I work primarily in OpenSCAD when making designs for 3D printing (and 2D designs for lasercutting). This means that instead of a WYSIWYG interface based primarily on using the mouse, my designs are all scripted in a programming language that looks a lot like C. This might seem a bit more difficult at first (and it is certainly less than ideal for some situations) but it makes for a pretty simple way to generate repetitive structural elements in basic flow control, i.e. for loops. Even more important, it means that I can substantially change a design by modifying the variable values passed to a function (called modules in OpenSCAD). For the sake of an example, take Lieberkühn reflectors for macrophotography. Lieberkühn reflectors are a classic illumination technique that have mostly fallen out of style in favour of more modern illumination such as LED or fibre-based lighting, but remains quite elegant and offers a few unique advantages. I have been working with these in conjunction with a few different lenses, and mostly with the help of a macro bellows. The bellows makes for variable working distances as well as magnifications, so the focus of one Lieberkühn will be the most effective only within a narrow range of macro-bellows lengths. Parametric designs such as the ones I create and work with in OpenSCAD allow me to change attributes such as the nominal working distance without starting each design from scratch. For example:
35mm Lieberkühn focus
30mm Lieberkühn focus
25mm Lieberkühn focus
20mm Lieberkühn focus
This approach has proven highly useful for me in terms of both creating highly customisable design and iterating to get fit just right. I’ll post results of my latest exploration of Lieberkühn reflectors soon after I receive the latest realisation in Shapeways bronzed steel.
Taken with a Lieberkühn reflector on macro bellows, f/3.5 28mm lens.
One of the likely progenitors shown below.
I dissected a set of wild rose bush galls to discover minuscule wasps in various stages of development. These shots were taken with a 25mm f/3.5 macro lens and Lieberkühn reflector. Appropriately, this subset of gall wasps are colloquially known as rose gall wasps or mis-known as gallflies. They gain some control over the host plant, inducing the characteristic gall they live in during early development, but I am uncertain as to how much this may harm the plant and if they perform any significant pollination services.
I have also been working on increasing the utility of my 3D printed lens caps. These are now available to fit two sizes of filter threads in a single lens cap-ideal for a day of shooting split between two lenses. And they still stay affixed better than squeeze style caps.
The deadline for the Nikon Small World photomicrography competition is fast approaching (April 30th), and I’ve parsed some data on what types of images tend to win over since the contest’s inception in the late 1970s. The graphs below include data from both the stills and the newly minted video competition.
Figure 1: The total number of images utilizing each technique for places 1-20, Honorable Mentions, and Images of Distinction.
Right away we see that polarized light techniques have a distinct advantage in terms of how often we see them on the winners podium. This was a bit of a surprise. I’m always left with the impression of a preponderance of confocal images after each year’s announcement of winners, but I suppose confocal would have not been seeing much use until the 80s.
Figure 2: Heat map of the total number of images from 1st to 20th place.
Polarized light still easily dominates the field, with fluorescence and confocal making strong showings (you’ll notice many of the technique categories for NSW are overlapping). Techniques grouped under fluorescence do have a slightly higher number of 1st place finishes at 9 versus 8, and of total top 5 finishes (41 vs. 40). Beyond the top 5, polarized light has essentially more placers at every position.
Freshwater copepod (cyclops)
Here’s something you may not know about the old manual Canon auto bellows and macro lens: the threaded adapter that connects a 20mm f3.5 (or 35mm f2.8) macro lens to the bellows employs the same threading standard as the typical microscope objective, known as the Royal Microscopical Society standard, 20.32 mm diameter with a pitch of 0.706 mm per turn, dates back to 1896 when it replaced an earlier standard.
The impact of this design choice for macrophotographers is that one can use any standard microscope objective, adding a great deal of options for imaging with the auto bellows and potentially pushing the capabilities of bellows macro into photomicrography. This can result in some very short working distances, and the sterics of the objective and subject mean there won’t generally be a lot of room for illumination sources. I designed this simple 3D printed microphotography objective hood for use with bright transverse illumination such as from a fiber optic illuminator. You may be familiar with the type of lens flare that can arise from this illumination setup-typically a haze effect that decreases the overall contrast of the image while increasing the brightness, particular toward the middle of the image.
I took the images below through a 10X NA = 0.25 objective (on the right, with lens hood).
My camera battery is charging, no spare, and I don’t have a worthwhile illumination source handy to shoot proper test shots (these were illuminated with a handheld torch). Nonetheless, I couldn’t resist taking these half-portraits, and I’ll post them here as a teaser. I will use these gorgeous metallic bees for Lieberkühn tests as well. For now, enjoy these Osmia aglaia photos while my camera charges.
In order to quantitatively examine the effect of the the 3D printed Lieberkühn reflectors I described previously, I came up with two image quality metrics relevant to their use, both measured on the “dark side” of the image subject. The metrics we will look at today are average intensity and, as a measure of contrast, the standard deviation of pixel values on a line trace.
I’ll be using the Megachile photo from the previous post for these analyses.
The first line trace begins at right eye and extends back behind the wing:
If we plot these values together, we see that the photo taken with the Lieberkühn (values in black) is brighter and brings out a lot more detail, while the photo taken without is relatively flat and dark. We see similar results for second and third traces, taken across the tegula and along the wing.
If we compare the average values:
octave3.2:25> mean(RE523(:,2)) %with Lieberkühn, right eye trace
ans = 102.00
octave3.2:26> mean(RE524(:,2))%w/o Lieberkühn, right eye trace
ans = 54.093
octave3.2:28> mean(AT523(:,2))%with Lieberkühn, trace across tegula
ans = 81.553
octave3.2:27> mean(AT524(:,2))%w/o Lieberkühn, trace across tegula
ans = 51.288
octave3.2:29> mean(W523(:,2))%with Lieberkühn, across the wing
ans = 103.85
octave3.2:30> mean(W524(:,2))%w/o Lieberkühn, across the wing
ans = 53.045
We see that taken together, the averages of the plots from the photo taken with the Lieberkühn are about 80% brighter than those without.
mean(Lieberkühn)/mean(no Lieberkühn) = 1.8142
octave3.2:56> std(RE523(:,2)))%with Lieberkühn, right eye trace
ans = 20.316
octave3.2:55> std(RE524(:,2))%w/o Lieberkühn, right eye trace
ans = 7.3926
octave3.2:54> std(AT523(:,2))%with Lieberkühn, trace across tegula
ans = 17.737
octave3.2:53> std(AT524(:,2))%w/o Lieberkühn, trace across tegula
ans = 13.227
octave3.2:52> std(W523(:,2))%with Lieberkühn, across the wing
ans = 12.746
octave3.2:51> std(W524(:,2))%w/o Lieberkühn, across the wing
ans = 8.2902
Using standard deviation as a metric for image detail, we get an increase of about 75% in standard deviation over the dark photo by using the reflector.
ans = 1.7572
The averages, standard deviation etc. may seem a bit redundant at this point; you don’t need to plot a pixel-value profile to see that the image with the reflector is much brighter and more detailed than the photo taken without.
Most lenses already have a standard, secure method for attaching accessories to the distal end. So why do we still put up with the infamy of squeeze-style caps that are so easily lost? Below are some iterations of my designs for threaded lens caps, designed with information on the lens filter thread standards from Wikipedia, and printed in various colors of Shapeways basic sintered plastic. They’re durable, can be colorful, and it’s possible to emboss custom text or an image on the front. Oh, and I never worry about them falling off in the bag.
I am testing a squeeze-to-attach Lieberkühn that roughly fits a Canon f/3.5 20mm focal length macro lens (above), and a 58mm threaded version (below), tested with a Canon 35mm f/2.8 manual tilt shift lens. I used a Canon auto macro bellows and a Nikon D5100 with an adapter for all test images.
I haven’t added any reflective material to them yet, so they are essentially “Lieberkühn diffusers” for these tests. I used a domestic desk lamp with a 750 lumen halogen bulb to illuminate the specimens, for slightly off-axis trans illumination.
These are the legs on a cicada molt from last year’s 17-year brood. The photo was taken with the 35mm Canon tilt-shift lens at about the shortest macro-bellows distance possible.
And here is a shot of the same view with the reflector attached. I used a 1/13 second exposures at ISO 1600 and f/5.6 for both shots.
The large claws up front with (below) and without (above) the reflector. Again this was taken at f/5.6, an ISO 0f 1600, and 1/13 second exposure time. I increased the bellows distance slightly for this shot, increasing the magnification.
Although the fill light is definitely better in the shots with the reflector, in some cases a photographer may prefer the image without using it, e.g. to bring out the small details with shadow. The cicada molt is partially transparent, giving a nice effect to the light transmitted through the subject.
I took the two photos of a leaf-cutter bee (Megachile genus, female) below with the same setup. The difference in lighting with and without the reflector is pretty drastic.
I made the next two pairs of photos using the 20mm macro lens and the squeeze Lieberkühn reflector. The photos contain some apparent lens flare resulting from the off-axis light source, manifesting as a slight general brightening (and resulting loss of contrast) in the middle of each image. I am not sure if the aberration is reduced with the addition of the reflector or if it just looks that way due to the rest of the image being brighter. Looks like a job for some quantitative comparisons, for the next post.
The position of the lamp and bellows stand were maintained for each pair of images. The bellows was set at the same distance but displaced between exposures to make room to attach the reflectors without disturbing the subjects, so the comparison images may be focused ever-so-slightly at different depths.
The lighting was definitely improved by the use of reflectors for these (mostly opaque) subjects. The images above were intended as a qualitative investigation, I will be looking into the performance and useability of the designs further.
As a final note, compare the print of the 58mm threaded reflector with the render from the STL file. The consistency is inhomogenous, with some bulges introduced during manufacture that were not part of the design file. Can’t say that I’m impressed with the print quality.
A lens hood is a shade that blocks out-of-frame light from reflecting off of the internals within the lens. This minimizes lens flares, so you can add them later in post. Just kidding.
Another form of lens flare is less obvious (and I don’t think J.J. Abrams uses it). It manifests as a haze across the majority of the frame making the image appear washed-out, and it never looks good. Unlike deliberate lens flares, it’s not obvious in the image itself where it comes from and doesn’t look dramatic.
To get the most effect from a lens hood, it needs to block out as much unwanted light as possible without actually showing up in the frame. This means that for any given lens at a certain focal length and field of view there will be a best angle for your lens hood.
The wikipedia article for angle of view gives an equation depending on the focal length and sensor size.
The variable is the dimension of interest. For a lens hood with a simple circular cross section throughout the longest dimension should be used, e.g. the diagonal length of a typical rectilinear sensor. The doubling factor can be omitted if you want to work the angle in relation to the optical axis, rather than the total angle.
The lens hood below is a general purpose lens hood (also 3D printed) for lenses with a 58mm filter thread diameter. It flares out a bit, and the angle is wide enough to use with a ~27mm focal length lens.
The images below show essentially the same 58mm diameter lens hood optimized for 16mm, 35mm, and 50mm, in order from left to right. The length of the hood in each case is 16mm. The shorter the focal length of the lens (and the larger the image sensor) the wider the angle, and the lens hood angle increases accordingly.
So far, I have printed the general purpose lens hood, which errs on the side of wide-angle caution. Once I have the additional test pieces in hand, we’ll give ’em the old Pepsi challenge.