be entirely dismissed.
           | There is frame stacking that extends the dynamic range and
           | there is compression and other complex DSP going on that is
           | necessary (b/c 50MP of raw pixel data is a ton of raw data to
           | pull off the sensor). Realistically you probably can only do
           | some of that in software
        
             | billyjmc wrote:
             | You _can_ do all of these things in software, and it is
             | done. It's important thing to have control over the process
             | so you can get quantitative data at the other end, and not
             | just a pretty picture. Also, noise should not be discounted
             | as a very good reason to use lower megapixel sensors. If
             | you want a pretty picture, by all means use a cellphone,
             | but you can't reality use or trust the result for many
             | scientific purposes.
        
             | dekhn wrote:
             | High pixel count cameras aren't that useful in microscopy.
             | Big low noise pixels are better. For every sensor there is
             | already a breakout board with USB. Mostly intended for
             | machine vision.
             | 
             | Edit: added link to Arducam USB cameras :
             | https://www.arducam.com/product/arducam-64mp-motorized-
             | focus... is a 64MP camera although note it's 1FPS. Instead
             | I would prefer
             | https://www.arducam.com/product/presalesarducam-8-3mp-
             | imx585... which has C-mount that's perfect for scopes, it's
             | 4K for still images, and the sensor is specifically
             | designed for low light, when tends to be common in
             | microscopy at higher magnifications./
        
             | teamonkey wrote:
             | A 4K TV is 8.2MPix. You would need extremely good optics
             | and a very high resolution display to make full use of a
             | 12MPix camera, let alone more.
        
         | AlanYx wrote:
         | >But we noticed that if you took a cheap old school microscope
         | and stuck an iPhone on the lens the resulting images were
         | infinitely more crisp vivid and high-res
         | 
         | That's the core reason why the Foldscope is so popular. It
         | really does work well.
        
         | RobotToaster wrote:
         | People have been mounting off the shelf cameras to microscopes
         | since before digital cameras existed.
        
         | julianstirling wrote:
         | (Note I am an OpenFlexure Maintainer) Camera sensors are very
         | rarely the limiting factor for a microscope unless you are in
         | pretty exotic modes where speed, timing, or low light
         | conditions are important. The key reason it is better often to
         | use something like a Raspberry Pi camera than a phone is you
         | know exactly what sensor you have and can design for it. Also
         | there are benefits of not having the lens in front of it where
         | you then need extra lenses to act as eyepieces to view a
         | virtual image. But using the picamera and either using a
         | microscope objective and a tube lens (or in the low cost
         | version just the picamera lens and a spacer) we can get
         | diffraction limited performance in a really small, light
         | footprint. (More detail on the optics for nerds:
         | https://build.openflexure.org/openflexure-microscope/v7.0.0-...
         | )
         | 
         | However, the camera/sensor isn't the clever bit. The main
         | benefit of OpenFlexure is the automated stage. The range of
         | motion is small and the motion is slow so it really isn't the
         | right microscope for looking at something like a bug leg. But
         | if you want to take loads of high resolution images with a high
         | powered objective and stitch them into a composite image (or
         | take time-lapses automatically autofocusing regularly) we are
         | considerably smaller, more affordable and more customisable
         | than commercial alternatives. With lots of options for
         | scripting.
         | 
         | As an example of what is possible, check out this multi-
         | gigapixel composite image of a cervical smear, and the
         | resolution when you zoom in:
         | https://images.openflexure.org/cap_demo/viewer.html Note, this
         | is collected with an experimental branch of the software (of
         | course open source). We need to do some tidying and bugfixes
         | before it is ready for release.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-11-15 23:01 UTC)