Searching \ for '[EE] The secret to taking sharp pictures of circui' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'The secret to taking sharp pictures of circui'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] The secret to taking sharp pictures of circui'
2009\03\20@154355 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
I've noticed that many people overlook a simple setting that is present in
most digital cameras, and get pictures that look out of focus, for example:

> http://home.fuse.net/theannos/heat.html

The setting is called "macro mode", and it's usually represented by a
"flower" icon. Combined with good lighting, you can get pictures that look
like this:

http://maksimov.org/piclist/macro_mode/IMG_0438.jpg

The picture was taken with a cheap digital camera, without the use of a
tripod.

Hope someone finds this useful,

Vitaliy

P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong with this
board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.

2009\03\20@155714 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Vitaliy <spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTspammaksimov.org> wrote:
> I've noticed that many people overlook a simple setting that is present in
> P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong with this
> board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.
>

tantalum backwards?

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
.....markragesKILLspamspam@spam@midwesttelecine.com

2009\03\20@160522 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:56:58 -0500, "Mark Rages" <markragesspamKILLspamgmail.com>
said:

> > P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong with this
> > board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.

> tantalum backwards?


+5 points to you, Mark!

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent email service?

2009\03\20@162450 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Bob Blick wrote:
>> > P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong with this
>> > board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.
>
>> tantalum backwards?
>
>
> +5 points to you, Mark!

Sorry for making it so easy. ;-)

A bit of background: this was a prototype we received from a contract
manufacturer in China. They made the common mistake of assuming that the
stripe means "cathode".

Vitaliy

2009\03\20@163701 by solarwind

picon face
Actually, the PIC wont start because it has no power. I win.

2009\03\20@164109 by Jeff Anno

flavicon
face

I used a co-workers iphone (no macro mode) (for
http://home.fuse.net/theannos/heat.html these pics).  Our company camera
keeps ending up at the boss's house.  ;)

But I usually use a canon with macro mode and what a difference it makes!

> {Original Message removed}

2009\03\20@165402 by Picbits Sales

flavicon
face

> The setting is called "macro mode", and it's usually represented by a
> "flower" icon. Combined with good lighting, you can get pictures that look
> like this:
>
> http://maksimov.org/piclist/macro_mode/IMG_0438.jpg
>
> The picture was taken with a cheap digital camera, without the use of a
> tripod.
>
> Hope someone finds this useful,
>
> Vitaliy
>

Another good way is to bung it on your flatbed scanner if it has decent
optics and can focus at objects further than its own glass.

I actually use my scanner as a "magnifying glass" for visual inspection of
PCBs.

Dom

2009\03\20@170506 by olin piclist

face picon face
Vitaliy wrote:
> The setting is called "macro mode", and it's usually represented by a
> "flower" icon. Combined with good lighting, you can get pictures that
> look like this:
>
> http://maksimov.org/piclist/macro_mode/IMG_0438.jpg
>
> The picture was taken with a cheap digital camera, without the use of a
> tripod.

Not bad for handheld, although handheld versus tripod has more to do with
the light level and the camera's sensitivity than macro mode.

If you really care about your pictures, you should color correct them.  You
must have taken this picture in very orange light, probably incandescent.  I
took your original picture and color corrected it assuming the silkscreen on
the board is white.  You can see the result at
http://www.embedinc.com/temp/board.tif.

> P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong with this
> board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.

You forgot to hook up power to the board.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\20@170637 by cdb

flavicon
face


:::::: tantalum backwards?

It is also very poorly soldered.

If it was pick and placed, I have had reels where the occasional cap
in backwards or more likely someone had picked up the the dropped
components and plonked them back in the reel incorrectly. Yes it is
possible to pull the tape back over the containers, and wrap the reel
back up.

Colin
--
cdb, .....colinKILLspamspam.....btech-online.co.uk on 21/03/2009

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359







2009\03\20@170734 by Joseph Bento

face
flavicon
face

On Mar 20, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Vitaliy wrote:

> Bob Blick wrote:
>>>> P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong  
>>>> with this
>>>> board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.
>>
>>> tantalum backwards?
>>
>>
>> +5 points to you, Mark!
>
> Sorry for making it so easy. ;-)
>
> A bit of background: this was a prototype we received from a contract
> manufacturer in China. They made the common mistake of assuming that  
> the
> stripe means "cathode".

Time to find another contract manufacturer.  A person that does  
assembly work should certainly recognize components and polarity  
markings.

Joe

2009\03\20@170743 by Philip Pemberton

face
flavicon
face
Vitaliy wrote:
> The setting is called "macro mode", and it's usually represented by a
> "flower" icon. Combined with good lighting, you can get pictures that look
> like this:
>
> http://maksimov.org/piclist/macro_mode/IMG_0438.jpg

I find it easier to just put the PCB flat on a scanner...

A couple of years ago, I bought a couple of surplus NCR impact printer
modules. Basically an Epson M183 printer mech mounted on a driver PCB. I
managed to get a decent copy of the datasheet, which (not very helpfully)
contained the passage:

  For details on recommended drive circuitry, see Application Note AN-12345

Said application note was apparently long since out of print, and after three
weeks of emailing and calling distributors I still didn't have any details on
the "recommended" drive circuit... In the end, I heat-gunned the PCB, removed
all the components, scanned both sides of the board into Paint Shop Pro (see,
I told you it was a while ago!) and reverse engineered it.

I ended up with a good half-dozen inkjet composites of the various PCB layers,
and a scribbly pencil schematic. It wasn't much fun, but I did get the printer
board to print something (badly). $DEITY knows what I did with the PIC code
for that thing, but I seem to recall it being based on some code I wrote to
drive a Seiko MTP201-20B thermal printer module (whose printed output was,
incidentally, far more readable).

Incidentally, I have yet to find a use for either of the printer modules...
None of my other projects have really needed the ability to print onto rolls
of pulped, dried, bleached and specially-coated tree...

> The picture was taken with a cheap digital camera, without the use of a
> tripod.

Here are a few examples of mine, of a slightly more "artistic" nature:

SAW filter module on a TV video decoder board:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/philpem/3370524389/

The PLL chip:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/philpem/3370524399/

A rather nice looking Hewlett-Packard (, Agilent, Avago, or whatever they're
called this week) HDSP-2113 8-digit "intelligent" LED display:
www.flickr.com/photos/philpem/3370524401
Not so much artistic as purposefully bumping the aperture up so more of the
object is in focus (depth-of-field is proportional to aperture). The sort of
thing I'd do if I was taking a picture for an ebay auction, really...

All three photos were taken with a Canon 40D, EF-S 60mm macro lens and
580EX-II flashgun. I have to confess, I started out ~10 years ago with an
Olympus Trip 35, and have since gotten a little carried away! :)

--
Phil.
EraseMEpiclistspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTphilpem.me.uk
http://www.philpem.me.uk/

2009\03\20@171014 by Joseph Bento

face
flavicon
face

On Mar 20, 2009, at 2:36 PM, solarwind wrote:

> Actually, the PIC wont start because it has no power. I win.

Of course it won't start.  That backward tantalum caused a literal  
short on VCC.  See the solder blobs around the cap?  Either that is  
some mighty nasty soldering, or else that cap got mighty hot when the  
board was powered.

Joe


2009\03\20@172717 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong with this
> board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.

Unfair! The others have spotted the tantalum while I my FF could not
find the image :(

But Olin's 'corrected' version did load.

Switching to nitpicking mode: where is the 100nF decoupling for that
PIC? And shouldn't that Xtal be near to the chip?

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2009\03\20@184307 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Joseph Bento wrote:
{Quote hidden}

You know it's always a tradeoff between the three variables. :)

2009\03\20@184310 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> maksimov.org/piclist/macro_mode/IMG_0438.jpg
>>
>> The picture was taken with a cheap digital camera, without the use of a
>> tripod.
>
> Not bad for handheld, although handheld versus tripod has more to do with
> the light level and the camera's sensitivity than macro mode.

You missed the point, Olin. In the other picture, the object of interest was
out of focus. That's what the macro mode helps with.


> If you really care about your pictures, you should color correct them.
> You
> must have taken this picture in very orange light, probably incandescent.
> I
> took your original picture and color corrected it assuming the silkscreen
> on
> the board is white.  You can see the result at
> http://www.embedinc.com/temp/board.tif.

Looks nice, although I posted the raw un-retouched picture on purpose
(otherwise, I would have also made it sharper). FWIW, I think you
over-corrected it, it looks purple/violet in places. :)


>> P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong with this
>> board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.
>
> You forgot to hook up power to the board.

Good one. :)

2009\03\20@184539 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong with this
>> board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.
>
> Unfair! The others have spotted the tantalum while I my FF could not
> find the image :(
>
> But Olin's 'corrected' version did load.
>
> Switching to nitpicking mode: where is the 100nF decoupling for that
> PIC? And shouldn't that Xtal be near to the chip?

Hear, hear.


2009\03\20@184757 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Joseph Bento wrote:
>> Actually, the PIC wont start because it has no power. I win.
>
> Of course it won't start.  That backward tantalum caused a literal
> short on VCC.  See the solder blobs around the cap?  Either that is
> some mighty nasty soldering, or else that cap got mighty hot when the
> board was powered.

IIRC, what happened was the tech replaced the cap to make sure it was
causing the problem, and then stuck it back on the way it was, for the
picture.

Vitaliy

2009\03\21@075925 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> You missed the point, Olin. In the other picture, the object of interest
> was
> out of focus. That's what the macro mode helps with.

Macro mode is USUALLY more about  focussing distance than about depth of
focus. It may be that the latter is considered by some manufacturers as a
secondary issue.

The "official" [tm] way to achieve a wider depth of focus is to use a
smaller aperture (larger f number). The smaller the better down to about
f22. Beyond that you may get blurring due to diffraction effects. YMMV and
probably will. It may be that the camera in your example also reduces
aperture as part of its macro function?

Aperture control tends to be available only in more upmarket cameras.


  Russell


2009\03\21@100047 by Kevin

picon face


Here's a way to get at the raw data from your camera sensor.
I have not used it, YMMV.

No modifications. No firmware changes. FREE. Just add a file
to the memory card and it loads when you use it.

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK

RAW - CHDK can record raw files, giving you access to every
bit of data the sensor saw, without compression or
processing. Raw files can be manipulated on the camera, or
processed on your PC. CHDK also has experimental support for
the open DNG raw standard.

--
Kevin

2009\03\21@100544 by olin piclist

face picon face
Joseph Bento wrote:
> Time to find another contract manufacturer.  A person that does
> assembly work should certainly recognize components and polarity
> markings.

They should have either gotten the polarity from the little "+", the
assembly drawing, or asked if the information was missing.

However, Vitaliy didn't exactly help himself with the silkscreen.  Providing
the minimum necessary information makes it only so you can blame someone
else for mistakes.  A good designer tries to provide sufficient and
convenient information to minimize the chance of mistakes in the first
place.  Some obvious bad board design I see:

- The pads for C1 are too big.  No big surprise it ended up crooked like
that.

- The part for C1 is marked with a band but the silkscreen is only marked
with a "+".  While technically the manufacturer screwed up, the poor
silkscreen design was just asking for this.  It's a good idea to mark "+"
and "-" for all polarized capacitors anyway to aid in debugging later, but
the band should also have been shown on the silkscreen.  Again, it's not
about what you can get away with but about solving the problem.

- The part designator for the PIC (IC1?) is missing although there is plenty
of room.

- There are no visible pin 1 or other orientation markings for the three
ICs.  Maybe they are under the IC, which is a real rookie mistake.  Sure,
that helps with initial manufacturing, but does nothing for inspection and
debugging later.  The right answer is of course to do both.  I would put a
nice fat "IC1" under IC1 (I'm assuming that's the PIC), a filled circle
under the pin 1 dimple, a triangle or something marking pin 1 outside the
part (like you did with connector CN3), and another "IC1" designator outside
the part.

- Several silkscreen designators are in awkward orientations.  Yes I know
the information is still there, but people aren't perfect and make mistakes.
The easier and more comfortable you make it for people to read the
information, the less chance of a mistake.  It would only have taken a few
seconds to fix "Q1", "C4", "+5V", and "CN3".


I know I sound like a broken record, but neatness and attention to detail
matter.  This is a perfect example.  The cost of a extra minute to do the
silkscreen right instead of getting away with the minimum effort would have
cost less than finding the boards didn't work, diagnosing the problem, and
now having to rework all the ones that were made.  Again, while the
manufacturer screwed up, the ultimate fault is sloppy design by the EE.

If any of my guys showed me a board like this I would make them fix it
before sending it out.  So Vitaliy, not only do you have a problem with a
sloppy EE, but also a problem with a system that lets him get away with it.
Since you're apparently in charge, I'd say the EE is 75% at fault for sloppy
design and you're 25% at fault for allowing a culture where that is
acceptable.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\21@102410 by olin piclist

face picon face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> Switching to nitpicking mode: where is the 100nF decoupling for that
> PIC? And shouldn't that Xtal be near to the chip?

Good points.  I hadn't even tried to look at the electrical design.  This
looks to be a 2 layer board, but a lot of traces are apparently on the
bottom layer.  I would put as much as possible on the top layer to leave the
bottom layer a ground plane except for the occasional "jumper" when traces
have to cross.  C2 and C3 appear to be the crystal load caps.  I shudder to
think what the high frequency current loop looks like.

Vitaliy, some of the above is speculation, but it does look like you've got
a rookie doing electrical design with no senior engineer keeping him honest
(or a bozo for a senior engineer).  Bad design costs, sometimes in
non-obvious ways, and this board is a good example.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\21@105052 by Marcel Duchamp

picon face
Kevin wrote:
>
> Here's a way to get at the raw data from your camera sensor.
> I have not used it, YMMV.

I have.  Although I am not using the RAW feature yet, just the
programmability aspect to control the camera.  There's a few pics up on
the new free blog site - posterous.com:

http://transfer-orbit.posterous.com/

CHDK is definitely a cool hack.

{Quote hidden}

2009\03\21@110537 by olin piclist

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Macro mode is USUALLY more about  focussing distance than about depth
> of focus. It may be that the latter is considered by some
> manufacturers as a secondary issue.

I don't know why you qualify with "usually".  In fact, pure macro mode
actually decreases overall light transfer.  The light transfer from the
subject to the image plane is governed by the f-stop (ratio of lens
aperature to lens focal length) times the apparently little known expression

    1
  -----
  1 + M

where M is the magnification from subject to image plane.  Most of the time
the subject is much larger than its image on the image plane.  Let's say for
a head-shot portrait the subject being photographed is 500mm high, which
ends up 24mm high on a "35mm" film frame for a magnification of 0.05.  That
means the light transfer is 1/1.05 = .95 of what you would expect by looking
at the f-stop alone.  Since in photography exposure variations need to be
about 1/2 f-stop or so to be significant, a factor of .95 = .07 f-stop can
be ignored.  Obviously for landcapes M is so vanishingly small to make the
the additional exposure factor 1 for meaningful purposes.

Once you get into "macro" territory, you can no longer ignore this effect.
Note that at 1:1 magnification, you are down a full factor of 2, or 1
f-stop.  Of course any such modern camera will measure the light and
therefore automatically adjust.  However, you are still left with a
aperture/speed tradeoff one f-stop below what you would otherwise expect.
Since simple cameras like the one Vitaliy is apparently using don't expose
this, the net result is either a longer exposure time or less depth of
field, but certainly not more depth of field.

I expect you knew all this, Russell.  I'm saying this because I think there
are lots of people listening in that don't understand photography at this
level.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\21@182054 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Mar 21, 2009, at 7:06 AM, Olin Lathrop wrote:

> - The part for C1 is marked with a band but the silkscreen is only  
> marked
> with a "+".  While technically the manufacturer screwed up, the poor
> silkscreen design was just asking for this.  It's a good idea to  
> mark "+"
> and "-" for all polarized capacitors anyway to aid in debugging  
> later, but
> the band should also have been shown on the silkscreen.

Hmm.  Does adding a band make the board dependent on a particular  
marking of the caps?  There seems to be some variation in which side  
GETS the band on tantalums?
And where on the silkscreen do you PUT the band?  It would "logically"  
go right across one of the pads, since the pads and terminals usually  
extend partially under the cap.

(I tried to check Olin's boards, but he seem to avoid this style of  
cap...)

BillW

2009\03\21@190045 by olin piclist

face picon face
William Chops" Westfield" wrote:
> Hmm.  Does adding a band make the board dependent on a particular
> marking of the caps?

Probably no worse than the particular footprint.

> And where on the silkscreen do you PUT the band?  It would "logically"
> go right across one of the pads, since the pads and terminals usually
> extend partially under the cap.

I would put the band next to one of the pads, just like you do with a diode.

> (I tried to check Olin's boards, but he seem to avoid this style of
> cap...)

That's no accident.  There is very little reason to use a tantalum cap
nowadays.  The gap between ceramics and electrolytics has closed a lot,
mostly due to ceramics going up in value.  You can get 10s of uF at
PIC voltages in small surface mount caps nowadays.  That cap looks like 10uF
accross the power.  If so, there's no excuse for that.  10uF at PIC voltages
is easily available as a ceramic cap in a 0805 package for less money and
less trouble than a tantalum.  There should still be a 100nF to 1uF close to
the PIC power pins.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\22@025007 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> (I tried to check Olin's boards, but he seem to avoid this style of
>> cap...)
>
> That's no accident.  There is very little reason to use a tantalum cap
> nowadays.  The gap between ceramics and electrolytics has closed a lot,
> mostly due to ceramics going up in value.  You can get 10s of uF at
> PIC voltages in small surface mount caps nowadays.  That cap looks like
> 10uF
> accross the power.  If so, there's no excuse for that.  10uF at PIC
> voltages
> is easily available as a ceramic cap in a 0805 package for less money and
> less trouble than a tantalum.  There should still be a 100nF to 1uF close
> to
> the PIC power pins.

I'll respond to the rest of the comments later (you guys raised some good
questions), but wanted to ask this now: do you use PIC24H/33F? What type of
cap do you connect b/w Vss and Vddcore?

Vitaliy

2009\03\22@035020 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Macro mode is USUALLY more about  focussing distance than about depth of
> focus. It may be that the latter is considered by some manufacturers as a
> secondary issue.

Correct, if you look at the original image you will see that the problem was
that the object of interest was too close to the camera, the camera was
focused on a more distant object.


> The "official" [tm] way to achieve a wider depth of focus is to use a
> smaller aperture (larger f number). The smaller the better down to about
> f22. Beyond that you may get blurring due to diffraction effects. YMMV and
> probably will. It may be that the camera in your example also reduces
> aperture as part of its macro function?
>
> Aperture control tends to be available only in more upmarket cameras.

I took the picture in "auto" mode, to be honest I don't know whether the
aperture setting is available because I never bothered to look. I know what
you're talking about, however, because I have used a small aperture setting
in a professional camera to take pictures of objects where every part of the
object needed to be in focus.

Sparkfun's images generally seem to suffer from the narrow depth of field:

http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/images/products/08627-06-L.jpg

They have great pictures, but I guess the photographer is not aware of the
small aperture trick. I told Nathan about it, but their "new product" images
still have the same problem:

http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/images/products/09111-03-L.jpg

No doubt the photographer is aware of the problem, so he(she?) "cheats" by
occasionally taking pictures at a high angle.

I found that the cheap Canon PowerShot A570 IS is capable of taking pictures
that are superior to the ones we get from our microscope camera that costs
four times as much. Even without a tripod -- of course, provided that there
is enough light.

Vitaliy

2009\03\22@035147 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Hmm.  Does adding a band make the board dependent on a particular  
> marking of the caps?  There seems to be some variation in which side  
> GETS the band on tantalums?

Everyone seemed to agree that the tantalum was pl;aced the wrong way
round, so apparently not.

> And where on the silkscreen do you PUT the band?  

I put it between the two pads, against the pad where the band is on the
part.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2009\03\22@110201 by olin piclist

face picon face
Vitaliy wrote:
> I'll respond to the rest of the comments later (you guys raised some
> good questions), but wanted to ask this now: do you use PIC24H/33F?
> What type of cap do you connect b/w Vss and Vddcore?

There is nothing special about the 24H or 33F.  They are just digital ICs
that have large and fast current glitches on their supply.  I would put 1uF
ceramic caps as close as possible to all the power pins, then carefully
route the ground return leads to come back to a common point under the chip.
If this is a 4 layer board, I would probably use layer 2 as a local ground
plane, then have power and ground for the IC and its immediate circuitry
feed in from the rest of the board right next to each other with a 10uF
ceramic cap on the chip side of the single threaded feeds.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\22@184213 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> I'll respond to the rest of the comments later (you guys raised some
>> good questions), but wanted to ask this now: do you use PIC24H/33F?
>> What type of cap do you connect b/w Vss and Vddcore?
>
> There is nothing special about the 24H or 33F.

I take it to mean that you have no experience with this series, then. :)

You need a low-ESR 1uF to 10uF capacitor on the Vddcore pin, for the
internal 2.5V regulator.

Vitaliy

2009\03\22@190046 by olin piclist

face picon face
Vitaliy wrote:
> I take it to mean that you have no experience with this series, then.
> :)
>
> You need a low-ESR 1uF to 10uF capacitor on the Vddcore pin, for the
> internal 2.5V regulator.

Sure, but surface mount ceramic caps as I was mentioning are very low ESR
and a good choice for this.  They have lower ESR than tantalum, and much
lower ESR than electrolytic.  What do you want to put there if not a
ceramic?


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\23@085530 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Macro mode is USUALLY more about  focussing distance than about depth
>> of focus. It may be that the latter is considered by some
>> manufacturers as a secondary issue.

> I don't know why you qualify with "usually".

I was taking Benjamin Franklin's advice on giving advice.
This is usually a good idea.

ie Because a manufacturer may decide to improve the depth of focus by
decreasing aperture as part of switching into a "Macro" mode, if I failed to
note this and just said it was about focusing distance, then somebody may be
able to point out an example where it was not solely so.

Ben would approve, I think.


           Russell





2009\03\23@103308 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

> Macro mode is USUALLY more about  focussing distance than about depth
> of focus. It may be that the latter is considered by some
> manufacturers as a secondary issue.

In the good old days, the "macro mode" of a zoom lens would lock some  
lens elements in place, or otherwise change the physical behavior of  
the lens during focusing so as to optimize performance at short  
distances.

What "macro mode" means on a modern digital camera (especially on a  
low-to-mid range "consumer" camera) is a lot more ambiguous.  It COULD  
just provide a hint to the autofocus.  It COULD diddle the auto-
exposure so as to prefer high f-stops.  It could do something else.    
Who knows.  (artistic license enters into it as well; someone  
mentioned that the Sparkfun photos don't use the maximum depth of  
field; I'll bet that's intentional; they ARE marketing photos rather  
than pure technical photos.)

BillW


2009\03\23@134323 by Rolf

face picon face
William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Just as an added bonus... "macro" could also have implications on the
distortion corrections the lens does.

I speak in reference to a macro lens I own for my Digital SLR camera.
One of the major 'features' of the lens is that it has a flat focus plane.

most lenses have a field of focus that is a certain distance from the
principal focus and is a section of a sphere... i.e. when you focus far
enough away, the section is an insignificant part of the sphere, but
when you focus on something close, and that object is flat then you will
not be able to get all the object in sharp focus because your 'sphere'
of 'in-focusness' will intersect with the object.

Well, one major feature of my lens is that it is planar-focusing, hence,
you can get sharpness from edge-to-edge of a flat object, even from up
close.

Rolf


2009\03\23@164202 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> (artistic license enters into it as well; someone
> mentioned that the Sparkfun photos don't use the maximum depth of
> field; I'll bet that's intentional; they ARE marketing photos rather
> than pure technical photos.)

Take a look at this photo:

http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/images/products/08473-04-L.jpg

Would you say the fact that only the USB connector is in focus, is
intentional?

In this view, the coin is mostly in focus, while most of the board isn't:

http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/images/products/08473-03-L.jpg

The truth is, getting a good depth of field in this sort of photography is
not easy, and you really have to understand a thing or two about how cameras
work. We ended up shelling out several hundred bucks for a macro lens, so
the cables we were taking pictures of, would look sharp *and* be in focus.

Vitaliy

2009\03\23@164643 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
>>> Macro mode is USUALLY more about  focussing distance than about depth
>>> of focus. It may be that the latter is considered by some
>>> manufacturers as a secondary issue.
>
>> I don't know why you qualify with "usually".
>
> I was taking Benjamin Franklin's advice on giving advice.
> This is usually a good idea.
>
> ie Because a manufacturer may decide to improve the depth of focus by
> decreasing aperture as part of switching into a "Macro" mode, if I failed
> to
> note this and just said it was about focusing distance, then somebody may
> be
> able to point out an example where it was not solely so.
>
> Ben would approve, I think.

I didn't know about Franklin's advice on giving advice. I learned to use
weasel words, from reading your posts. :-)

Vitaliy

2009\03\23@170054 by Robert Young

picon face

>
> The truth is, getting a good depth of field in this sort of photography is
> not easy, and you really have to understand a thing or two about how cameras
> work. We ended up shelling out several hundred bucks for a macro lens, so
> the cables we were taking pictures of, would look sharp *and* be in focus.
>

It is very easy (operationally) to get focus if you use cameras that allow you to alter the plane of focus between the lens and film (or sensor if you have a digital camera or back).  Shift and tilt lenses for 35mm and medium format cameras or go whole hog and use a view camera with plenty of front and rear movements.  Sinar leaps to mind for table top photography.  

Not an inexpensive solution though.

Rob

2009\03\23@220840 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Vitaliy wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I wouldn't be surprised if sparkfun added blur in post

2009\03\24@024356 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face
>> Take a look at this photo:
>>
>> www.sparkfun.com/commerce/images/products/08473-04-L.jpg
>>
>> Would you say the fact that only the USB connector is in focus, is
>> intentional?

I dunno.  It's a very nice photograph, aside from the lack of depth of  
field.
I assume that the photographer knows what they're doing, and that the  
lack of focus is either intentional or unavoidable.  It's a pretty  
small board, so you're talking about having the back of the board a  
substantial percentage further away from the lens than the front of  
the board.


>>  getting a good depth of field in this sort of photography is not  
>> easy

You stop your lens all the way down, use a tripod, and let the shutter  
speed float up as dictated by lighting (use bright lights!)  If that's  
not sufficient, you call "artistic license" :-).  Going beyond that  
might be hard.  Or impossible.  (Although I like the advice oft-given  
(occasionally given?) on Instructables.com, which goes essentially  
"You have unsensible megapixels in your camera, especially compared to  
the less than 1 MP that will be displayed on most viewers' screens.  
GET FURTHER AWAY so that everything you want in focus is in focus, and  
then digitally crop before "publishing."")


> Shift and tilt lenses [or cameras]

I thought those were for perspective correction in architectural  
photos and stuff like that.  Do they really have anything to do with  
depth of field?

BillW

2009\03\24@031953 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Jake Anderson wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised if sparkfun added blur in post

Yeah.. :)

2009\03\24@033129 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> I was taking Benjamin Franklin's advice on giving advice.
>> This is usually a good idea.

> I didn't know about Franklin's advice on giving advice. I learned to use
> weasel words, from reading your posts. :-)

How rude :-).
But it's good that you are learning :-).

But, put more politely, that IS Ben's advice ina nutshell.
         "Consider always using weasel words"

Making adamant and unconditional statements is going to, probably, cause
problems.
Spot the Franklin word :-).

It's often fine enough to say what you believe or think or whatever, but in
many cases it seems useful to couch one's utterances within some sort of
probability framework. Not really the "weasel words" implications of
Vitaliy's comment, but  aguide to how well what you say can be relied on.

If I say that current best theory is solar sunspot activity is believed to
be driven in part by a "dynamo" effect (as I believe it is) I'm already
qualifying the certainty - and I'll then probably also try to ensure that
what 'dynamo' in this context is understood to mean.

If I talk about what a Macro facility does I'm liable to add that in some
cases it could so involved other features.

If I say that the reality that we exist within is necessarily 'surrounded
by' or dependant on some other wholly different ... er .. well ... yes,
that's science too, but not here :-).

Otherwise eg
You should never allow body diodes to conduct during normal PIC operation
...
Tantalum capacitors are wrongly specified in many high energy cicrcuits ...
Men read maps better than women do ...
We'll never have solar power satellites ...
My father's bigger than your father and my uncl is a policeman ...

type statements start to appear and the inevitable 'religious' blowups
occur.

Ben's way is often better, I think.



   Russell





2009\03\24@083438 by olin piclist

face picon face
William Chops" Westfield" wrote:
>> Shift and tilt lenses [or cameras]
>
> I thought those were for perspective correction in architectural
> photos and stuff like that.  Do they really have anything to do with
> depth of field?

Not really.  Those tricks move the in-depth field around, but don't change
its width.  In any case, shifting and tilting the lens is a very advanced
technique that is impossible on all but specialized equipment.  Mentioning
it as a possibility is misleading.  Anyone with access to the equipment
capable of this won't likely need to ask for photographic advice on the
PICList.  Keep in mind the original topic was about taking better pictures
of circuit boards with a "ordinary" camera, and Vitaliy discovering macro
mode.

The best way to take pictures of small objects is to use macro mode, of
course, but then to use a small f-stop and a tripod to allow for the
resulting long exposure times.  Many small cameras don't even let you
control that directly.  For example the small camera I use for such things
in my office only has a bunch of pre-programmed tradeoffs with annoying
names like "museum", "fireworks", "nighttime", etc.  I have to look up each
time anew which one favors smallest aperture and therefore longest exposure.
Argh.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\24@084700 by olin piclist

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Making adamant and unconditional statements is going to, probably, cause
> problems.

But at least you won't sound like a weasel.

********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\24@100914 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Hi,

I just realized how important is to have a good light source to make a photo
or video. So I was thinking of buying two 500W floodlights like this:

http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=222896

...or 4 pcs of 150W...

I would put those on a frame like this:

http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=28050

But I was also wondering how to get a soft light out of this box:

http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=38260

I am not sure how it works, how would I mount that box in front of the
lights? The lights actually backwards to the target and the box just
reflects the light? Do I need to buy a 4 bar stand so that the box mounted
onto the side bars?

http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=13478

Sorry for these questions, I am really novice on photography but interested
especially on making videos.

Thanks,
Tamas




On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclistspamspam_OUTembedinc.com>wrote:

> Russell McMahon wrote:
> > Making adamant and unconditional statements is going to, probably, cause
> > problems.
>
> But at least you won't sound like a weasel.
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> (978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
> -

2009\03\24@102817 by Robert Young

picon face








>
> > Shift and tilt lenses [or cameras]
>
> I thought those were for perspective correction in architectural  
> photos and stuff like that.  Do they really have anything to do with  
> depth of field?
>
> BillW
>

No, they don't change DOF.  My comment was about changing the plane of focus, not on altering the DOF.  DOF is DOF per the physics of the optics and camera/film/sensor dimentions.  

They allow you to change the PLANE of the focus.  This lets you move the objects in question into the range of acceptable focus for a given lens/film/sensor configuration.

And also allow you to correct the perspective in camera so you don't get tall buildings that look like they are falling backwards.  Although this is usually done with a shift, keeping the lens plane and film plane parallel to each other.  Using a swing/tilt allows the plane of focus to run more foreground to background instead of be limited to equal distances from the lens on the left and right (or top and bottom).  It is much harder to describe in words than to see examples.  I'll see if I can find some links to show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_camera
www.largeformatphotography.info/how-to-focus.html
http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/HMbook18.html
http://www.toyoview.com/LargeFrmtTech/lgformat.html (they say "increase depth of field", it is more correct to say "increase apparent depth of field")

Olin made the comment that they aren't applicable to small, inexpensive cameras.  Yes, that is mostly true.  I have seen people hack a large view camera back to allow the use of a smaller (dSLR I believe it was) as a pseudo-digital back.  At one point there was, and may still be, a comercial product available to do this.  Also seen these sort of optics hacked onto a flatbed scanner so that the scanner became the optical sensor.  But for the most part, it is pretty much just a novelty to convert a view camera in this maner.

View cameras aren't all that expensive, especially if you work with used equipment in the "4x5" size (5x4 for some of you across the pond).  If you were making your living at table top product photography, even the Sinar and Leif digital backs are cost effective.  For occasional use, not so much.  

2009\03\24@105053 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Making adamant and unconditional statements is going to, probably, cause
>> problems.

> But at least you won't sound like a weasel.

Indeed. But given the choice of sounding like a Minx or Ben Franklin I'd
probably eschew the furry choice.


   Russell

2009\03\24@105903 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Olin made the comment that they aren't applicable to small, inexpensive
> cameras.  Yes, that is mostly true.  I have seen people hack a large view
> camera back to allow the use of a smaller (dSLR I believe it was) as a
> pseudo-digital back.  At one point there was, and may still be, a
> comercial product available to do this.  Also seen these sort of optics
> hacked onto a flatbed scanner so that the scanner became the optical
> sensor.  But for the most part, it is pretty much just a novelty to
> convert a view camera in this maner.

For distances well below infinity (parallel light) you can get good results
with a bellows unit that mounts the lens separate from the camera. Moving
the lens away from the camera body shortens the maximum focusing distance
(unless the lens has been designed to focus "past infinity" which is rare.

Amazingly capable DSLRs which you can do this with are now down to well
under $US500. Not in the same class as point and shoot, but accessible
enough for the suitably keen in many cases. Second hand DSLRs are even
cheaper and many film SLRs are close to free. Bellows units from days of
yore can be very cheap on occasion.



   Russell

2009\03\24@120036 by David Harris

picon face
I don't know if this has been mentoned, but there are programs available
that will allow you to take a series of photos at different focus points
and combine them to produce a image with increased depth of field.

There may be more, but here is one I am aware of:
http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html

Here's a sample: http://www.heliconsoft.com/animation/Krebs_fly1/index.html

(And I see they can now create "3d" images:
http://www.heliconsoft.com/3dviewer/cranefly/video1.avi)

David

2009\03\24@122322 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: @spam@piclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu [KILLspampiclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu]On Behalf
> Of Tamas Rudnai
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:09 AM
>
> But I was also wondering how to get a soft light out of this box:
>
> http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=38260
>
> I am not sure how it works, how would I mount that box in front of the
> lights? The lights actually backwards to the target and the box just
> reflects the light? Do I need to buy a 4 bar stand so that the box mounted
> onto the side bars?

That item is often referred to as a light tent, you don't mount it to the
lights. You put the item you're shooting inside the box and then aim the
lights so that the lighting is diffused through the tent walls.

There are many DIY versions around the net here's a few samples:
www.creativepro.com/article/digital-photography-how-to-building-a-lig
ht-tent
digital-photography-school.com/how-to-make-a-inexpensive-light-tent
www.strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.ht
ml
http://www.instructables.com/id/Super-Simple-Light-Tent/

Paul Hutch

>
> http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=13478
>
> Sorry for these questions, I am really novice on photography but
> interested
> especially on making videos.
>
> Thanks,
> Tamas

2009\03\24@145014 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
>>> I was taking Benjamin Franklin's advice on giving advice.
>>> This is usually a good idea.
>
>> I didn't know about Franklin's advice on giving advice. I learned to use
>> weasel words, from reading your posts. :-)
>
> How rude :-).

Apologies are in order then. Sorry -- I meant no offense, at all!

> Ben's way is often better, I think.

Absolutely.  ;-)

Vitaliy

2009\03\24@145100 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
I was going to mention that, too. Some of our marketing people use
similar methods to take photos with very large depth of field.

Sean


2009/3/24 David Harris <RemoveMEdpharrisTakeThisOuTspamtelus.net>:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2009\03\24@150042 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
David Harris wrote:
> I don't know if this has been mentoned, but there are programs available
> that will allow you to take a series of photos at different focus points
> and combine them to produce a image with increased depth of field.

Thanks for mentioning this, Dave. We used this trick years ago, without any
special software. You just overlay the photos on top of each other, and
erase the blurry parts with a large soft eraser in Photoshop. This assumes
that both the object and the camera are stationary. Although it is always
best to get as close to the desired result as possible, before the picture
leaves the camera.

However, this discussion progressed way beyond its original intent. :-) I
just wanted to mention the macro mode, which is available in most cameras
(even the very cheap ones), but is often overlooked when someone is taking
an up-close picture of a circuit board to illustrate a problem.

Vitaliy

2009\03\24@162111 by olin piclist

face picon face
Vitaliy wrote:
> I just wanted to mention the macro mode, which is available in most
> cameras (even the very cheap ones),

I bought the camera I did for the office largely because it could get really
close in macro mode.

> but is often overlooked when
> someone is taking an up-close picture of a circuit board to illustrate
> a problem.

Maybe you just discovered it, but frankly, macro mode is well known and the
obvious choice for taking pictures of small things.  To me this is in the
"blatantly obvious" catagory, and I think for most people too.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\24@162303 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Paul Hutchinson
<spamBeGonepaullhutchinsonspamBeGonespamyahoo.com>wrote:

> That item is often referred to as a light tent, you don't mount it to the
> lights. You put the item you're shooting inside the box and then aim the
> lights so that the lighting is diffused through the tent walls.
>
> There are many DIY versions around the net here's a few samples:
>
> www.creativepro.com/article/digital-photography-how-to-building-a-lig
> ht-tent<www.creativepro.com/article/digital-photography-how-to-building-a-lig%0Aht-tent>
> http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-make-a-inexpensive-light-tent
>
> www.strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.ht
> ml<www.strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.ht%0Aml>
> http://www.instructables.com/id/Super-Simple-Light-Tent/
>
> Paul Hutch
>

Hi Pal,

Thanks, then I misunderstood that description. What I would really need is
like a paper or a silk in front of the lights which spreads the light over
the room instead of direct lighting it. Maybe I just need to bend a steel
wire as a frame and fix a piece of paper on it with a tape.

Thanks anyway,
Tamas

--
http://www.mcuhobby.com

2009\03\24@162809 by Benjamin Grant

flavicon
face
this is now a very long post with many people interested, so, per usual olin
if you're not interested, stop responding. However, as a.) people
consistently post subpar pictures of circuits and b.) people have had a lot
of interest in this post, the fact that you are disinterested is largely
irrelevant. My congratulations on your discovery of macro mode prior to
vitaly, i'm not sure what other response you'd like to your post.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Olin Lathrop <TakeThisOuTolin_piclistEraseMEspamspam_OUTembedinc.com>wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2009\03\24@163715 by William \Chops\ Westfield
face picon face

On Mar 24, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Tamas Rudnai wrote:

> What I would really need is
> like a paper or a silk in front of the lights which spreads the  
> light over
> the room instead of direct lighting it. Maybe I just need to bend a  
> steel
> wire as a frame and fix a piece of paper on it with a tape.

Better consider CFLs instead of those 500W halogens, OR think about  
fiberglass "paper", OR add a good fire extinguisher to your list of  
purchases...

There is of course specialized lighting equipment just for  
photography. It tends to NOT look like ANY other lights you've ever  
seen, and be priced accordingly :-(

Why do you want to spread the light over the entire room?

BillW

2009\03\24@180624 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:37 PM, William "Chops" Westfield
<RemoveMEwestfwspamTakeThisOuTmac.com>wrote:

> Better consider CFLs instead of those 500W halogens, OR think about
> fiberglass "paper", OR add a good fire extinguisher to your list of
> purchases...
>

Yes, I was aware of the heat, not sure the distance have to keep between the
paper and the light? Is there any calculation? Also CFL is a cold light
source? Have to read a lot before I buy anything, better not to ask anything
as my knowledge on this is zero :-)


> Why do you want to spread the light over the entire room?
>

All I want is a shadowless lightening - I thought that the reflection from
the ceiling makes a good soft lights and then another light from the floor
with this light softener paper could make a good shadowless picture.

Ok, so yesterday I have just tried my camcorder and the post production
software - which is just the freeware Kino so nothing fancy. The room is not
so big and is very dark at the moment - and please, please do not judge the
actor, this is his first ever acting + there was no script at all :-)  just
sat in front of camera to try it and was speaking rubbish basically :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpDZNDEvVxg

Also the camera was too high and should have zoom and position better etc
but as I said just wanted to try these thigs out a bit - so loads of things
to learn...

Tamas
--
http://www.mcuhobby.com

2009\03\25@112222 by Peter

picon face
Olin Lathrop <olin_piclist <at> embedinc.com> writes:
> Maybe you just discovered it, but frankly, macro mode is well known and the

Macro mode without enough (a lot!) of light on a camera with a low F number will
cause more trouble than it will create solutions. On a F/1.2 camera macro mode
will result in a depth of field measured in microns. Good luck keeping the
camera still and focusing in the right item with auto AF that chooses its "own"
subject.

And the internal flash is almost worthless for macro. "Fortunately" most amateur
cameras do not go down anywhere near F/1.2 so that problem is "solved". The
macro button with the friendly flower icon, the digital photography snake oil of
the early 21st century. </sarcasm>

Fwiw a tele zoom photo of the same circuit board from across the room should
have more depth of field and less critical focus than a macro of the same
subject, plus one can use a proper stand and the photo will not be shaken or
blurred (as opposed to the handheld macro which in the absence of light always
is). And you still need a lot of light, but this time the internal flash will
not be totally useless (unless there are specular reflections off of the
object), and ambient light will be useful (not shaded by the too-close camera
and operator body), and the optical and perspective distortion of the image will
be lower. Pick your poison and IGNORE bullshit 'snake oil' solutions.

A proper macro setup implies a ring light or ring flash or light-box with >2000
lux of illumination on the subject, and it has to be all specular reflection
proof (diffuse). A valise type setup starts at $200 and that's the Chinese
knockoff of the $900 original, and that's just the light-box, not the camera.

Peter


2009\03\26@132055 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Peter wrote:
> And the internal flash is almost worthless for macro. "Fortunately" most
> amateur
> cameras do not go down anywhere near F/1.2 so that problem is "solved".
> The
> macro button with the friendly flower icon, the digital photography snake
> oil of
> the early 21st century. </sarcasm>
<blah blah blah>
> Pick your poison and IGNORE bullshit 'snake oil' solutions.
>
> A proper macro setup implies a ring light or ring flash or light-box with
>  >2000
> lux of illumination on the subject, and it has to be all specular
> reflection
> proof (diffuse). A valise type setup starts at $200 and that's the Chinese
> knockoff of the $900 original, and that's just the light-box, not the
> camera.

The picture I posted was raw, untouched up photo taken with a very
inexpensive consumer grade digital camera, without any sort of special
lighting, using the macro mode. You can call it "bullshit" and "snake oil"
or whatever, the fact remains.

This thread is not about taking studio-quality pictures. At work, we have a
photo room with high-CRI lighting, light boxes, a $400 tripod and a
professional digital camera with a macro lens. I know how to set up the
lights and the camera to take studio-quality pictures. My intent was to show
that you DO NOT NEED to spend a lot of time and money to take sharp pictures
of near objects (in this case, a circuit board), and to point out a simple
technique that seems to be overlooked ("just click the little 'flower'
icon").

Maybe it's ime to stop kicking the dead horse, already?

Vitaliy

2009\03\26@180342 by Lee Jones

flavicon
face
> My intent was to show that you DO NOT NEED to spend a lot of
> time and money to take sharp pictures of near objects (in this
> case, a circuit board),

I know this doesn't follow the back and forth bickering...

A different approach is to use a flat bed scanner.  Usually
cheaper than a digital camera and frequently already there.
The depth of field is adequate depending on the thickness of
the components (smt is great, through hole is less great, &
tall capacitors are not great).

If you have a flatbed scanner, it's certainly worth trying.

                                               Lee Jones

2009\03\27@090149 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Flatbed scanners have been discussed a bit in the thread.  They work
very well, and that's what I used 9 years ago:

http://ubasics.com/adam/electronics/ha/pics/InsideHAT.jpg

They can provide very high resolution images of electronic objects,
but the newer ones have a very small depth of field - it's actually a
tradeoff between resolution and depth of field in many cases.  To get
a higher resolution cheaply, the scanner has to focus better on the
paper, and so it tries to get as close to the surface of the glass as
possible.

Pick up an older, lower resolution (cheaper) scanner and you might
have better luck.

-Adam

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Lee Jones <leeEraseMEspam.....frumble.claremont.edu> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2009\03\27@161317 by Jinx

face picon face
> Flatbed scanners have been discussed a bit in the thread.  They work
> very well, and that's what I used 9 years ago:

> Pick up an older, lower resolution (cheaper) scanner and you might
> have better luck

My only scanner is old (an E-Lux, bought new for Win95) and has a
"3D Object" option in the s/w. Which I use from time to time with
stuffed PCBs and can't say I've been greatly disappointed. It does better
than a camcorder capture, my pre-DSLR photographic device

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...