MICRODOT INITIAL RESULTS

The first step was to create a test page. I have posted the .PDF file here for you to download.

I then used my copystand and Minox B to photograph this page. I repeated this several times at varying speed settings. The film used was Kodak 2484 B&W (800 ASA, always the optimist).

My next experiment was to see if the binocular attachment would work with a microscope. To test this I took the text circle that is in all caps and placed the "2" on the line "THIS IS A 2 PT FONT" in the holder, focused, and clamped the binocular adapter on. I set the focus on my camera to infinity and again took several pictures at varying speeds. I did this with the light on in the microscope.

So what happened with my initial tests?

Well, the results were mixed. First, it appears the film was fogged slightly sometime after the roll was exposed. I assume this because the notch I clip out to show an unused roll was shadowed three or four times down the roll. There was also very poor contrast. This in mind, I must still say all the critics were right. 800 speed film is a crummy choice for document copying. The grain is HUGE! Creatures were cutting down the granules and building homes with them!

You can see in this first scan that, even after extensive correction, the poor contrast and grain have destroyed any extremely fine details.

With some further editing, and a lot of contrast filter, I was able to get a bit more definition, though it is still unacceptable. I was given a small ray of hope with the detail it did pick up though. I marked some of the more notable ones with arrows. I was shocked that even with all the problems the lines still came out. I was also interested in the remaining detail in the grey-scale windmill.

For note, the diagonal rays are actually shadows from the copy stand's legs. I left the light like that for testing purposes.

The binocular adapter test was a bit more successful.

As you can see in the photo, the "2" was well magnified. Were the film problems not there, this could be a way to get the microdot up to a scannable size.

If nothing else the concept of microphotography with the binocular adapter has been proven in theory. I may have to get some bugs and try that next!

I have an additional base on order for the microscope that I hope to modify so a reverse image (large image reduction) will be possible. This would allow for the huge reductions I hoped for to be theoretically possible. I have to get the film and grain issues addressed prior to even attempting this step though.

So what next?

I have come to several conclusions.

• OK, OK. The film is important. I will probably try some ASA 25 Kodak Techpan (pre-slit from Goat Hill Photo) if that does not work, then I guess I will have to go to some kind of microfilm stock and beg Charlie to let me take him up on his slitting offer.

• The concept has merit. With the correct film and more controlled circumstances, I feel that this can be done with the materials I have described and have available.

• The binocular attachment performed much better than I expected. Then again this was the part of the process I felt was most prone to failure. Even with the vagaries of focusing and movement, the images came out relatively clear and distinct. The optics on the microscope do leave much to be desired, but they may prove to be adequate.

• Lighting is a must in this process. I think I can trace a certain portion of the problems to my desire to use available light, on the floor no less. In future experiments I will be much more conscious of lighting in both consistency and quantity.

• I will lean to use my developing tank and develop my own B&W. I think the lab has caused a measurable portion of the problems I have encountered.

Even in failure I accomplished much of what I wanted to. What problems there were have specific, attainable solutions that should be successful on the next go around.

I'll keep you informed.

Wonko 12/1/2000