Intel QX3 Microscope

So I've yet to start honing even though I have what I need to get started... (Short, quick prayer here: Please, please Lord, do not allow me to fall into HAD as I fell into RAD. Amen!)

I've got a Norton starter pack - 220/1000 combo waterstone, 4K/8K combo waterstone, lapping stone - a Spyderco UF (supposed to be about 15K equivalent), and of course, plenty of arm hair and virgin thumbpad to test...

I read about using that Radio Shack microscope, and thought I would have to get one as well. But then I thought, how could would it be to have a microscope to take pictures? So I searched around and I found the Intel QX3 microscope.

I've got this Puma 39 6/8" - http://straightrazorpalace.com/showthread.php?t=10287 - which I bought off of syslight. Now syslight told me up front that it wasn't shave ready, but I got it in and shaved with it, and it's not that bad...

So I took some pictures with the Intel QX3:

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2...maedge2oa0.jpg


http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/4...maedge1mx3.jpg

Those are images at 200x... Nice, eh? I guess I'd better start learning to hone!

A company called DigiBlue.com bought Intel product line and has discontinued the QX3. If you want one, expect to pay at least $40 or more, and know that it will not work with MS Vista. However, DigiBlue.com has replaced the QX3 with their QX5 and it supposedly has Vista drivers...

That's very interesting,,,thanks for posting that.

for a "toy" that's some nice imagery

Great, juuuuust great.

NOW we are starting in on MAD- Microscope aquisition disorder.

Just what I needed....:)

That's how I discovered micro chipping. I watch Lynn's DVD where he mentioned it. Bought a microscope and now everything is in 200X magnification. The only problem with it is I like things to be as perfect as I can make them. I'm so up s...ts creek without a paddle. I've shaved with all of them but now I know, damn ignorance was bliss.

Kind regards,

Just when I was starting to be satisfied with some of my edges.

Seeing as I'm running Vista the QX5 looks like my latest must have.

Just when I thought I had my honing and stropping down pretty good... I have to look at the visual evidence!!!

Nicely Done. I rarely get that good a picture with my USB scope.

one of my best shavers was a DD #1 that cut great. then i looked at it under the radio shack micro. holy cow your edge looked super smooth compared to mine. amazing an edge can be so jacked up and yet shave so well.

i have since remedied the edge.

vgod

I was wary of some of the usb scopes out there - I ended up picking up an old college lab microscope. It has drastically improved my honing - but the major issue with the lab type microscopes is that they lit from underneath. You need an additional light source to light it from the side which makes viewing a little tricky. It certainly looks like that Intel Scope is a very viable option.

Just bevare of driver issues etc if running vista, I cross my finger hoping that this will do:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/77aa/
Guess I have it in an week or two, so then I see if vista 64bit will be supported, but guess I have to revitalise one of my old computers..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ByronTodd

<snip>

A company called DigiBlue.com bought Intel product line and has discontinued the QX3. If you want one, expect to pay at least $40 or more, and know that it will not work with MS Vista. However, DigiBlue.com has replaced the QX3 with their QX5 and it supposedly has Vista drivers...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asbjorn

Just bevare of driver issues etc if running vista, I cross my finger hoping that this will do:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/77aa/
Guess I have it in an week or two, so then I see if vista 64bit will be supported, but guess I have to revitalise one of my old computers..

---

Check my last paragraph - the QX5 has Vista drivers... Not sure if thinkgeek.com's packaging of the QX5 will have the latest drivers and DigiBlue.com has been charging for their QX3 drivers... I would say that you might just want to order direct from DigiBlue.com.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fotoguru

I was wary of some of the usb scopes out there - I ended up picking up an old college lab microscope. It has drastically improved my honing - but the major issue with the lab type microscopes is that they lit from underneath. You need an additional light source to light it from the side which makes viewing a little tricky. It certainly looks like that Intel Scope is a very viable option.

---

It depends on the type of scope you buy. A stereo is probably good enough for our uses but you could also buy a reflected light scope like a metallurgical.
A transmitted light source biological scope is probably the least suitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vgod

one of my best shavers was a DD #1 that cut great. then i looked at it under the radio shack micro. holy cow your edge looked super smooth compared to mine. amazing an edge can be so jacked up and yet shave so well.

i have since remedied the edge.

vgod

---

I have the same issue. One of my favorite shavers is an 11/16 Sheffield. Nice and smooth. Then I looked under the RS microscope and saw two micro chips. Do I need to remedy that if it is shaving well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RayG

I have the same issue. One of my favorite shavers is an 11/16 Sheffield. Nice and smooth. Then I looked under the RS microscope and saw two micro chips. Do I need to remedy that if it is shaving well?

---

No, if it is shaving well, that's THE most important thing. The next time it actually needs to be honed, you can deal with them then.

I've got a qx-3 that we bought for my son years ago. It's great, but I can't use the "standard" application with it. There is some weird interaction between it and my tivo software that keeps the beginning animation from running, generating an error message, and stopping (!) the tivo server.

It works just fine, however, once you get past that, or if you use some other graphics program like photoshop.

don't waste your time with the digiblue support if you hit this issue. It's completely beyond them.

JIm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcarey9149

don't waste your time with the digiblue support if you hit this issue. It's completely beyond them.

JIm

---

You mean the helpdesk doesn't? Who would ever expect that. :roflmao:roflmao

Mike

Agreed. I took the pics in Adobe Photoshop. Other than some wierdness that caused the microscope to cut off after a while, Photoshop worked great. (To get the microscope to cut back on, I had to unplug it and then re-plug it back in...)

So I sniped one of these on ebay lastnight and felt a little bit like I was stealing candy from a kid, being that it's a kid's toy and all. Oh well, I won the scope for like $27, was just over $40 after including shipping. They need to have a smiley with horns >=)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bevansmw

So I sniped one of these on ebay lastnight and felt a little bit like I was stealing candy from a kid, being that it's a kid's toy and all. Oh well, I won the scope for like $27, was just over $40 after including shipping. They need to have a smiley with horns >=)

---

qx3 or qx5? I was looking a couple of days ago on ebay and didn't see that one. Must have been asleep! Anyway, I discovered today that my digital camera will focus through a telescope lens and I appear to be able to get ~ 100X - 150X although there are lighting and stability issues. It's cheaper than buying something else, even though I've always wanted a microscope.

I'm trying to rehone my blade after rubbing a chip out on 1k Norton, but it still isn't passing HHT. If it ever does, I'd love to get video of it at 100X!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

qx3 or qx5? I was looking a couple of days ago on ebay and didn't see that one. Must have been asleep! Anyway, I discovered today that my digital camera will focus through a telescope lens and I appear to be able to get ~ 100X - 150X although there are lighting and stability issues. It's cheaper than buying something else, even though I've always wanted a microscope.

I'm trying to rehone my blade after rubbing a chip out on 1k Norton, but it still isn't passing HHT. If it ever does, I'd love to get video of it at 100X!

---

QX3, I think there are a couple on the bay right now if you do a search for them.

But beware that QX* is not an holy grail, if you can get optical results that you are pleased with on the telescope, stick with that. the QX* is an toy, and behaves like a toy.
The lighting is extremely bad, I cannot understand why the would not implement battery operated LED's instead of using the power from USB, and because of that you have to choose to use light under or over, not both.
Joe Perri at B&B used an lightbox for photos (I think, the ones you use when you sort your dias) so you get lighting under, and a hefty LED flashlight to provide light on top. I have tesdted with some LED's here, and do get some shots, but it is tricky, requires some work.

And the focus.. ah the focus.. :), cheap plastic thingy with which you move the object up and down, and when doing so the object moves all around.

And the software, the snapshots are stored in some *.SMP files, looks somewhat specific for this application, so you have to export one and one picture, tedious..

But hey, it's cheap.. and I guess the kids love it! :) (and we.. )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asbjorn

But beware that QX* is not an holy grail, if you can get optical results that you are pleased with on the telescope, stick with that. the QX* is an toy, and behaves like a toy.
The lighting is extremely bad, I cannot understand why the would not implement battery operated LED's instead of using the power from USB, and because of that you have to choose to use light under or over, not both.
Joe Perri at B&B used an lightbox for photos (I think, the ones you use when you sort your dias) so you get lighting under, and a hefty LED flashlight to provide light on top. I have tesdted with some LED's here, and do get some shots, but it is tricky, requires some work.

And the focus.. ah the focus.. :), cheap plastic thingy with which you move the object up and down, and when doing so the object moves all around.

And the software, the snapshots are stored in some *.SMP files, looks somewhat specific for this application, so you have to export one and one picture, tedious..

But hey, it's cheap.. and I guess the kids love it! :) (and we.. )

---

Thanks for the review! I guess I wouldn't want one unless I got it cheap

No one - and certainly not me - has said that this is the holy grail of magnification.

However, if you look at the body of reviews on the internet - as well as what others have posted - you'll find that the QX# can be more than just a toy. Let me just address your points:

"Lighting is extremely bad" - hmmm... I took the pics in the OP with nothing but the light of the QX3. Could the light have been better? Sure. As someone who dabbles in photography, light can always be better. Was the lighting and the results good for a $40 - $50 device. Yes. At least in my opinion.

The focus: yeah, it's not so great either. I'll probably end up building something to better hold a razor in place, but still. I took those pictures using one hand to hold the razor in place. Was it tough to do that? No.

Software: As I stated earlier in this thread. I took the pictures using Adobe Photoshop, I've read of other users using Paint Shop Pro. When the device is installed, TWAIN drivers are installed for general use. It might be easier to take pictues with the crappy Intel software, but I found that it's just as easy to use Photoshop.

I didn't post this thread as a review thread, it's in "Show and Tell". The reason I posted this was to show that there are alternatives to the $10 Radio Shack microscope, and inexpensive alternatives at that. The nice part of this "device" is that you can record what you're seeing - something that is not available on the majority of magnification devices used by honing guys.

More than a toy - a tool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asbjorn

But beware that QX* is not an holy grail, if you can get optical results that you are pleased with on the telescope, stick with that. the QX* is an toy, and behaves like a toy.
The lighting is extremely bad, I cannot understand why the would not implement battery operated LED's instead of using the power from USB, and because of that you have to choose to use light under or over, not both.
Joe Perri at B&B used an lightbox for photos (I think, the ones you use when you sort your dias) so you get lighting under, and a hefty LED flashlight to provide light on top. I have tesdted with some LED's here, and do get some shots, but it is tricky, requires some work.

And the focus.. ah the focus.. :), cheap plastic thingy with which you move the object up and down, and when doing so the object moves all around.

And the software, the snapshots are stored in some *.SMP files, looks somewhat specific for this application, so you have to export one and one picture, tedious..

But hey, it's cheap.. and I guess the kids love it! :) (and we.. )

---

Don't missunderstand me, I did not say that you, or the others using this has called it the holy grail, but I see that the interrest for QX* is growing, and it is better that people understand the shortcomings of the tool, so they don't buy this and expect this to be THE tool. I bougth the QX5 myself, and like it, but there are some things I want to change.

Maybe we should be constructive, and post how we can modify this tool? like, add external powersupply (ex batteries) so we could add higher wattage LED's? Or improvements of the focus-adjuster?, better backlight etc?

I'm going to check if I can do something with the software, It looks like the device is registered as an capture-device, and maybe it is easy to talk to it like an webcam, so we could store the pictures in an more userfriendly way.
There is lot of potential in this thing, if we unleash it

I got your points, I just wanted to show that for the money, it's not a bad tool.

As far as how could it be better, I don't see myself adding a light source, just too much work for not enough payout. As far as a better platform to better hold a razor? No doubt. I will be putting some money into creating a platform that will hold the scales of the razor such that I don't have to do the one hand clamp and one hand hunt for the right button press dance....

For software? Intel did something funny with the drivers such that the device isn't seen as a camera - but rather it's seen as a scanner type of device. Because of that, you need software that can talk to a TWAIN compliant device. For example, any scanner software that you may have installed should be able to talk to the microscope. I agree that the Intel based software is horrendous. It goes full screen - changing the native resolution of your monitor in the process to 800x600 - which in turns changes every program window that you had open to a smaller size. A true PITA.

For a website that gives quite a bit of information on the QX3 - try http://www.rmcain.com/pageserver.mv?MCAMAQX3Series and for the information on using other software specifically, chesk http://www.rmcain.com/mcama/special/qx3/QX3Twain.mv

Also, this site has some great information: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/optics/intelplay/index.html

So to sum... Holy Grail? No. Good/great bang magnification for the price? Yes (at least IMO)... But again, this is not a review (or maybe it has become one and needs to be moved to the review area....)

EDIT: Just checked and found that IrfanView supports image acquisition via TWAIN devices - free software to use with a QX3 - available here: http://www.irfanview.com/

Hm, looks like Digitalblue did some changes to the QX5 then, just tested in photoshop here, no twain support.
Wonder if the drivers for QX3 works on the QX5?, or if there are som drivers that are not installed..

According to this it is still Twain capable: http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/...c04/dwqx5.html
So I have to check where my twain support have gone, I guess Photoshop should show me the same as paintshop and irfanview.

Those images are amazing, that microscope looks like something I might have to aquire. I have always wanted a microscope for some reason now I guess I have a good reason to get one. Once again amazing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ByronTodd

I got your points, I just wanted to show that for the money, it's not a bad tool.

For a website that gives quite a bit of information on the QX3 - try http://www.rmcain.com/pageserver.mv?MCAMAQX3Series and for the information on using other software specifically, chesk http://www.rmcain.com/mcama/special/qx3/QX3Twain.mv

Also, this site has some great information: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/optics/intelplay/index.html

So to sum... Holy Grail? No. Good/great bang magnification for the price? Yes (at least IMO)... But again, this is not a review (or maybe it has become one and needs to be moved to the review area....)

EDIT: Just checked and found that IrfanView supports image acquisition via TWAIN devices - free software to use with a QX3 - available here: http://www.irfanview.com/

---

Awesome Byron! This will help get the best out this little puppy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asbjorn

Hm, looks like Digitalblue did some changes to the QX5 then, just tested in photoshop here, no twain support.
Wonder if the drivers for QX3 works on the QX5?, or if there are som drivers that are not installed..

According to this it is still Twain capable: http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/...c04/dwqx5.html
So I have to check where my twain support have gone, I guess Photoshop should show me the same as paintshop and irfanview.

---

From Digital Blue's website

Digital Blue QX5 Computer Microscope

Issue:
No TWAIN Support (Only WIA)

Description:
Unfortunately the QX5 driver doesn't support TWAIN for taking snapshots in other applications. However WIA is supported on Windows Me and Windows XP ONLY.

The application that shipped with the QX5 is recommend for taking snapshots and videos.