NetNotes
rather than stitching that really ruins things, so camera lock on the our files to a centralized printing facility, but now we have our own
same area of the view and move to the next one in sequence - likewise large HP printer, and even new users have little problem using it from
on the microscope: keep exposure times as identical as possible. I’m an their desktops. I’ve been meaning to switch to Adobe InDesign for
optical microscope guy. Better photo-stitching software should attempt posters for years, but guess what, whenever the time comes to make a
to correct uneven lighting. If you have a decent digital camera, though new poster, there is always a hurry, and never enough time to learn new
do try panoramas as fantastic ones are really easy to create these days. software! I am neither a lover or hater of Microsoft products, use them
Plus the software to do it should have come free with the camera, as a tool, and PowerPoint has been very convenient for us. I recommend
e.g., typical photo stitch help guide: http://www.phong.com/tutorials/ making all adjustments to your photos while still in Photoshop, and all
photostitch. Canon cameras offer similar free photo-stitch software labels, lettering, and scale in PowerPoint. This way it’ll be easier to do
that is highly regarded. Keith J. Morris kjmorris@well.ox.ac.uk Wed late adjustments like font size. We switch PS color management off and
Jun 10 try to achieve the desired gray levels on all images. Once everything is
I once saw an impressive demo of this freeware software, with to our liking, we reduce the pixel size and save under different name.
fluorescence data: http://www.xuvtools.org/. You may want to give it a Now, to your particular question - we aim for 150-200 pixels per inch
try! Jose jose.vr@gmail.com Wed Jun 10 in the resulting full-size poster print. That’s from some early testing
On the subject of image stitching, I’ll admit I’ve never used it we did. We set picture size in PS, in inches, to what it approximately
with any EM work, but I have had tremendous success with camera is going to be in the final print and then set resolution to 150-200 ppi.
panoramas using hugin: http://hugin.sourceforge.net/ Not only does it Then save the new image separately as TIFF, that’s the best and should
do the best job of things I’ve used, the best part is it’s Free Software. Lots not cause any file size issue these days. Then we insert (or drag-n-drop)
of power over the stitching and final image projection. Some folks on those saved images onto the poster in PowerPoint. It is very common
flickr tag their photos with it: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=hugin to have to resize the image a bit this or that way before the poster is
although not everything is hugin related. I have used my old Canon finished, that’s why the ppi range. 175 ppi is a good starting number.
Powershot’s Photostitch software for stitching TEM images together, You’ll get a feeling after a few posters. Don’t be afraid to explore lower
which was pretty successful. If I were to do it again, I’d definitely be ppi - as long as you see all relevant features, of course, images printed
trying Hugin. Steven Cogswell cogswell@nbnet.nb.ca from lower ppi tend to look better than oversampled (too high ppi)
I have had a go with Photoshop CS4’s PhotoMerge*, and yes it images on a poster. Below 150 ppi in the final print, you may notice
is doing a far better job than the older Photoshop version I last used the reduced resolution, but it won’t look bad. As long as you use TIFFs,
[probably CS2]—and it’s now producing better output than my PowerPoint will do nice smoothing, and there’ll be no pixelation. Vlad
Olympus Master Pro in manual mode [although the Olympus cameras Speransky vladislav_speransky@nih.gov Tue Apr 14
have a hardware panorama mode of sequential capture that works far Generally I use PowerPoint to produce my posters, which is fine
more reliably]. The SLR barrel lens distortion effects remained, but as my predecessor created our Core poster in PowerPoint and we never
the stitching was pretty perfect. I’ll give it five, although it was slow go above poster size A0 [paper size 3 feet x 4 feet]. I have converted
at the stitching [presumably because it’s thinking hard]. I expect a few to MS Publisher though. Other applications can be used but
dedicated commercial stitching software has likewise improved over it should be noted that Word will not accept paper size as big as A0.
the last couple of years - I’ll check them out as demos, but I can live Our University printers do the printing, we just provide the Excel,
with CS4’s output. I’ve never had a problem with slightly varied light ppt, or Publisher pub file. Image size is kind of irrelevant provided
levels on a scientific montage of say a completely scanned section using your image resolution is at least 600 pixels per inch on the paper [it
Zeiss Axiovision and a motorized stage - it kind emphasizes that it is can be higher res in the document]. You can often get away with less
a montage and easily identifies each specific image within the entire if that’s all you have [upscaling in Photoshop can help], as often it’s
raster scan. For a scene of Tenby harbor in the real world though, it only the University/Centre logos that look really naff and pixellated at
does look appalling. Keith J. Morris kjmorris@well.ox.ac.uk Thu Jun 11 low-resolution. Generally it’s useful to make all the images quite high
Photoshop has the ability to correct for barrel (or pincushion) lens resolution, say 1000 pixels per inch, as I quite often nick images from
distortion. I think it is under Filter -> Distort -> Lens Correction. The our poster, say for the website, and it’s a pain having to track down
process can be automated with a Photoshop ‘Action’. If you are using a the original. You do need Photoshop or similar [Elements or Serif
standard camera (SLR or P&S), there is a great Photoshop plugin called PhotoPlus] to edit/crop/enhance images. Large PowerPoint size [Mb
LensFix that is very capable at fixing geometric distortion. http://www. file size] due to high resolution graphics isn’t a problem for a modern
kekus.com/software/plugin.html David Elliot elliott@arizona.edu Thu PC [well for mine anyway as it is an imaging workstation and gaming
Jun 11 powerhouse], plus it simply goes off to the printers on a CD or RAM
drive. Don’t use 6,400 dpi scanned TEM ones though unless you are a
Image Processing:
patient sort on the PC, downscale to or scanning at 1,200 dpi seems
PowerPoint poster fine for most applications [unless of course you are printing that single
I’m getting ready to “teach” my undergraduate EM class how to TEM film image at size A0]. Going below 300 dpi on the printed page
create a poster presentation of their work, and I need a little educating as might look bad, but it depends a lot on the image itself. For pdf ’s use
well. Could you please send me your sage advice on creating a poster in Adobe’s Acrobat Pro’s pdf optimizer and generally output for the latest
PowerPoint (that’s what we are required to use) regarding the resolution acrobat version compatibility. Our OUCS printers seem to prefer
of the electron micrographs? As background, we are developing TEM film, output from ubiquitous PowerPoint or Publisher [word is limited to 22
scanning the negatives, and manipulating them with Adobe Photoshop. inches size I believe]. The advantage of PowerPoint is that everyone has
Kristen A. Lennon kalennon@frostburg.edu Mon Apr 13 it, and it works well at least up to the standard A0 poster size. Microsoft
You and your students will be fine with PowerPoint. For posters Publisher is probably a better option, but it’s less common and not MS
larger than what PowerPoint’s setup allows, we scale a little down, Office’s greatest app [Serif ’s PagePlus is better and a third of the price].
keeping the desired proportion, then we increase the size (e.g., 123%) Plus there’s Adobe’s InDesign and Quark express for those with deep
during printing. I have been using PowerPoint for posters since 2000, pockets [probably not students]. Keith J. Morris kjmorris@well.ox.ac.
with different printers. Until 2-3 years ago, we would have to go with uk Wed Apr 15
66
www.microscopy-today.com • 2009 September
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76