Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Hardware Science

DIY Computer Video Microscopy For Under $50 117

cybrpnk writes: "The QX3 Video Microscope may have been an obscure commercial failure as an educational toy, but it is widely available (for now, at least) as a fantastic tool/toy for any geek. The QX3 hooks up to a USB port and delivers live color 10X, 60X or 200X microphotos at 512x384 pixel resolution. Its kid-friendly software even makes time lapse videos a snap, like this one of TNT synthesis - a whole new way to blow up the lab, do not try this at home! Educators are doing amazing things with the QX3 in their classrooms. Sourceforge even has documentation on the software command structure used by the QX3, so it may be considered an open source microscope. Get yours today for under $50 at surplus closeout or EBay before they're all gone!" The Toys-R-Us nearest to me has one QX3+ left (now with my name on it) at $30, so I hope it really does work under Linux. And it's a lot less complicated than building a Scanning-Tunneling microscope.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DIY Computer Video Microscopy For Under $50

Comments Filter:
  • by EchoMirage ( 29419 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @01:50PM (#3383610)
    Wow, I can't believe that this is Slashdot and I'm a Windows user and yet I am posting the Linux support information. Craziness.

    First, Intel's official position [intel.com] on Linux support:
    Q: Do you have Linux drivers for the microscope?
    A: The microscope is not supported on Linux* platforms. Thus, Intel does not offer software or drivers for Linux.
    CPiA chipset inforrmation [sourceforge.net] which the QX3 uses for its imaging. Note that there are still some problems getting everything working right. Back up your kernel.

    If none of the above works, try some more generic hacks with the CPiA driver. It seems the biggest problem is getting the lights turned on...
  • Proscope by Scalar (Score:4, Informative)

    by crumbz ( 41803 ) <[<remove_spam>ju ... spam>gmail.com]> on Sunday April 21, 2002 @02:01PM (#3383641) Homepage
    Is an excellent alternative(granted at a higher price). For about $250 and $100 for a higher multiple lens, you can view excellent, high quality magnifications of your specimens.

    I am thinking about getting one, but want to see if higher (500x) magnification is going to be available. See www.bodelin.com for details.

  • Photo Gallery (Score:4, Informative)

    by eander315 ( 448340 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @02:22PM (#3383687)
    The National High Magnetic Field Laboratory [fsu.edu] has an excellent page dedicated to the Intel QX3 [fsu.edu], including a cool QX3 digital image photo gallery [fsu.edu]. Definitely worth a look if you're interested in what these little toys can do.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21, 2002 @02:38PM (#3383733)
    Intel has its own developer-oriented discussion of the design and development of the QX3.

    http://developer.intel.com/technology/itj/q42001 /a rticles/art_3.htm
  • by cybrpnk ( 94636 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @03:30PM (#3383876)
    The IntelPlay site [intel.com] has a good QX3 FAQ [intel.com] as well as the product's 3/29/02 obituary [intel.com]. We can only hope they are clearing out stock before introducing the new improved version, but I doubt it - Intel is discontinuing ALL Intelplay toys, not just the microscope. With MTV style advertising like this [brandx.net] it's no wonder it failed to find a continuing market niche as a classic toy - it takes longer than a 10 second attention span to do science. Some gross-out photos are here [sturman.com], as well as a comparison of a QX3 vs.Zeiss dissection scope [uiuc.edu] as well as a comparison of the QX3 and another "inexpensive educational toy" called the Pocketscope [pocketscope.com]. The main Pocketscope site [pocketscope.com] talks about how to add video and lighting to their superior optics. Tinkering with, adjusting, modifying and using the QX3 is discussed here [fsu.edu], here [aol.com] and here [3dphoto.net]. More places to buy a QX3 before they go universally out of stock are GlobalMart [globe-mart.com], Erwincomputers [yahoo.com], and Amazon [amazon.com].
  • by Walt Dismal ( 534799 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @03:34PM (#3383881)
    Pros and cons:
    The Proscope accepts C-mount lenses, which are readily available cheaply. But the product does not have an adjustable stage, and you do not want to handhold at x500.
    The Qx3 has only the three supplied magnifications, but DOES have a (Z-axis) adjustable stage, which is more practical.
  • by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @03:44PM (#3383902) Homepage
    It just happens that I spent Friday afternoon finally getting my QX3 (I've had for about a year, picked up for about $50 at a supermarket (!) in an after-Xmas sale last year) running on my Linux box.

    I'm using a mostly stock SuSE 7.3 distro with the 2.4.10 kernel, the camera built into the QX3 is the same CPiA chipset that many other webcams use. I haven't done the necessary tweaking run the lamps, I just an external light. The "gqcam" program works fine for viewing/grabbing the images.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21, 2002 @03:52PM (#3383916)
    well, they really are just toys, but the slashdoted page shows you how to modify it to improve the image. also, it shows how an abbe condensor can improve the image quality by at least 3 times.
  • by rbruels ( 253523 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @03:56PM (#3383936) Homepage
    The QX3 is supported in the latest versions of Macam for OS X. I have not yet experimented with the software, but have heard okay-to-good things about it.

    His CVS repository is a little outdated, so download the drivers from the web site. :)

    http://webcam-osx.sourceforge.net/
  • by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @04:19PM (#3383991) Homepage
    Edmund Scientific sells a ton of this kind of stuff. Their stereo microscope page [scientificsonline.com] lists stuff ranging from about $150 to $1000. Take your choice.

    I recall long hours of drooling over everything in the Edmund catalog when I was a kid. Heck, their catalog (and web site) is still worth some time drooling over. So many toys, so little money, sigh...
  • by leighklotz ( 192300 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @05:48PM (#3384229) Homepage

    The CPIA driver works fine with it for Linux, for viewing. Unfortunately, the code to turn the lights off and on has been commented out of the driver due to a buffer overflow.

    I've got it running with the RedHat 7.3. I had to merge the driver from http://webcam.sourceforge.net with the drivers in the kernel source and recompile. I tried compiling the driver outside the tree but got bit by a bug in USB link ordering. Once you apply the updates you'll be able to use simple command-line statements to turn the lights off and on.

    If you're going to try these patches on RedHat 7.2 or on some other Linux distribution, you'll have to merge the driver on http://webcam.sourceforge.net with your distributions's driver yourself.

    For my code and images, see http://graflex.org/klotz/qx3 [graflex.org].

    Of course, the best thing would be for the webcam.sourceforge.net people and the kernel people to resolve their differences and get the write code for /proc/cpia enabled. Until then, turning the lights on under Linux will be a DIY project.

  • by Saurentine ( 9540 ) on Monday April 22, 2002 @01:19AM (#3385722) Journal
    Can someone tell me how, under Windows, to spoof the driver into thinking I've a Pentium 4 processor?

    In the literature accompanying mine, it actually specifies that with a Pentium 4 processor, you get better resolution at higher magnifications, additional effects, and faster screen refreshes. I'm sure it's a deliberate screw up of the software if it doesn't detect a Pentium 4, (or other Intel processor, I suppose) and that pisses me off.

    In fact, I can see the artifacts that are artificially added on the screen. There's a spattering of pixels that appear "dead" on screen: they're always some obviously wrong color that's slightly "off" what you'd otherwise expect to see at that point, and the "dead" spots don't move at all when the underlying target images are moved.

    Artificially screwing up the quality of your products for AMD customers won't bring customers back, Intel! In fact, it does quite the opposite for me. Assholes.

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Working...