• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Another "I want a stylus scope" thread.

You can see the dark patch method even in that rushed pic and prob should have cleaned the fingerprints off my phone camera :)
You can see though that this Micro Ridge you cant even see the cantilever at 225x and even the glue is out of focus which is only o.3mm from the tip in a Boron cantilever Micro Ridge this is why your image seemed way less focus. My image is really good focal length for 225x ie maybe 0.2mm.
Your image is really good though you really are getting there.. Just check if there is a barlow lens fitted to the objective as you can fit a reducing Barlow this may be what is going on??
Chris
 
Ok, after examining our last two pics back to back (a couple of times) I'm pretty sure I AM at 210X. I CAN see the full width of both of our cantilevers. Yours is just a hair wider (15X more mag) and more out of focus, but it's there in the background.

I also think the thumbnail method of me posting pictures might be messing with us...

I have NO interest in taking pictures here, I'm just doing that since I don't know what I'm doing yet and figuring it out as I go. I just want me and @dualhead to be able to evaluate our stylus wear here. I am not a photographer, nor do I play one on TV.
 
Thumper said:
Same image, posted full size instead of thumbnail, to test my theory.

View attachment 2315555

edit - much bettah, no?
Click to expand...
You are doing really well to take what you are managing though the eyepiece, I did not enjoy trying to hold my phone still :)
Yes in my image you see the outline of the stylus at edge of glue, but my example is a 0.28mm diameter boron cantilever and tip is a square section Micro ridge which is 0.1mm square diamond so the edges of the glue are only 0.28mm. My cantilever even though 0.28mm fills the pic yours has black either side hence my reasoning, that and depth of field.
I will take another pic again though eyepiece at 150x and 100x
 
I used my lowly iPhone 6SE, which is a 12-megapixel Wide camera; ƒ/1.8 aperture device using up to 5x Digital zoom.
So it's at max digital zoom (which just magnifies the image by blowing it up, not magnifying the sensor itself - Optical zoom)

Then I use a super cheap clip-on 60x ebay plastic optical magnifier/loupe on top of that: this one (https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/293824083697 )
That accounts for the lousy resolution above.

The thing has a light included, which has limited functionality - and your lighting is *everything*.
So I use a tiny portable LED light from my photography/video work called a Ulanzi L1 Pro (here https://www.amazon.com.au/Super-Bright-Waterproof-Video-Light/dp/B07RDF99SN)
this is just one example as there are lots on the market that will do a similar job (Lume Cube is another, more expensive one).
but I like this one cause it's tiny and can throw a very focused beam (I have tiny snoot on the end of mine here www.amazon.com.au/Lume-Cube-Modifying-Compact-LC-SNOOT/dp/B07N7RPB89), plus it sits flat wherever I put it.
I use it to really light up the background so the diamond, when lit mildly from the front, becomes transparent.

All that makes the diamond tips really shine, like diamonds should - giving you a clear image of what you actually have at the end of your stylii. :)
 
Moved those lights around some to be more out in front and higher up pointing down. I just don't think they're bright enough. Another front shot.
IMG_20210816_0114440.jpg
 
Diamonds, being pure super hard carbon, would prefer to appear black to you and I in normal flat artificial light when captured on (digital) film.
It's their nature.

Keep at it, get clever with multiple angles (try diffused or bounced light at 45 degrees, which isn't direct on) and with persistence, they will show themselves. :thumbsup:
 
cafe latte said:
If you look ay my rushed pics though the eyepiece it is not about the diamond pic it is about assessing wear. Look at my rushed pics ad you can see the wear bits all the rest is not important.
Chris
Click to expand...
Apologies. Not getting your statement as it relates to my post.

While I think that you phone pics are admirable, unless I am missing something, my intent was to show some pics that came from a very inexpensive “microscope” and to offer a link to purchase for the AKer’s if the feedback was positive.
 
THF2 said:
Apologies. Not getting your statement as it relates to my post.

While I think that you phone pics are admirable, unless I am missing something, my intent was to show some pics that came from a very inexpensive “microscope” and to offer a link to purchase for the AKer’s if the feedback was positive.
Click to expand...
Your pic was nice, but my point was it does not show wear and that is what OP is trying to achieve ie assess wear. It is easy to get some lovely pic with cheap gear but no so easy to see wear patches.
Chris
 
cafe latte said:
Your pic was nice, but my point was it does not show wear and that is what OP is trying to achieve ie assess wear. It is easy to get some lovely pic with cheap gear but no so easy to see wear patches.
Chris
Click to expand...

What I have learned is that there are AKer’s (such as yourself) that can interpret a pic from their phone to determine wear. I have tried that approach and it has not revealed anything to me. Could be due to my lack of sophistication when viewing such images or, failing eyesight In which case I might need new glasses.

That said, unless one is willing to spend far more than what was spent for “…lovely picture with cheap gear…” (which many have and with terrific results), I find that the quality of the images, ease of use, detail (1080p I might add) and cost for this solution make a very good alternative to spending way more to determine not only wear but, overall condition of the stylus.

Just say’n…
 
@THF2 - so far the best pic I have come up with as far as wear goes is this one I posted earlier. I'm still experimenting though. The two tiny "bright spots" on the very tip are the wear flats - as Chris says the rest is not important. It might not be the prettiest picture, but that's not what this is about for me.

IMG_20210815_0037416.jpg
 
Played around with the scope a little more tonight and messed with lighting angles some. Trying to get a better shot than the one above but so far have not been able to, or even get one as good.

120x, same stylus:

VN35HE_7.jpg

210X:

VN35HE_8.jpg

The tip looks more out of focus than in the last pic but I think that's because my lighting angles are better now and the bright spots are blurring the image when my phone tries to auto focus. In reality I can see two independent bright spots on the left and right side, separated by a dark spot.

Also, I'm not sure if 120X is actually 120X. I was at "4X" on the knob with 30X eyepieces. But the SZ7 zoom mechanism seems nonlinear, it speeds up in the last 30-40% or so of travel.

Scope optics are still dirty. I cleaned everything I could get to (which is everything but one surface, one on each side) three times, twice with alcohol. And I think the 7X primary lens is toast. Apparently these scopes had issues where if stored in a damp location mold would grow in between the laminates of the primary lens, impossible to fix. Mine is cloudy and no amount of cleaning seems to help. I also have those black specks (I guess I could live with those, though) that also will not go away.

I might keep an eye out for a better scope, but for my $135 investment on this one (including the new eyepieces which I could use on another scope) it does the job I wanted it to - show me wear. The phone pics I post are not pretty, I admit. But the image looks better in person and this is supposed to be a tool and nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom