Andonstar USB Microscope – More images

Honestly, I really like this microscope. It’s so easy to use and you will get great insights into the world around of us. Here are some more images I made …

If you missed the first part: Click here

RGB LED WS28122016-03-30 gallery WS2812.jpg

The image on the left shows the famous WS2812 RGB led with an integrated driver board. The image on the right shows just the driver board. There are even some unused pads visible on the die.

More Electronics2016-04-10 gallery playstation.jpg

Guess what device that is? Yeap, it’s sort of an in-dept-view of a playstation gaming console. At least parts of it.

Random image with wavy lighting:2016-03-30 gallery 100Hz artefact.jpg

This effect happens IMHO from this… The background illumination stems from my room light which has 100 hertz (50 hertz rectified LED lamp).

{f_{grid} = 50Hz \rightarrow f_{rectified} = 2 \cdot f_{grid} = 100Hz}

The image is taken with a scanning speed of 5 samples per second or 5 hertz.

{f_{camera} = 5Hz}

Assuming that all these information are correct we get the number of blinks per image taken. In our case we will see 20 blinks of the 100 hertz while one image is made.

{n_{blinks} = \frac{f_{rectified}}{f_{camera}} = \frac{100Hz}{5Hz} = 20}

20 blinks on a 1200 rows image means 60 rows per blink. Therefore all these lines should be 60 rows apart.

{p_{wave} = \frac{1200 rows}{n_{blinks}} = 60 rows/blink}

But does this really work? I tried to measure how much pixels these lines are apart and I got a value of around 68 pixels per wave. What does this mean? Well, we know that our image has 1200 rows and we have 68 pixels per wave. Therefore we have 17.65 real blinks per image.

{n_{blinks, real} = \frac{1200 rows}{68 rows/blink} = 17.65}

These real blinks can be used to calculate the real time and frequency it takes to acquire an image. We can assume that our 50 hertz from our mains outlet is accurate. Therefore our 100 hertz should be accurate as well. Now, lets do the final number crunching.

{f_{camera,real} = \frac{f_{rectified}}{n_{blinks, real}} = \frac{100Hz}{17.65} = 5.6\overline{67}Hz}

Finally the result. The frequency is 5.6 hertz meaning it takes around 176 milliseconds to take an image. But the camera is stated to just take 5 images per second. That would mean 200 milliseconds. What happened here? I IMHO guess it just takes 25 milliseconds to process the image and to send it to the computer.


Some plants2016-04-10 gallery Laus kaktus.jpg

As I was microscoping this tiny little one centimeter bud I realized there was something running. It’s that little louse running and jumping around. See a little animation of a series of images I took.

2016-04-10 Laus-Animation.gif

… and some more plants.

2016-04-10 gallery plants2.jpg2016-04-10 gallery plants.jpg

The Gallery


Published by


BY DAY: R&D engineer at a local company developing and testing electro-mechanical devices. BY NIGHT: Writing code, developing hardware, doing wonderful awesome stuff.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s