hello everybody, i am using a camera mounted in my trinocular microscope for working on by torso but the screen doesnt give depth perception, i was getting pretty good with insertions but with this method i find it very very slow and difficult to get insertions right so not sustainable for now my questions are :
-is there any system to have 3D rendition via 3D glasses or any other item preferably using my microscope
-does any of you use a screen with camera to work, and is it possible to get used to it and be efficient working like this ? (i have a behemothic work to do and i have only be able to do my hands and antérior upper arms working normally with the microscope and i havent found a partner to trade work)
thanks
You will need a stereo microscope to see in 3D. Your best option outside of a stereo microscope are professional telescopic loupes which will allow you to see in 3D/stereo without any modification.
i do have a stereomicroscope, the idea is to have 3D real time video rendition of the microscopeâs view with a VR headset to work on part of my body where i cannot leaning over to look into the microscopes eyepieces (i am not a contortionist sadly 
)
A VR headset is a wonderful idea. Perhaps someone else can chime in on the subject.
1 Like
A lovely gentleman here put me onto
a stereo microscope with the 4k camera hooked up to a 4k monitor with a amplifying hdmi cable. I had hope of woking on people off the monitor so i didnt have to be looking through a magnifier or the microscope itself, but No, on a screen no matter how good the cam and set up you have no depth, even at max magnification it is just to hard to judge, I was also going to do the side of my own face using it, Nope, no way, you think putting a fine necklace on in a mirror is hard, lol, stabbed and poked myself , it was a mess, I got a trade off partner to start on next week.
1 Like
i had exactly the same issue, nearly impossible to do proper insertions efficiently without the stereoscopique vision, i was able to do some good treatement with the view from the screen but to do all my extremly hairy torso it would take me years and years with this method, hence the idea of a VR headset where i could lay down on my table with my head relaxed on a pilow and work with a perfect view, my research concluded that a system like this does not exist, it would be very dowable with two cameras instead of the two eyepieces then a softwar to process the two videos to give a stereoscopique view via virtual reality mask, but the micrscope community is a niche and there is not a big demande for a system to work without looking into the eyepieces ⊠maybe i ll try to do it with two seperate cameras fixed into the binauculars and use a sotfwar to stream them into a metaquest maskâŠ
Hi, Iâm interested in this and was/am halfway setting up a stereo microscope with a trinocular camera to do exactly what has been attempted here. Sounds like it will be a dissapointing excersize but I will give it a crack anyways to validate for myself.
If you still wanted to use a flat screen, it may be possible to use two cameras on the stereomicroscope, but instead of on the trinocular, you would put both cameras over each eyepiece.
Then, you can purchase either stereoscopic or autostereoscopic LCD panels. They are expensive, but they do produce depth perception.
Stereoscopic displays usually mean you have to wear some polarising shutter glasses for them to work, autostereoscopic displays use some physics magic so you donât need to wear anything to get the 3D depth effect.
As a regular to heavy user of VR, I can say that VR is a really bad idea for long term use such as electrolysis, the lenses in the headset have a small dynamic focus range, they cause massive eye strain. I love VR for gaming but I wouldnât think your eye health would be great if you were using it for work 8 hours a day.
1 Like
if you havent bought the camera i highly suggest you not, it is really a pain in the A** to work in 2D view, really doable if you have 20-30 hairs to treat but if you are doing extensive work absolutely not managable. And the trinocular cameras are too bulky to be set in the eyepieces so i suggest you a cheap 5mp usb 3 camera that can be disposed in the eyepieces with adaptators (they are 2,8x2,8cm)
i have checked the stereoscopic screen but they are totally out of buget for now
i am not a professional i only work on myself so i will need 500-1000 Hours total of work so a VR mask is my best bet i think while working and having 30 min rest every 2-3 hours. but i havent tested any VR mask yet do you think the rendering will be good and will permit the same view as seeing in the eyepieces directly ?
I already have the microscope and trinocular camera, if i decide to persue the autostereoscopic display I agree with you and already decided iâd have to use smaller profile cameras on the eyepieces as a lot of the trinocular cameras are wider than the diameter of the barrel.
For VR, the issue you are going to have is that you are going to require doing the following:
-
Setup your equipment as above - dual microscopic cameras that are capable of decent quality, the cameras refresh rate will need to match or exceed the VR headset refresh rate, so youâre looking at purchasing two 90hz/fps to 144hz/fps cameras just to keep up with the headset. The resolution of each eye in the headset is 1440x1600 for the Valve Index (much better FOV, passthrough cameras and higher refresh rate to reduce motion artifacts and blur) and 2560x2560 for the Bigscreen Beyond (slower refresh rate, higher resolution, less screendoor effect, way more comfortable). These cameras if you canf ind them to run at this refresh rate and speed are going to be well over a thousand dollars each.
-
You will need to have a decent computer with a dedicated GPU that will take both camera feeds without frame drop (very important, they must easily hit 60fps under load), stitch them into a VR 3D format (ie HSBS or SBS format) and then have some way of driving that inside an app. So youâd have to consider at least a thousand dollars here as well for the PC setup if you dont have it.
-
Lots of debugging and coding. You are developing a custom VR application. Simply using a 3D movie application that exists wont help, because these just project the movie on a static plane and wonât achieve the affect you require when moving your head (the âcinema screenâ will stay still and you will move in the roomspace, not when you move your head, the âvirtual cameraâ moves around the patient bodyâ. So you need to learn unity and spend months to a year figuring it out.
After all of this if you have succeeded, you have spent more money than a $2000 3D autostereoscopic LCD.
There is a potential âmidwayâ solution here which is that there âactive 3Dâ setups that use polarising shutter glasses, however I havenât chosen them as a suitable option because they have a list of complex downsides like the VR example, although probably being a lot cheaper.
I have not fully explored the possibility of using cheaper AR glasses, never tried them so not sure if theyâd be any good.
My current idea for developing a tool for regular (commerical) electrolysis use actually is basically that what we need is the same thing as a microscope, but with the proportions extremely blown up.
Magnifying lens lamps/magilamps are autostereoscopic because the lens is so big that both your eyes look through it but from different view points. And they cost like $20-70. But, they also suck because itâs a single lens so thereâs no way to adjust the focal point, which means you canât do cool stuff like use a mirror for better ergonomics or anything, because you lose half the distance of the magilamp which doesnât work out physically. I am trying to find someone good in optics who can help do the math to figure out how to make a ârediculously large microscopeâ which would involve a few magilamp style lenses, some which are adjustable, so you could make a bellows-camera style looking device which had variable focal length, ability to refocus at different focal lengths.
Sadly the more you mess around the more of your time you lose trying to save money elsewhere.
If the problem for you is that you cant see your face very well or trying to work on yourself, your better bet is to make a friend and practice together on each other in inconspicuous areas, and when confident, actually perform the clearance in the areas you want on each other.
From what I hear, doing electrolysis in reverse/mirror mode on yourself is slow and tricky, two things normal electrolysis already is⊠I donât think youâre setting yourself up for success.
1 Like
you got bit too technical for me here
i have seen about AR glasses as they seem much more compatible with this idea (better ergonomy, and the possibility to see normaly through the glasses to see the environement whiile having a screen in the midle that display the microscopee view), the xreal one seems pretty good and have 1080p screens that match each of the two cameras resolution but they go to 120 Hz, the camera i talked about are 5 mp 1080p at 60 fps, what are the possible problems for not matching the higher AR glasses fps ?
for the latency problem the camera and the AR glasses use usb 3.0 and i do have a pretty good CPU+GPU pc so i dont think latency will be a probleme
now i just need to know about the probleme that you mentionned about the fps matching
and the capability of a softwar like OBS to feed each screen of the glasses with each feed of the camera to give me a central AR screen that simulate the view i get when ii look directly in the eyepieces
Sorry, let me simply it a bit:
If you decide to implement a 3D solution using 2x cameras with VR, AR glasses, 3D TV, 3D Monitor, or projector with 3D shutter glasses, in any case, to âretrieveâ the 3D picture again, you will probably need custom software to synchronize the timing of both cameras, and combine both video streams, and then deliver that to your headset with spatial tracking. You will also need understanding on programming/scripting plus 3D environment skills such as Unity. This is on top of the considerable physical costs to reproduce the 3D image (all of the above is at least $1K to get started reasonably).
All of this is totally doable, but non-trivial, and nobody knows if the results would be âgood enoughâ. If you had some difficulties with my technical description earlier, that would be an indicator that you would be unlikely to succeed without a lot more research and skill.
An easier solution might be to get just a really large magnifying lens, such as an off the shelf magi-lamp/ring lamp, or get a custom really large lens made, as they are by nature, â3D automaticallyâ. The image quality/âresolutionâ of your eyes, even under cheap magilamps, is likely to be a lot better than the image quality under even the best VR headset, and if the issue is âmirroringâ so you can work on yourself, I recommend you train with a friend and do electrolysis on each other when comfortable. Doing it on yourself just sucks.
1 Like