Microscopy General

File: 1437844317300.png (85KB, 193x200px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 193x200px

>Also light optical is for losers :^)

File: Screen Shot 2016-06-01 at 9.06.30 AM.png (450KB, 819x619px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 819x619px

>>8114786
SEM all day baby. Just look at these bitching coral aragonite crystals.

File: Screen Shot 2016-06-01 at 9.12.23 AM.png (385KB, 639x480px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 639x480px

>>8115078
Now this is a rock thin section. This is with a the backscatter electron detector and the brighter the feature heavier it is.

Why can't they do it in color? Why is greyscale apparently easier to do than color, both for this and for early television?

>>8115396
scientists have yet to discover a camera small enough to take such tiny pictures

File: A_Boy_and_His_Atom.jpg (70KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x360px

>>8114786
STM > AFMemescope

All forms of microscopy except light are for plebs.

Fourier Plane Microscopy is goat

>>8114786
If you're not working with metamaterials past the diffraction limit, you aren't a real scientist.

File: ripple-tits.jpg (17KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x400px

>>8115595
What causes those ripples?

File: QPI.png (751KB, 822x486px) Image search: [Google]

751KB, 822x486px

FT-STS

>>8116436
Quantum mechanics. Those are electron Bloch waves.

File: tardigrade_eyeofscience_1024.jpg (227KB, 1024x883px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1024x883px

>>8115396
It uses electrons to bounce off the material. It's like visual binary, it can only determine depth. It's amazing we get such fine detail at all.
Fear not, there are many hobbyists who take them and colorize them using programs like photoshop. Some turn out to be quite good but it's almost entirely artistic. It's doubtful they actually have anything that might be called color anyway. Too small, color travels on light waves of a certain size.

>>8114786
confocal or multi-photon, plebs

the obligatory:

can someone recommend me a good (hopefully not shit expensive) microscope?

>>8116809
olympus FV1200 with IX83 ZDC

>>8116820
youre talking about fucking microscopes, i assume you know your shit, if youre not gonna suggest anything, then remain quiet and ignore my post

SEM is hella great. My school has a Phenom desktop model that I get to use whenever.

It's got some image noise but it's not bad.

>>8116809

I have an OMAX, I don't remember the model off-hand but it goes up to like 2000X or 2500X. Was about 350$ IIRC. Has an integrated camera. I bought a darkfield condenser for it and I love it. It's pretty good for home use.

>>8116601
Whats the point of these guys again?

I mean...what do they actually do with their time?