Thread: Pictures

Originally Posted by onimaru55

Doesn't look like 500x but looks like it does the job .

Yeah..so don't know how to validate this. I do have a 30x jewelers loupe. If I look at an aphid infested cucumber leaf with it, I can see the aphids clearly all crawling around and see them as a large group of small creatures. With this purportedly 500x scope, I can see the aphid, but the entire field of view is taken up by the head with two eyeballs. There is enough zoom there that the things scares the hell of my kids when they look at it. You can't fit an entire aphid into field of view, just the monstrously magnified head.

Originally Posted by jgjgjg

Yeah..so don't know how to validate this. I do have a 30x jewelers loupe. If I look at an aphid infested cucumber leaf with it, I can see the aphids clearly all crawling around and see them as a large group of small creatures. With this purportedly 500x scope, I can see the aphid, but the entire field of view is taken up by the head with two eyeballs. There is enough zoom there that the things scares the hell of my kids when they look at it. You can't fit an entire aphid into field of view, just the monstrously magnified head.

So the bevel viewed without magnification is 1/500th of the size shown in the pictures???

Bluesman, your question is tough to answer. Part of the answer is "how large is your monitor?"

The question I have about this device is: are the optics and magnification 'good enough'. For my purposes "good enough" has the following parameters.

1. I can clearly distinguish the differences in the scratches between different "grits'. Let's call Aoto a medium great and the nakayama a fine grit. I want that difference to "jump out".
2. I can very clearly see whether i have reached the edge or not and whether I have a wire.
3. I can see the scratch features that cause the distinctions between stone types that we describe as "soft" or "smooth" or "harsh".

I short, I want to be able know from looking what kind of shave I will get and thus improve my honing skills.

With this device I am not there. What I need to discover is whether the 'not there' is device or user deficiency.

Originally Posted by jgjgjg

Bluesman, your question is tough to answer. Part of the answer is "how large is your monitor?"

With this device I am not there. What I need to discover is whether the 'not there' is device or user deficiency.

Right, I understand what you are saying about monitor size, I'm just pointing out that the device that you have is not 500x. How large is the bevel on the razor pictured, say .5mm, then the picture is ~8 bevel widths wide or 4mm. I use 100x and easily see all of the things that are in your criteria. Most people use less magnification than that.

I will google up 'how to determine magnification', do that, and report back.

Originally Posted by jgjgjg

I will google up 'how to determine magnification', do that, and report back.

Here is an interesting tid bit that I found on wiki;

"Magnification figures on printed pictures can be misleading. Editors of journals and magazines routinely resize images to fit the page, making any magnification number provided in the figure legend incorrect. A scale bar (or micron bar) is a bar of stated length superimposed on a picture. This bar can be used to make accurate measurements on a picture. When a picture is resized the bar will be resized in proportion. If a picture has a scale bar, the actual magnification can easily be calculated. Where the scale (magnification) of an image is important or relevant, including a scale bar is preferable to stating magnification"

That is why I was making reference to your bevel width. Can you estimate the width of the bevel reveal?

Also assuming a magnification of say 50x, if I change my view to 200% I do not get a magnification of 100x, but a larger image of 50x.

The only reason that this subject is relevant is that if you decided that the device you have does not do what you want, hunting for something greater than the 500x that you say that you are getting would lead to a big surprise. pun intended

Blues...

The 'system', meaning the scope and I together, are not really doing what I want. For example, if you showed me the Aoto scratches picture and the Nak scratches picture without any labeling, I couldn't tell you which was which.

Originally Posted by jgjgjg

Blues...

The 'system', meaning the scope and I together, are not really doing what I want. For example, if you showed me the Aoto scratches picture and the Nak scratches picture without any labeling, I couldn't tell you which was which.

Hmmm. To my eye the Nak looks much more refined. I tend to look more at tooth than the scratch pattern. You might try adjusting your lighting angle to see different things. If I'm trying to see scratch pattern I use a light source that reflects the bevel into the lens. When I'm looking at edge tooth, wire, etc. I use a very flat, edge on light source.

Sorry for the side tracking.

This is the kind of scratch pattern a Jnat leaves.

Originally Posted by JOB15

This is the kind of scratch pattern a Jnat leaves.

Let's say some Jnats.