My dendrochronological research is focused on musical instruments, mainly from the violin family. Therefore using a scanner is not an option, as violin tops are always arched. Accordingly I have always been working with a photo camera.
I use a reflex camera, Nikon D80, together with a 150mm macro lens. But any lens with a focal length of 100mm or higher will be suitable for dendrochronological analysis. It should, however, be a macro lens. True macro lenses are fix-focal lenses, which means that their optical design is optimized without compromises for one focal length, resulting in sharp and virtually distortion-free images.
Most of the ordinary lenses, on the contrary, are zoom lenses which usually suffer from barrel distorsion at one end of the zoom range and from pincushion distortion at the other end. Only a small part of the range is free from distortion. Additionally, the minimum focusing distance of these lenses is significantly higher than that of macro lenses. This means that you will not be able to get close enough to the sample, resulting in photos with a too low resolution.
However, also macro lenses would produce low resolution photos if I would insist on taking the picture with a single shot. When photographing half a violin top plate (ca. 10cm) with a 10MP camera the resulting resolution would be about 980dpi, which is much too low for serious measurements.
My minimum requirement for violins is 2500dpi (ca. 0,01mm/dot); I am a little bit less demanding as far as cellos or double basses are concerned (2000-2200dpi), as they generally have a higher average ring width.
The trick to nevertheless achieve the required resolution is to take partial photos which can be put together with a stitching software.
"Photo stitching is the process of combining multiple photographic images with overlapping fields of view to produce a segmented panorama or high-resolution image" (from Wikipedia)(1).
I will describe my method using the example of half a violin top plate.
First I put a ruler made from paper across the violin. The ruler has markers (black rectangles) at 25mm intervals to aid with framing. As I already mentioned, dedicated macro lenses have no zoom mechanism, therefore I adjust the distance of the camera in order to see a 35mm portion of the ruler centered around two markers when looking through the viewfinder. Making the pictures wider than the distance between the markers ensures that there will be enough overlap between the photos, which is required by the stitching software to work properly.
To make sure that all photos have (almost) the same resolution, an exact lateral movement of the camera is required. I achieve this by using a sliding micropositioning plate, which is a device that enables an exact linear movement of the camera (2). Here is a photo of a typical set up:
To cover half a violin top plate I need four photos:
The black rectangles serve also as references for the stitching software, to help finding corresponding areas between the photos. Year rings alone often do not have enough details for the pattern matching algorithms.
The stitching process is automatic. However, manual corrections are regularly required. The millimeter division of the ruler helps with checking whether the photos have been put together correctly.
This is a 100% crop of the photo above, viewed in CooRecorder. The resolution is 2625dpi:
To check the linearity of the stitched photo I performed a "rulertest".
(See also: http://www.cybis.se/forfun/dendro/helpc ... ?calibrate) (Link edited 2016-04-20/LÅL)
This is the result:
The "ring width curve" made from the millimeter marks drops slightly towards the right because the positioning plate is not running exactly parallel to the violin, which actually is impossible to achieve as violin tops are always arched.
I have divided the 101 points of the measurement series into four segments and calculated the mean value of each segment to quantify the non-linearity.
From the left to the right:
1st segment (100-75) mean value=1,011mm
2nd segment (74-50) mean value=1,004mm
3rd segment (49-25) mean value=0,996mm
4th segment (24-0) mean value=0,986mm
Altogether this is a perfectly acceptable result. It will probably be even better when working with flat samples.
I agree that to take accurate photos of samples for dendrochronological analysis the first choice should always be a scanner. But if a scanner is not an option because the sample is not flat, as in my case, or because the sample is too big or too heavy (e.g. a piece of furniture) or for some other reason, the method I described is a practical alternative.
---------------------------------------
Notes:
(1) I use alternately two stitching tools: PanoramaMaker which I found on the CD-ROM that was shipped with a Panasonic camera I purchased a few years ago, and PhotoStitch which is shipped with Canon cameras. Occasionally one software struggles more than the other to put the single pictures together correctly, therefore I sometimes switch between the two. Apparently they work with different algorithms.
Here you will find a list of stitching tools. However, excluding PanoramaMaker, I am not familiar with any of them.
(2) I have purchased mine (Novoflex CASTEL-XL) at Brenner,
a German mail-order business for photographic equipment. (Unfortunately the site is only in German).
The upper block, which carries the camera, can be accurately positioned with the knob at the front. The beam that on its part carries the upper block can be pushed back and forth to increase the effective length of the adjustment track to 380mm, despite the length of the beam being only 256mm.
I have chosen for this large range in order to be able to measure double basses in one operation. More common lengths of the adjustment track vary between 100mm and 150mm.
This is an English site advertising the Manfrotto454:
http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-manfr ... -plate.htm
An alternative to scanning samples
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19
- Joined: 28 Dec 2008, 18:39
- Real name: Torbjörn Axelson
- Location: Björbo, Dalarna, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: An alternative to scanning samples
Thank you, Roberto, for this very nice presentation!
And the quality of your images, produced by the described method and equipment, are indeed impressing!
I do agree on the most things you write, except the resolution needed for credible datings (also much poorer resolution will usually work fine!) If a dating is credible or not depends on correlation values, visual curve control, and "helping context" if present (i.e other wood from the same context, giving a similar result) And so I think the use of panorama software is a bit overdoing (even if beautiful, indeed!) – copy the original images beside each other in a wide image document using GIMP or Photoshop, save as .jpg, and just bridge the gaps with CooRecorder works fine! Actually, also with scanned cores it is often unavoidable to work with much "lower practical resolution" i.e less number of dots per ring, according to very narrow rings. Here is an example of that from a project of mine of the last week, a barn from 1758-59:
Core id is FHKA03a and the most narrow rings are just 0.07 respectively 0.09 mm! (and aproximately 6-9 dots) The resolution is formally 2400 dpi, but as seen not very clear. But higher resolution will unfortunately not increase the result very much, when measuring total ring widths only, according to my experience. The main problem is to really be able to detect those very small rings, which may very well be absent in parts of the circuit, and than even in very strong magnification, they are still not visible.
A report (in Swedish) on the barn dating with rwl-files included are at http://www.taxelson.se/dendro/obj/FHKA.pdf . Fortunately for violin-dendro, absent rings are much more rare in spruce than in pine.
As I do myself mainly work with cores, and scanner, however, sometimes I also try to catch tree ring patterns with a camera from things like sanded floors, furnitures and things like that. Such things are in my area normally made of pine tree wood (Pinus sylvestris), but sometimes also of spruce wood (Picea abies). Such "trials" are often done a bit spontaneously and they are not always successful. One reason is of course that my equipment is very simple (see below). I am able to make images with a resolution with about 1000-1200 dpi, but even if I did have an equipment like Robertos I think I often would fail anyway, according to any of the following reasons:
1.The surface is not plain enough.
2.The rings are too narrow (Wood like that in the example above, can be properly measured from crosscuts only) Unfortunately that kind of extremely narrow ringed wood – often even worse than that above - was often used for furnitures made in the northern Scandinavian countryside.
3.In pine tree wood, there are often white resin vessels in the late wood, which will be difficult to distinguish from early wood if the rings are very narrow.
4.The direction of the light is critical. Direct flash is useless and so also light coming from the side. It has to incline along the wood structure.
I am using a Minolta Dimage F300 which is just a compact camera bought 5 1/2 years ago. It is said to give 5 M pixel but 4 M pixel mode gives as good images, so I only use that – the rest is just blur. The macro do focus at a distance down to about 150 mm between the leans and the object, and the image width is than about 45 mm. Of course this is not the optimal camera for this purpose, but the results may anyway be of some interest, to show that not only the very best equipment is useful. This camera use to be in my pocket, so sometimes I get unexpected opportunities to portray some rings! Instead of a stative just a ruler, or a piece of thin wood, could be used to ensure that the distance between the camera and the object will be the same for all the images.
Just to demonstrate I used one of the 4" boards of pine tree in my floor, just here I am.
This image was taken in almost optimal light, and I was able to get the camera to focus close enough to produce images with as much as 1248 dpi (if the light is not so good, the auto focus works poorer). The light have to be in the same direction as the wood, and not from the side. Even if the distortion from the camera is low enough according to the ruler test, the saw cut on a floor board is often not through the pitch and therefore the inner rings are a lot to wide. It is therefore normally not a good idea to mix such measurements in a reference collection, but if it is from an area or an age where you have not enough other data, it may be better than nothing – if shared with care... The neg-exp detrend function of CDendro will also take care of the effect If you like!
In this example the narrowest ring is about 0.2 mm and I think that wood with more than 3 or 4 rings per mm is normally not datable with this method when dealing with normally sanded or planed wood. The much higher finish of violins, and the absence of the white vessels in spruce wood will surely make it possible to identify rings more narrow than that if resolution is high enough!
To increase the measurement quality when the image quality is low, you may measure the same sequence twice and make a mean of them.
So, using the mean of two series from the same photo it will date to 1900 towards a range of more or less local chronologies.
Well, not a good match but as I know the house was build 1914 it is surely right.
Making a mean of those references and than testing the two measured cores and the mean, gives this result:
The low correlation values are probably not a result of the method. I did also test with another board from the same floor:
In this case the values are very good, although the rings also are a bit broader, I think the main reason simply is that the first tree does not give better values than that. Such corr values are indeed rather normal in this area.
Here are the raw data for all samples:
Best regards, Torbjörn
And the quality of your images, produced by the described method and equipment, are indeed impressing!
I do agree on the most things you write, except the resolution needed for credible datings (also much poorer resolution will usually work fine!) If a dating is credible or not depends on correlation values, visual curve control, and "helping context" if present (i.e other wood from the same context, giving a similar result) And so I think the use of panorama software is a bit overdoing (even if beautiful, indeed!) – copy the original images beside each other in a wide image document using GIMP or Photoshop, save as .jpg, and just bridge the gaps with CooRecorder works fine! Actually, also with scanned cores it is often unavoidable to work with much "lower practical resolution" i.e less number of dots per ring, according to very narrow rings. Here is an example of that from a project of mine of the last week, a barn from 1758-59:
Core id is FHKA03a and the most narrow rings are just 0.07 respectively 0.09 mm! (and aproximately 6-9 dots) The resolution is formally 2400 dpi, but as seen not very clear. But higher resolution will unfortunately not increase the result very much, when measuring total ring widths only, according to my experience. The main problem is to really be able to detect those very small rings, which may very well be absent in parts of the circuit, and than even in very strong magnification, they are still not visible.
A report (in Swedish) on the barn dating with rwl-files included are at http://www.taxelson.se/dendro/obj/FHKA.pdf . Fortunately for violin-dendro, absent rings are much more rare in spruce than in pine.
As I do myself mainly work with cores, and scanner, however, sometimes I also try to catch tree ring patterns with a camera from things like sanded floors, furnitures and things like that. Such things are in my area normally made of pine tree wood (Pinus sylvestris), but sometimes also of spruce wood (Picea abies). Such "trials" are often done a bit spontaneously and they are not always successful. One reason is of course that my equipment is very simple (see below). I am able to make images with a resolution with about 1000-1200 dpi, but even if I did have an equipment like Robertos I think I often would fail anyway, according to any of the following reasons:
1.The surface is not plain enough.
2.The rings are too narrow (Wood like that in the example above, can be properly measured from crosscuts only) Unfortunately that kind of extremely narrow ringed wood – often even worse than that above - was often used for furnitures made in the northern Scandinavian countryside.
3.In pine tree wood, there are often white resin vessels in the late wood, which will be difficult to distinguish from early wood if the rings are very narrow.
4.The direction of the light is critical. Direct flash is useless and so also light coming from the side. It has to incline along the wood structure.
I am using a Minolta Dimage F300 which is just a compact camera bought 5 1/2 years ago. It is said to give 5 M pixel but 4 M pixel mode gives as good images, so I only use that – the rest is just blur. The macro do focus at a distance down to about 150 mm between the leans and the object, and the image width is than about 45 mm. Of course this is not the optimal camera for this purpose, but the results may anyway be of some interest, to show that not only the very best equipment is useful. This camera use to be in my pocket, so sometimes I get unexpected opportunities to portray some rings! Instead of a stative just a ruler, or a piece of thin wood, could be used to ensure that the distance between the camera and the object will be the same for all the images.
Just to demonstrate I used one of the 4" boards of pine tree in my floor, just here I am.
Code: Select all
G9o1aT2 1819 224
G9o1aT2 1820 193 222 122 175 214 165 122 118 134 124
G9o1aT2 1830 143 116 108 69 65 59 69 51 39 30
G9o1aT2 1840 23 22 26 29 35 36 29 28 39 35
G9o1aT2 1850 28 35 42 27 28 39 45 69 73 55
G9o1aT2 1860 49 59 55 55 43 59 53 40 31 30
G9o1aT2 1870 41 43 34 31 24 27 26 33 55 63
G9o1aT2 1880 96 53 52 33 71 57 59 69 53 66
G9o1aT2 1890 61 42 63 61 59 84 100 108 85 120
G9o1aT2 1900 106 999
(1848-1871 are the ones marked at the image)
In this example the narrowest ring is about 0.2 mm and I think that wood with more than 3 or 4 rings per mm is normally not datable with this method when dealing with normally sanded or planed wood. The much higher finish of violins, and the absence of the white vessels in spruce wood will surely make it possible to identify rings more narrow than that if resolution is high enough!
To increase the measurement quality when the image quality is low, you may measure the same sequence twice and make a mean of them.
So, using the mean of two series from the same photo it will date to 1900 towards a range of more or less local chronologies.
Code: Select all
Cybis CDendro, Algorithm: Proportion of last two years growth (2,0,T)
Correlations between available references in PISY-Skandinavien080812_6.fil and
G9o1aT2m.wid dated to 1900 with corr >= 0,40 and with overlap >= 81
Results sorted according to decreasing correlation coefficient values.
T- Over
Corr Test lap
all... 0,54 5,67 81 based on 7 members
SolorNor 0,47 4,68 81 Solør, sydöstra. Norge (digitaliserat av Arne Andersson)PISY
Sfsn-PIS 0,43 4,29 81 Sfsn 1 Säfsnäs socken, Dalarna PISY
FlodaSn0 0,43 4,21 81 Floda sn, Dalarna (mainly Björbo) (ej swed305) PISY
swed016 0,41 4,04 81 Glaskogen, Värmland (Schweingruber) PISY
fletab2 0,41 3,95 81 norska data A.A0702 PISY
swed309A 0,40 3,92 81 Aneby, Småland (Bredesta/Lysing) PISY
ESVEALAN 0,40 3,89 81 East Svealand Aneby+Askersu+Bettna+Sissham+Saltsjöba PISY
Making a mean of those references and than testing the two measured cores and the mean, gives this result:
Code: Select all
Cybis CDendro (Jan 24 2009), Algorithm: Proportion of last two years growth (2,0,T)
Correlations between each of 3 checked members (=all members) of the collection G9o1aT2.fil
and the reference PISY-Skandinavien080812.d12 dated to 2006
First column group is based on dating of the collection to 1900. (Offsets are relative to reference.)
Minimum overlap used when finding best match: 50
Member offset to ref
Off Over Corr TTest
Years set lap coeff
all... 82 106 81 0,53 5,6
G9o1aT2 82 106 81 0,49 5,0
G9o1aT2b 81 106 80 0,53 5,5
G9o1aT2m 82 106 81 0,54 5,7
Mean corr. of first column when overlap >= 50 (3 samples): 0,52
Standard deviation intervall 0,50 – 0,54
Code: Select all
Cybis CDendro, Algorithm: Proportion of last two years growth (2,0,T)
Correlations between available references in PISY-Skandinavien080812.fil and G9o13a.d12 (mean of two) dated to 1897 with corr >= 0,52 and with overlap >= 55
Results sorted according to decreasing correlation coefficient values.
T- Over
Corr Test lap
all... 0,80 10,83 69 based on 16 members
Petmyra 0,75 9,28 69 Petmyra (bogg), Björbo, Dalarna PISY
SödraDal 0,72 8,58 69 Södra Dalarna PISY
FlodaSn0 0,70 8,00 69 Floda sn, Dalarna (mainly Björbo) (ej swed305) PISY
swed016 0,70 7,99 69 Glaskogen, Värmland (Schweingruber) PISY
BjörboGr 0,70 7,99 69 Swed305 Björbo+Grangärde PISY
swed305 0,66 7,19 69 Björbo, Dalarna PISY
SolorNor 0,65 7,02 69 Solør, sydöstra. Norge (digitaliserat av Arne Andersson)PISY
Grangard 0,65 6,92 69 Grangärde, Dalarna PISY
swed305S 0,64 6,90 69 swed305+Risholn,Leksand+gamla fr Grangärde (17/2 2006) PISY
Swed307A 0,64 6,80 69 Lerbäck, Askersund PISY
Sfsn-PIS 0,63 6,68 69 Sfsn 1 Säfsnäs socken, Dalarna PISY
BratPISY 0,59 5,91 69 Mälardalen area, publ. Bråthen PISY
fletab2 0,57 5,72 69 norska data A.A0702 PISY
idre 0,52 5,04 69 Idre, Dalarna PISY
Sissh041 0,52 4,48 55 Sisshammar (T. Andreasson) PISY
se007 0,52 4,59 60 Dalarna region (Lunds Universitet, "extraterastrial") PISY
Here are the raw data for all samples:
Code: Select all
G9o1 1 Floor boards TA's house, Björbo PISY
G9o1 2 Sweden Pinus sylvestris 200 6027N1442N 1819 1900
G9o1 3 T. Axelson
G9o1 #### Ring pattern caught with camera with resolution of aprox. 1200 dpi. The inner rings are overestimated due to sawing beside the pitch.
G9o13a1 1828 169 148
G9o13a1 1830 157 140 90 118 127 83 77 76 64 81
G9o13a1 1840 63 46 51 48 67 58 67 60 78 65
G9o13a1 1850 60 37 30 41 63 64 65 71 81 95
G9o13a1 1860 106 86 87 77 92 76 76 60 86 74
G9o13a1 1870 83 81 90 71 93 90 71 60 83 56
G9o13a1 1880 78 47 73 40 57 60 67 58 46 70
G9o13a1 1890 64 86 106 111 127 111 120 83 999
G9o13a2 1828 201 145
G9o13a2 1830 150 139 106 127 132 83 83 76 58 85
G9o13a2 1840 60 42 53 49 69 53 69 63 76 64
G9o13a2 1850 63 46 28 25 62 63 64 65 92 95
G9o13a2 1860 97 102 90 71 90 83 67 63 85 74
G9o13a2 1870 85 81 81 74 99 97 58 69 65 51
G9o13a2 1880 51 55 99 46 67 65 60 49 55 72
G9o13a2 1890 76 76 106 104 122 107 115 90 999
G9o1aT2 1819 224
G9o1aT2 1820 193 222 122 175 214 165 122 118 134 124
G9o1aT2 1830 143 116 108 69 65 59 69 51 39 30
G9o1aT2 1840 23 22 26 29 35 36 29 28 39 35
G9o1aT2 1850 28 35 42 27 28 39 45 69 73 55
G9o1aT2 1860 49 59 55 55 43 59 53 40 31 30
G9o1aT2 1870 41 43 34 31 24 27 26 33 55 63
G9o1aT2 1880 96 53 52 33 71 57 59 69 53 66
G9o1aT2 1890 61 42 63 61 59 84 100 108 85 120
G9o1aT2 1900 106 999
G9o1aT2b1820 181 203 114 171 212 167 116 128 134 129
G9o1aT2b1830 126 120 110 85 67 55 72 46 39 26
G9o1aT2b1840 27 22 27 26 33 30 25 24 47 39
G9o1aT2b1850 34 37 47 20 27 36 47 61 75 51
G9o1aT2b1860 51 57 55 57 43 59 53 30 35 28
G9o1aT2b1870 53 45 37 34 23 24 27 34 49 59
G9o1aT2b1880 98 53 42 27 69 57 67 59 59 67
G9o1aT2b1890 62 46 61 53 67 88 104 100 75 114
G9o1aT2b1900 124 999
G9o1aT2m1819 224
G9o1aT2m1820 187 212 118 173 213 166 119 123 134 126
G9o1aT2m1830 134 118 109 77 66 57 70 48 39 28
G9o1aT2m1840 25 22 26 28 34 33 27 26 43 37
G9o1aT2m1850 31 36 44 24 28 38 46 65 74 53
G9o1aT2m1860 50 58 55 56 43 59 53 35 33 29
G9o1aT2m1870 47 44 36 32 24 26 26 34 52 61
G9o1aT2m1880 97 53 47 30 70 57 63 64 56 66
G9o1aT2m1890 62 44 62 57 63 86 102 104 80 117
G9o1aT2m1900 115 999
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests