|
|
 | | From: | rene | | Subject: | Re: Ergonom 500 | | Date: | 18 Jan 2005 03:34:03 -0800 |
|
|
 | Hello Peter, are you still pumping up this discussion?
Peter Walker wrote:
> Kevin,
> is that all you can come up with as an answer after I provided all
the real
> references you asked for with real names, references, etc. I notice
that you
> do not say anything about the new reference I put up which does not
support
> your sceptism.
We write references (in this case for persons) the whole time. Tricky.
Golden rule is not to sound negative.
In our part of the universe however, with references we generally mean
new results showing your claimed higher resolution in a peer reviewed
journal. I have not seen any of those. So whatever this microscope of
yours has been doing in the Univ of London, it was'n been used for
results in publications.
We have also
> already attended a "real show", unless you are trying to say that
> MicroScience 2004 (http://www.microscience2004.org.uk where are
company
> appears in the exhibition video, twice) organised by the Royal
Microscopical
> Society is not a "real show"?
Oh yes I remember. A proper show. I'm sorry to say we had a bit of a
laugh a your expense.
> If you had been there, you would at least have
> had an opportunity to see and test our 3D microscope system for
yourself, as
> hundreds of visitors did. Perhaps someone who did test our microscope
at the
> show would care to comment.
I'm sorry, can't comment on that. I hope you will believe me when I say
I didn't mention anything bad about your large-DOF scope, as I do not
know much about that.
That said, all images showing the acclaimed large DOF I have seen were
lousy in resolution, even in your glossy folder.
The DVD you handed out during that day is another shockingly bad
example. You would think it would show crispy sharp pics for your
resolution claims with a $300K scope. But it's a grainy mess with
nothing truly unusual. I must admit some of the live blood videos were
stunning (with the white blood cells moving around), but again, not
showing more resolution. But it does show where your market is.
Rene.
|
|
| | From: | Peter Walker | | Subject: | Re: Ergonom 500 | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:09:45 +0100 |
|
|
| Hi,
I will comment on the main issues raised in the latest posts:
"rene" wrote in message
news:1106048043.743989.76670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The DVD you handed out during that day is another shockingly bad
> example. You would think it would show crispy sharp pics for your
> resolution claims with a $300K scope. But it's a grainy mess with
> nothing truly unusual. I must admit some of the live blood videos were
> stunning (with the white blood cells moving around), but again, not
> showing more resolution. But it does show where your market is.
> Rene.
>
"GTO" wrote in message
news:KwiHd.3300$8Z1.2635@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Oh, yes! Looks like a great match! Let's hear more about the application
of
> this wonder scope for life blood analysis. Life blood analysis, RRR, ....
>
> It's quite possible that Yahoo's SPAM filter does not let this one through
> ;-)
>
> Gregor
>
> For a reference about this "wonderful" application see
>
> [1] http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/livecell.html
First of all a lot of the film material shown on the DVD was put together
around 1991 and there are some scenes which were filmed a lot earlier than
that on VHS tape. The video equipment of the time is not comparable with
that used today and that is why some pictures (particually in "Symbiosis or
Parasitism") are a little grainy. We did our best to use the best possible
material for the DVD and we felt that it is the content which is of the most
importance. Today, broadcast quality video equipment is used for such video
recordings.
Regarding the price of the microscope, the value Rene gave shows how ill
informed he is. The actual price is about half the figure he is quoting. In
order to achieve the resolution, depth of field, etc. it is necessary to use
very high quality optics and when you also consider the small numbers in
production, such prices are fully justified. We do have a few surprises
coming out later this year, however!
Regarding Gregor's comment, I can only state that neither Grayfield Optical
nor Kurt Olbrich offer any kind of live blood analysis service. Most of our
work is focussed on industrial applications of the microscopes although
obviously some clients are in the medical field. Like most microscope
manufacturers, we are in the business of creating top of the range optical
microscopes and let the customers determine what they do with them.
However, for those interested, here are some new video recordings of blood
seen through the Ergonom 500 microscope. These films are large DivX files in
order to maintain the best quality. Please judge for yourselves if these
films of live blood are worthwhile or not. At least blood is something we do
all have access to!
http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/videos.html
> Peter Walker wrote:
> The images were made using halogen white light through a fibre optic
cable.
> The working distance between the objective (dry, no oil immersion,
staining,
> etc.) and the 30GB-DVD was 1mm. The highest objective we used was a 50x
(NA
> 0.95). These specifications are not directly comparable with standard
light
> optical microscopes as our system has been optimised in a number of ways
to
> be able to achieve the high resolution.
>
> Not directly comparable with optics, either- by my calculations, a
> working distance of 1 mm, and a numerical aperture of 0.95 (dry),
> assuming the entrance pupil is located at or near the front lens
> element, requires the front element to be about 6 mm in diameter. Since
> you claim to use semi-standard Nikon objective lenses, it's not clear
> how this could be.
>
> --
> Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
> Department of Physiology and Biophysics
> CWRU School of Medicine
Hi Andrew, it is not just the objective used, but the entire optical path
which has been optimised in order to achieve the greatly higher resolution.
You could take the objective off our E500 microscope and put it on a normal
one and not see a significant difference. It is the sum of a number of
different improvements (light path, etc.) which result in the microscopes we
have.
I suspect you guys are not convinced yet and I do not expect you to be.
However, we are working on providing significant further proof and
references which should make even the toughest critics think again about
what we can do. I do not want to spoil the surprise by announcing in advance
what that will be, but the images of the Richardson slide to be released
soon is only just the beginning....
Regards
Peter Walker
www.grayfieldoptical.com
|
|
| | From: | GTO | | Subject: | Re: Ergonom 500 | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:15:22 GMT |
|
|
| > stunning (with the white blood cells moving around), but again, not
> showing more resolution. But it does show where your market is.
> Rene.
>
Oh, yes! Looks like a great match! Let's hear more about the application of
this wonder scope for life blood analysis. Life blood analysis, RRR, ....
It's quite possible that Yahoo's SPAM filter does not let this one through
;-)
Gregor
For a reference about this "wonderful" application see
[1] http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/livecell.html
|
|
| | From: | Kevin Cunningham | | Subject: | Re: Ergonom 500 | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:39:22 GMT |
|
|
|
"rene" wrote in message
news:1106048043.743989.76670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hello Peter, are you still pumping up this discussion?
>
> Peter Walker wrote:
>> Kevin,
>> is that all you can come up with as an answer after I provided all
> the real
>> references you asked for with real names, references, etc. I notice
> that you
>> do not say anything about the new reference I put up which does not
> support
>> your sceptism.
>
> We write references (in this case for persons) the whole time. Tricky.
> Golden rule is not to sound negative.
> In our part of the universe however, with references we generally mean
> new results showing your claimed higher resolution in a peer reviewed
> journal. I have not seen any of those. So whatever this microscope of
> yours has been doing in the Univ of London, it was'n been used for
> results in publications.
>
> We have also
>> already attended a "real show", unless you are trying to say that
>> MicroScience 2004 (http://www.microscience2004.org.uk where are
> company
>> appears in the exhibition video, twice) organised by the Royal
> Microscopical
>> Society is not a "real show"?
>
> Oh yes I remember. A proper show. I'm sorry to say we had a bit of a
> laugh a your expense.
>
>> If you had been there, you would at least have
>> had an opportunity to see and test our 3D microscope system for
> yourself, as
>> hundreds of visitors did. Perhaps someone who did test our microscope
> at the
>> show would care to comment.
>
> I'm sorry, can't comment on that. I hope you will believe me when I say
> I didn't mention anything bad about your large-DOF scope, as I do not
> know much about that.
> That said, all images showing the acclaimed large DOF I have seen were
> lousy in resolution, even in your glossy folder.
>
> The DVD you handed out during that day is another shockingly bad
> example. You would think it would show crispy sharp pics for your
> resolution claims with a $300K scope. But it's a grainy mess with
> nothing truly unusual. I must admit some of the live blood videos were
> stunning (with the white blood cells moving around), but again, not
> showing more resolution. But it does show where your market is.
> Rene.
Jeez Rene, (nice post by the way) for 300K dollars US you can get a 4 photon
'scope! I thought this piece of trash was about 20K dollars US.
Kevin Cunningham
SMS
|
|
|
