*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

This is actually an issue that befuddles many microscopists.
Magnification, after all, really depends on the final image.  That is, an
object viewed with a 10X lens and viewed through the eyepiece could be said
to have a certain magnification as compared to an object seen with the
unaided eye at a given distance.  However, when that image is captured with
a digital, or photographic system, and displayed on a 10" monitor, or
projected on a 30' screen, the magnification is clearly different. A
printed image, might be yet another size.   It should be standard procedure
to produce images with an embedded size indication, rather than give the
magnification.  The important information is provided by specifying the
objective lens (ideally), which makes the major contribution to
resolution,   So, to get back to the original question, and echo Guy's
comment, , what matters are the dimensions of the area captured by the
system. Most confocal microscopes, as Guy mentions, include this kind of
information about each image, and can be extracted by software.

Joel



On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Guy Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> In a confocal image the magnification depends on the objective
> magnification and the area scanned on the sample.  There is of course an
> 'ocular' or transfer lens but that is not variable and thus is included in
> the calibration of the system.  So when you 'zoom' in a confocal image you
> are just scanning a smaller part of the field of view.  The system should
> still always give you the correct magnification, but since this is a
> digital image the appropriate units are pixels per micrometre (or the
> converse, the size of a pixel).  Every confocal microscope will give you
> these figures.  You should check once in a while, of course, using a
> standard specimen such as a stage micrometer.
>
>                                                         Guy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Nicola Green
> Sent: Friday, 16 August 2013 8:57 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: magnification
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hi
> This is probably a very foolish and basic question, but I am going to ask
> it any way and just apologise for my ignorance as a biological specialist
> using a confocal microscope.
>
> In microscopy I would generally multiply the objective lens magnification
> by the ocular lens (often 10x) to get the total magnification of an image.
> I want to know if this also applies for the confocal microscope or is the
> light path such that the objective magnification is the only one relevant?
> If I do need to include additional magnification what would these
> magnifications be, are they dependent upon the system being used (LSM 510
> META)  or is there a standard magnification?
>
> Thanks for your help in clarifying this for me.
>
> Regards
> Nicola
>



-- 


Joel B. Sheffield, Ph.D
Department of Biology
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
Voice: 215 204 8839
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
URL:  http://astro.temple.edu/~jbs