In Sane People Don't Look

[dinodragon]

These two comparison photos were provided for the celebration of April Fool's day. If you are still in sane (not insane), please do not look. I can't be responsible for any consequence.

Top parts were taken by a digital microscope. Lower parts were taken by the scanner of my multi-function printer set at 9600 dpi, 24 bit color. Have fun!

i1119.photobucket.com/albums/k640/Timothy_Huang/Misc phtos/EdiaFullTubeScanComparison.jpg[/IMG]
Ediacaran full tube

i1119.photobucket.com/albums/k640/Timothy_Huang/Misc phtos/1RibScanComparison.jpg[/IMG]
Embryonic dinosaur rib

[dinodragon]

Since the April Fools day is almost over here in Taiwan. I better provide a bit of explanations for my above post.

The whole thing about this comparison is kind of interesting. Can you believe that you can use your multi-function printer (containing scanner function) to do the close up photo? Yes, as it may sound so absurd, you can do that, well, to a point. Just place your specimens flat on the scanner and start your scan. You will get some close up photos as the result.

According to the claims from many printer makers, you can scan your fossils directly at 9,600 dpi with 24-bit colors. Hey, for the claimed 9,600 dpi, it means each pixel will record 2.65µ square area! That is a very very great resolution/magnification.

On the above pair of photos, the top parts were taken by my digital microscope at 20X (first) and 200X (second) with 2,560x1,600 pixels image area.

First Comparison: The diameter of this particular Ediacaran tube creature is 11 mm. The bottom part of the photo was the direct printer scan. These two were then place together for comparison. It seems to me the scanner photo provides sharper image and more levels of various color. Acceptable result.

For the second one, the object is a cross section of embryonic dinosaur rib with a diameter of 0.8261 mm. Again, top portion was taken by digital camera, lower portion by direct printer scan. The printer scan result is horrible. If the claims of 9,600 dpi by printer maker is correct, then the object shall take up 312 pixels, and that shall provide a relatively decent photo. However, the result did not prove that.

So, conclusion: If you want to do a quick and dirty job for object bigger than 1 cm in diameter, you can do that. However, don't believe what the printer maker told you about their scanner resolution.

By the way, all specimens were embedded with 5 minute epoxy and sanded flat with sand paper of 100, 200, 400, and 1,000 mesh.

[pleecan (Peter Lee)]

Fantastic results Tim with modest equipment. Very nice... thanks for sharing the comparison!
PL