I would suggest to the author that they buy some microscopy oils as they will have a higher refractive index to water.
One option is glycerin as can be seen in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNWCB_GoQA4 (maybe it only works with pyrex glass ?)
Another option is to mix to fluids together, one with a higher index of refraction and one with lower. That way you can tune it to your particular scanner (although I would think most are the same).
How you see if your mix has the same refractive index as the glass I haven't figured out yet.
You can do this by direct observation but it is not going to be 100% accurate:
You'd need some kind of etched grating for reference.
Drop the glass+grating into the mix, check for changes to the grid lines where you know the glass resides. If you can spot it then you still have a difference.
You could also simply measure the refractive indices of both. (For most microscopy glass you can find out the exact index of refraction from the manufacturer so you really only need to measure one.)
So you get (scannerglass + fluid + gridsample), then measure the grid point distance (by taking as large a distance as you can across the grid) and compare to what you know it should be. The closer the grid measurements are to the actual dimensions the closer the index of refraction of the fluid will match the glass.
The vertical portions of the scratches in the dry pic are accentuated, while the horizontal portions of the same scrates are highlighted in the wet pic. The only thing I can think that would cause that is the chip being rotated 90 degrees in relation to the scanner light.
Toothpaste is mostly soap, so try that instead. Or mineral oil.
There are better ways to start a fire.
Silica and maybe even chalk will work fine to polish glass, though.
Amorphous hydrated silica is still hard enough to polish glass and abrade your tooth enamel. Chalk is not, although I'm not sure it's hard enough to abrade away your tartar deposits.
For film scanning, this is known as a wet-gate transfer. It's standard procedure for digitizing old cine film. The working fluid used has the same index of refraction as the film backing, so scratches disappear.
The guy who's photographing ICs just needs a toy-grade digital microscope.
This is because resolving power is directly proportional to numerical aperture, which is in turn proportional to the refractive index of the medium between the imaging device and the target object.
As a result, it works both ways: you can use it to increase resolution while either sending or receiving beams of light. For instance, the same technique is also used in light microscopy.
In the end, this is a clever and straightforward hack.
> Pliny the Elder (23-79AD) describes how glass balls filled with water could set clothes on fire when placed in line with the sun. Both Pliny and Seneca the Younger (3 BC-65 AD) also describe the magnifying effect of a glass globe filled with water.
Really? Sounds like a job for Adam and Jamie.
That's the package, not the silicon die.
I estimate that those images are taken with equivalent of about 60000 DPI. Even with that sort of resolution you can't really resolve the details in the smaller features.
In comparison typical macro lenses have 1:1 magnification, so e.g. D800 DSLR with 36MP sensor would have theoretical maximum of roughly 5000 DPI, and I would expect the reality to be quite a bit harsher than that.
But yeah, I do agree it's a catchier headline than "Immersion Scanning".
Wouldn't it be harder to try to get a good picture of the chip in such an angle that you could read the etching?
I assume this angle will most likely be "from the top", such that it basically turns into a scanner, and then it's easier to do it with an actual scanner.
I'll just assume that they tried the camera and the scanner works better.
I'm just basing my speculation on the fact that these guys probably have tried a lot of things and this is most likely the best way they've found.
It would be interesting to hear from them what were the results of other setups.
"(and contained as to not get IN the scanner, as that does NOT help the process)"
Not sure why but this seemed really funny in the technical context.
Also too bad I can't use use this trick when scanning cardboard boxes and manuals.
I don't think the scratches are on the scanner, since they're in the same location on both images and the CPU had to be moved to be placed in water.
And speaking only for myself, there are still a number of markings in your photoshopped image which I am unable to read, which can be clearly read on the immersed image.
I've never had to scan things like your process so I have no clue; just a thought.
For example, it may be standard procedure to smear a sample along the slide, place it on a stainer, retrieve it later, put some oil on it, and the lens of the actual microscope will come in contact with the oil.
It seems to do wonders with certain cases of slide scans, so I wonder if it helps with these kinds of wet-mount scans as well.