I am saying if you have all the genius attention, just ask them what they assume it is, if your going to tell them the magnification homeworld your magnification is not above 225X.
I have seen the reaction at 100 and then with my added digital scope to the conventional microscope it is not so much larger maybe twice as big but now 4 X as big.
You can check this yourself real easy, look at a fly wing at 100 then put your digital on and look at it.
www.protocol-online.org/forums/index.phpOn the monitor on which this calibration picture
was taken,
curezone.com/upload/_M_Forums/Morgellons/FHW/ref_docs/cal_slide.jpg the pic measured 169 mm wide.
As seen on the Curezone site, the pic measures
194 mm wide; the effective
magnification is 194mm divided by .45mm. =431 or
appx 400x. But, hey, don't take my word for it.
Grab a measuring stick with those tiny millimeter marks on
it and measure the size of the pic on YOUR monitor.
YMMV. [your mileage may vary], especially if you have
a Very Large Display and tell the 'puter to present the pic
as a full screen wallpaper image....
If one really likes BIG magnifications, one could always
load a photo displaying .500 mm wide "critter"
into a digital projector and paint the image against
the living room wall. Shazam! Now the pic is 2 meters wide!
Cool! That's a 4,000 x magnification!
[Well, yes, Virginia..it is over 4,000 times larger than life,
but..so what? Without the required additional digital data,
it's really just a fuzzy mess. Could be an interesting
"critter"...on the other hand, it could be a pita pocket.
You just can't tell. Please put the DLP projector away until
you get the "killer" photographic equipment necessary
to make "critters" "that large". Thank you.]
*[ the calibration pic was originally formatted at
96 dpi. The pic is being presented by the webpage at 72 dpi.
...fewer dots per inch results in a larger photo; in this case
the photo is 25 mm wider than the original. This "digital
magnification" caused by format changes is why the calibration
pic is identified as "375x" and the same photo when parked
at CZ expands to ~ 430x. [ I am comfortable identifying them
as "400x" photos, I am not greedy...400x is "close enough".
All photo's taken by the combination of the Celestron 44306
imager while using the same 10x lens on the same
bench microscope and submitted in the same VGA format
[640x480 pixels] and displayed on the CZ website will
be at the same magnification. [~400x]
I am not reduced to asking "a genius" for ther best guesses
as to what the magnification is of the equipment I am using.
I have tools. Calibration slides. Measuring sticks with
tiny little marks neatly printed/embossed/milled onto them.
Clearly marked optical lenses. A calculator to cross check
what all the markings on the lenses/measuring sticks/slides
are telling me.
So you see, I have no need to compare
my work with someones photo of a "flys wing"..nor to rely
on the subjective guesses of others who are clearly
placing far too high a value on opinion rather than
demonstrable facts. Determining the size of things
is neither voodoo nor witchcraft. I have no need to investigate
the entrails of an owl to discover a magnification ratio.
That is the job for measuring tools.
[...and just a light dusting of math..].