[optimal] Re: artifact issue
- From: "George Henry, CRA, PBT" <ghenry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:54:59 -0600
I agree with Marty: if it does not change in size or position with a change in
magnification, it is NOT on the front element, but rather, on the mirror,
sensor, or relay lens surface.
George E. Henry, CRA, PBT
Wheaton Eye Clinic, Ltd.
2015 N. Main Street
Wheaton IL 60187
630.588.3615
This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or protected
health information that is of a sensitive nature, and may be used only by the
person or entity to which it is addressed subject to applicable law. If the
reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, the reader is hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
_____
From: optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Angiographics
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 06:42
To: optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [optimal] Re: artifact issue
One thing you said does NOT make any sense for an objective lens problem: that
the image doesn't change with a magnification change. If it were a tear on the
objective, it would get BIGGER when the mag increases. If it is static, it
must be somewhere else in the image path.
Unfortunately, I didn't get the image link using digest mode, so I can't make
any judgements about it.
Objective lens artifacts will appear white and in different focus on different
patients. You can usually focus right on them with the minus setting and the
illumination on its highest (in a darkened room, of course).
Older Topcons are subject to some internal flare problems that can look like
something on the objective. In this case the flare is usually in the center of
the image.
Marty Rothenberg
Angiographics, Inc.
Re: artifact issue
-----Original Message-----
From: FreeLists Mailing List Manager <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: optimal digest users <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue, Nov 26, 2013 1:14 am
Subject: optimal Digest V4 #227
optimal Digest Mon, 25 Nov 2013 Volume: 04 Issue: 227
In This Issue:
[optimal] Re: NaFl derived from exactly what?
[optimal] Re: optimal Digest V4 #226
[optimal] Re: optimal Digest V4 #226
[optimal] Re: optimal Digest V4 #226
[optimal] artifact issue
[optimal] Re: artifact issue
[optimal] Re: artifact issue
[optimal] Re: artifact issue
[optimal] Re: artifact issue
[optimal] Re: artifact issue
[optimal] Re: artifact issue
[optimal] Re: artifact issue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "George Henry, CRA, PBT" <ghenry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [optimal] Re: NaFl derived from exactly what?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:23:57 -0600
Beets seemed to be a popular answer back when I started out. I guess nobody
really wanted to tell a patient that we were about to inject them with
something derived from mothballs..
George E. Henry, CRA, PBT
Wheaton Eye Clinic, Ltd.
2015 N. Main Street
Wheaton IL 60187
630.588.3615
This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or
protected health information that is of a sensitive nature, and may be used
only by the person or entity to which it is addressed subject to applicable
law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, the reader
is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail
immediately.
_____
From: optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?> ] On
Behalf Of Marshall Tyler
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 16:38
To: optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [optimal] Re: NaFl derived from exactly what?
When I would hear residents tell a patient that it is a vegetable dye, I
would ask them later, "which vegetable?" This made for an interesting
discussion.
Thank you,
Marshall
Marshall E Tyler
------------------------------
From: "Bartsch, Dirk" <dbartsch@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [optimal] Re: optimal Digest V4 #226
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:38:20 +0000
Okay.
Here is the what wikipedia says. It confirms what Sandor said:
Sodium fluorescein is made from
Phthalic Anhydride and resorcinol
Phtalic anhydride is made from xylene and naphthalene
Xylene is an aromatic hydrocarbon produced either from crude oil or coal
Naphthalene is another aromatic hydrocarbon derived from coal tar and is the
main ingredient of mothballs
Resorcinol is made from resins, hydrocarbon secretions of many plants such as
brazil wood. Alternatively, resorcinol can be made synthetically from other
hydrocarbons.
So, in short. Sodium fluorescein is made from hydrocarbons. It is NOT a
vegetable dye and it is not made from vegetables. Perhaps the vegetable dye
story comes from the Chicago River celebration. They used to use sodium
fluorescein to dye the river green on St. Patrick�s Day. In 1966
environmentalists forced a change to a �vegetable-based dye to protect
wildlife�. That could be the origin of that part of the story.
Dirk-Uwe
On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:13 PM, FreeLists Mailing List Manager
<ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> optimal Digest Sun, 24 Nov 2013 Volume: 04 Issue: 226
>
> In This Issue:
> [optimal] Re: NaFl derived from exactly what?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:38:23 -0500
> Subject: [optimal] Re: NaFl derived from exactly what?
> From: Marshall Tyler <marshalletyler@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> When I would hear residents tell a patient that it is a vegetable dye, I
> would ask them later, "which vegetable?" This made for an interesting
> discussion.
> Thank you,
> Marshall
> Marshall E Tyler
> On Nov 22, 2013 7:49 PM, "Sandor Ferenczy" <sandorferenczy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> random thoughts, found via the US government:
>>
>> cook these:
>> phthalic anhydride
>> http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=6811
>> <http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=6811&loc=ec_rcs>
>> &loc=ec_rcs
>> +
>> resorcinol
>> http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=5054
>>
>> in the presence of zinc chloride
>> http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=5727
>> <http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=5727&loc=ec_rcs>
>> &loc=ec_rcs
>>
>> and you have fluorescein
>>
>> resorcinol may be where the idea of plant-derived came from, as it can be
>> derived from a pigment in the brazilwood tree. however, it cam be created
>> in other ways as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> For pregnant patients:
>> http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/f?./temp/~Bg8p8J:1
>>
>>
>>
>> and this made me laugh:
>> FDA says:
>> D&C Yellow #8 (aka fluorescein sodium), approved only for "*EXTERNALLY
>> APPLIED DRUGS & COSMETICS*. (None of these colors may be used in products
>> that are for use in the area of the eye)"
>>
>> http://hpd.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/household/brands?tbl=chem
>> <http://hpd.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/household/brands?tbl=chem&id=1359&query=fluorescein+sodium&searchas=TblChemicals>
>> &id=1359&query=fluorescein+sodium&searchas=TblChemicals
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> as for patients, i tell them it was first synthesized in 1871 from a few
>> different chemicals. about a dozen times or so i have given out the drug
>> info sheet, as career-chemists wanted the chemical structure. We're smack
>> in the middle of the old Princeton labs and the Dupont Chemical state of
>> Delaware...
>>
>>
>> my coffee break (and therefore rapid research) is over,
>>
>> sandor
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Steffens, Timothy <
>> tjsteffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I tell people we are injecting dinosaurs. It's a compound synthesized
>>> from petroleum.
>>>
>>> What's petroleum? Old dinosaurs and plants.
>>> What's fluorescein? Old dinosaurs and plants mixed with "stuff" to make
>>> it fluoresce.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Tim Steffens, CRA
>>> Director of Ophthalmic Imaging
>>> University of Michigan Kellogg Eye Center
>>> 1000 Wall Street
>>> Ann Arbor, MI
>>> P: 734-936-2283
>>> tjsteffe@xxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> From: <Stuart>, "<B. Alfred>", <B.S.>, <C.R.A.>, "O.C.T-C" <
>>> stuart.alfred@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reply-To: "optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Friday, November 22, 2013 12:13 PM
>>> To: "optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: [optimal] NaFl derived from exactly what?
>>>
>>> Eye Experts:
>>> I am stumped, is it Fluorescent dye, mineral source, water-soluable
>>> compound or plant source? I vote mineral source.
>>>
>>> TIA.
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Stuart Alfred, B.S., C.R.A., O.C.T.-C
>>> 528 North Bauman Street
>>> Indianapolis, IN 46214
>>> stuart.alfred@xxxxxxxxx
>>> 317 517-9455 cell
>>> *www.stuartalfred.com <http://www.stuartalfred.com
>>> <http://www.stuartalfred.com%3e*> >*
>>>
>>> **********************************************************
>>> Electronic Mail is not secure, may not be read every day, and should not
>>> be used for urgent or sensitive issues
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of optimal Digest V4 #226
> *****************************
>
------------------------------
From: "George Henry, CRA, PBT" <ghenry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [optimal] Re: optimal Digest V4 #226
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:21:47 -0600
Oh, they're still using fluorescein sodium to dye the Chicago River for St.
Patrick's Day... It's quite obvious when you see them pouring that dark
reddish-orange powder in the river, and it immediately fluoresces that
unmistakable yellow-green. I get a good laugh every time the newscasters
covering the event call it a "secret formula"!
George E. Henry, CRA, PBT(ASCP)
Wheaton Eye Clinic, Ltd.
2015 N. Main Street
Wheaton IL 60187
630.588.3615
-----Original Message-----
From: optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?> ] On
Behalf Of Bartsch, Dirk
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 13:38
To: optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [optimal] Re: optimal Digest V4 #226
Okay.
Here is the what wikipedia says. It confirms what Sandor said:
Sodium fluorescein is made from
Phthalic Anhydride and resorcinol
Phtalic anhydride is made from xylene and naphthalene
Xylene is an aromatic hydrocarbon produced either from crude oil or coal
Naphthalene is another aromatic hydrocarbon derived from coal tar and is the
main ingredient of mothballs
Resorcinol is made from resins, hydrocarbon secretions of many plants such
as brazil wood. Alternatively, resorcinol can be made synthetically from
other hydrocarbons.
So, in short. Sodium fluorescein is made from hydrocarbons. It is NOT a
vegetable dye and it is not made from vegetables. Perhaps the vegetable dye
story comes from the Chicago River celebration. They used to use sodium
fluorescein to dye the river green on St. Patrick's Day. In 1966
environmentalists forced a change to a "vegetable-based dye to protect
wildlife". That could be the origin of that part of the story.
Dirk-Uwe
------------------------------
From: "Bennett, Timothy" <tbennett1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [optimal] Re: optimal Digest V4 #226
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:35:00 +0000
I agree George. See Alan Frohlichstein's very cool blog post on the staining of
the Chicago River and the comments pertaining to the "secret formula":
http://www.opsweb.org/blogpost/772200/169233/Looking-for-a-Barrier-Filter-to-Cover-the-Sun
tim
-----Original Message-----
From: optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?> ] On
Behalf Of George Henry, CRA, PBT
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 4:22 PM
To: optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [optimal] Re: optimal Digest V4 #226
Oh, they're still using fluorescein sodium to dye the Chicago River for St.
Patrick's Day... It's quite obvious when you see them pouring that dark
reddish-orange powder in the river, and it immediately fluoresces that
unmistakable yellow-green. I get a good laugh every time the newscasters
covering the event call it a "secret formula"!
George E. Henry, CRA, PBT(ASCP)
Wheaton Eye Clinic, Ltd.
2015 N. Main Street
Wheaton IL 60187
630.588.3615
-----Original Message-----
From: optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?> ] On
Behalf Of Bartsch, Dirk
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 13:38
To: optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [optimal] Re: optimal Digest V4 #226
Okay.
Here is the what wikipedia says. It confirms what Sandor said:
Sodium fluorescein is made from
Phthalic Anhydride and resorcinol
Phtalic anhydride is made from xylene and naphthalene
Xylene is an aromatic hydrocarbon produced either from crude oil or coal
Naphthalene is another aromatic hydrocarbon derived from coal tar and is the
main ingredient of mothballs
Resorcinol is made from resins, hydrocarbon secretions of many plants such as
brazil wood. Alternatively, resorcinol can be made synthetically from other
hydrocarbons.
So, in short. Sodium fluorescein is made from hydrocarbons. It is NOT a
vegetable dye and it is not made from vegetables. Perhaps the vegetable dye
story comes from the Chicago River celebration. They used to use sodium
fluorescein to dye the river green on St. Patrick's Day. In 1966
environmentalists forced a change to a "vegetable-based dye to protect
wildlife". That could be the origin of that part of the story.
Dirk-Uwe
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:28:44 -0500
Subject: [optimal] artifact issue
From: Darrin Landry <darrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Optimalers:
I have a practice with an artifact problem. They are using a Topcon 50X
camera.
At first blush it looks like a typical tears on the objective lens issue,
but fervent cleaning of the lens didn't fix the problem, and it can't be
viewed either from the front or through the minus diopter lens setting. I
have asked 5 times if they are sure they cleaned the lens well.
I am assuming it's something on the objective lens, as it's a white
artifact (I am troubleshooting this over the phone, as they are very rural,
and no chance I will be in their neck of the woods anytime soon. If I am,
something has gone terribly wrong in my career).
I am thinking it's on the anterior surface of the objective lens, but it's
not easy talking someone through dismantling the objective lens over the
phone. Changing filters, magnification and focus doesn't change the
appearance of this artifact. This came on rather sudden as well- not a slow
growing problem.
I have attached the example they sent me- if anyone has any ideas, thoughts,
etc, I welcome your input.
Thanks in advance
Darrin
Darrin Landry, CRA, OCT-C
Bryson Taylor Inc.
------------------------------
From: anton.drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [optimal] Re: artifact issue
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:45:29 +1030
Darrin, I agree with you on first sight that is is indicative of tear
splash.
To happen so quickly that would be my first thought.
Do they check the front objective by turning the lights low and
cranking the focus light to full intensity ?
I personally have found this the best technique for checking for
errant artifacts, and have picked up
splotches this way, that under room light, or low focus light can be
easily missed.
Just my 2cc's worth.
Anton Drew
Adelaide
South Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To:"optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
Cc:
Sent:Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:28:44 -0500
Subject:[optimal] artifact issue
Optimalers:
I have a practice with an artifact problem. They are using a Topcon
50X camera. At first blush it looks like a typical tears on the
objective lens issue, but fervent cleaning of the lens didn't fix the
problem, and it can't be viewed either from the front or through the
minus diopter lens setting. I have asked 5 times if they are sure they
cleaned the lens well. I am assuming it's something on the objective
lens, as it's a white artifact (I am troubleshooting this over the
phone, as they are very rural, and no chance I will be in their neck
of the woods anytime soon. If I am, something has gone terribly wrong
in my career). I am thinking it's on the anterior surface of the
objective lens, but it's not easy talking someone through dismantling
the objective lens over the phone. Changing filters, magnification and
focus doesn't change the appearance of this artifact. This came on
rather sudden as well- not a slow growing problem. I have attached the
example they sent me- if anyone has any ideas, thoughts, etc, I
welcome your input.
Thanks in advance
Darrin
Darrin Landry, CRA, OCT-C Bryson Taylor Inc.
------------------------------
Subject: [optimal] Re: artifact issue
From: Brice Critser <bricecritser@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:31:09 -0600
Darrin,
Have you tried turning off the alignment aid? It sort of looks an artifact that
we have on one of our 50 DX's. Try turning off the alignment aid and take a
test
shot and turn it on and see if the artifact appears. Do you use the alignment
dots as you take images?
Brice Critser
Sent from my iPhone 5
> On Nov 25, 2013, at 6:28 PM, Darrin Landry <darrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Optimalers:
>
> I have a practice with an artifact problem. They are using a Topcon 50X
camera.
> At first blush it looks like a typical tears on the objective lens issue, but
fervent cleaning of the lens didn't fix the problem, and it can't be viewed
either from the front or through the minus diopter lens setting. I have asked 5
times if they are sure they cleaned the lens well.
> I am assuming it's something on the objective lens, as it's a white artifact
(I am troubleshooting this over the phone, as they are very rural, and no
chance
I will be in their neck of the woods anytime soon. If I am, something has gone
terribly wrong in my career).
> I am thinking it's on the anterior surface of the objective lens, but it's
> not
easy talking someone through dismantling the objective lens over the phone.
Changing filters, magnification and focus doesn't change the appearance of this
artifact. This came on rather sudden as well- not a slow growing problem.
> I have attached the example they sent me- if anyone has any ideas, thoughts,
etc, I welcome your input.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Darrin
>
> Darrin Landry, CRA, OCT-C
> Bryson Taylor Inc.
> <photo.JPG>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:38:33 -0500
Subject: [optimal] Re: artifact issue
From: "Michael R. Turano, Jr." <turano@xxxxxxxxx>
I was gonna say the same thing Brice, but his description of the camera as
a 50X made me think otherwise as the alignment aids appeared on the EX
vintage I believe. Darrin can you confirm the model is an X and not an EX
version/vintage. I have also seen this occasionally with room lighting a
well placed ceiling "can" light has caused me similar artifacts.
Does it happen on every patient?
Michael
Mike
__
Michael Turano
c. 917.826.9506
f. 917.591.1841
e. turano@xxxxxxxxx
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Brice Critser <bricecritser@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Darrin,
>
> Have you tried turning off the alignment aid? It sort of looks an artifact
> that we have on one of our 50 DX's. Try turning off the alignment aid and
> take a test shot and turn it on and see if the artifact appears. Do you use
> the alignment dots as you take images?
>
> Brice Critser
> Sent from my iPhone 5
>
>
> > On Nov 25, 2013, at 6:28 PM, Darrin Landry <darrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > Optimalers:
> >
> > I have a practice with an artifact problem. They are using a Topcon 50X
> camera.
> > At first blush it looks like a typical tears on the objective lens
> issue, but fervent cleaning of the lens didn't fix the problem, and it
> can't be viewed either from the front or through the minus diopter lens
> setting. I have asked 5 times if they are sure they cleaned the lens well.
> > I am assuming it's something on the objective lens, as it's a white
> artifact (I am troubleshooting this over the phone, as they are very rural,
> and no chance I will be in their neck of the woods anytime soon. If I am,
> something has gone terribly wrong in my career).
> > I am thinking it's on the anterior surface of the objective lens, but
> it's not easy talking someone through dismantling the objective lens over
> the phone. Changing filters, magnification and focus doesn't change the
> appearance of this artifact. This came on rather sudden as well- not a slow
> growing problem.
> > I have attached the example they sent me- if anyone has any ideas,
> thoughts, etc, I welcome your input.
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Darrin
> >
> > Darrin Landry, CRA, OCT-C
> > Bryson Taylor Inc.
> > <photo.JPG>
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: [optimal] Re: artifact issue
From: Marc Gilels <vasion@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:45:44 -0500 (EST)
spit spot ....100% positive
-----Original Message-----
From: Darrin Landry <darrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: optimal <optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 7:29 pm
Subject: [optimal] artifact issue
Optimalers:
I have a practice with an artifact problem. They are using a Topcon 50X camera.
At first blush it looks like a typical tears on the objective lens issue, but
fervent cleaning of the lens didn't fix the problem, and it can't be viewed
either from the front or through the minus diopter lens setting. I have asked 5
times if they are sure they cleaned the lens well.
I am assuming it's something on the objective lens, as it's a white artifact
(I
am troubleshooting this over the phone, as they are very rural, and no chance I
will be in their neck of the woods anytime soon. If I am, something has gone
terribly wrong in my career).
I am thinking it's on the anterior surface of the objective lens, but it's not
easy talking someone through dismantling the objective lens over the phone.
Changing filters, magnification and focus doesn't change the appearance of this
artifact. This came on rather sudden as well- not a slow growing problem.
I have attached the example they sent me- if anyone has any ideas, thoughts,
etc, I welcome your input.
Thanks in advance
Darrin
Darrin Landry, CRA, OCT-C
Bryson Taylor Inc.
------------------------------
From: Jonathan Shankle <jonathan.shankle@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:52:10 -0500
Subject: [optimal] Re: artifact issue
I'm not 100% it's a spit/blink/tear spot, but I am 100% it's on the front
element. There's actually two spots, and the alignment of the two doesn't
match up with the typical alignment you see with the fixation aids, likely
moot anyways as it's a 50x and they didn't feature those.
If I had a nickel for every time someone swore a front element was clean,
only to find it looked like someone had covered it in oatmeal.. Well, I'd
have a few nickels.
- Jonathan
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 25, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Marc Gilels <vasion@xxxxxxx> wrote:
spit spot ....100% positive
-----Original Message-----
From: Darrin Landry <darrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: optimal <optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 7:29 pm
Subject: [optimal] artifact issue
Optimalers:
I have a practice with an artifact problem. They are using a Topcon 50X
camera.
At first blush it looks like a typical tears on the objective lens issue,
but fervent cleaning of the lens didn't fix the problem, and it can't be
viewed either from the front or through the minus diopter lens setting. I
have asked 5 times if they are sure they cleaned the lens well.
I am assuming it's something on the objective lens, as it's a white
artifact (I am troubleshooting this over the phone, as they are very rural,
and no chance I will be in their neck of the woods anytime soon. If I am,
something has gone terribly wrong in my career).
I am thinking it's on the anterior surface of the objective lens, but it's
not easy talking someone through dismantling the objective lens over the
phone. Changing filters, magnification and focus doesn't change the
appearance of this artifact. This came on rather sudden as well- not a slow
growing problem.
I have attached the example they sent me- if anyone has any ideas,
thoughts, etc, I welcome your input.
Thanks in advance
Darrin
Darrin Landry, CRA, OCT-C
Bryson Taylor Inc.
------------------------------
Subject: [optimal] Re: artifact issue
From: Brice Critser <bricecritser@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:12:44 -0600
A quick googling found the 50x manual and it appears it does have alignment
aids. I've included a screen grab from the manual and it sort of has the same
effect your describing. The only thing that puzzles me, is that the artifact
seems to be static. Alignment aid artifacts tend to move with the changing
position of alignment. So unless you're hitting the exact same position in
every
frame, it might be a wild goose chase. But an easy chase to test.
Here's the screen grab:
Brice Critser
Sent from my iPhone 5
> On Nov 25, 2013, at 7:38 PM, "Michael R. Turano, Jr." <turano@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> I was gonna say the same thing Brice, but his description of the camera as a
50X made me think otherwise as the alignment aids appeared on the EX vintage I
believe. Darrin can you confirm the model is an X and not an EX
version/vintage.
I have also seen this occasionally with room lighting a well placed ceiling
"can" light has caused me similar artifacts.
>
> Does it happen on every patient?
>
> Michael
>
> Mike
> __
>
> Michael Turano
>
> c. 917.826.9506
> f. 917.591.1841
> e. turano@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Brice Critser <bricecritser@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>> Darrin,
>>
>> Have you tried turning off the alignment aid? It sort of looks an artifact
that we have on one of our 50 DX's. Try turning off the alignment aid and take
a
test shot and turn it on and see if the artifact appears. Do you use the
alignment dots as you take images?
>>
>> Brice Critser
>> Sent from my iPhone 5
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 25, 2013, at 6:28 PM, Darrin Landry <darrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > Optimalers:
>> >
>> > I have a practice with an artifact problem. They are using a Topcon 50X
camera.
>> > At first blush it looks like a typical tears on the objective lens issue,
but fervent cleaning of the lens didn't fix the problem, and it can't be viewed
either from the front or through the minus diopter lens setting. I have asked 5
times if they are sure they cleaned the lens well.
>> > I am assuming it's something on the objective lens, as it's a white
artifact (I am troubleshooting this over the phone, as they are very rural, and
no chance I will be in their neck of the woods anytime soon. If I am, something
has gone terribly wrong in my career).
>> > I am thinking it's on the anterior surface of the objective lens, but it's
not easy talking someone through dismantling the objective lens over the phone.
Changing filters, magnification and focus doesn't change the appearance of this
artifact. This came on rather sudden as well- not a slow growing problem.
>> > I have attached the example they sent me- if anyone has any ideas,
thoughts, etc, I welcome your input.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance
>> >
>> > Darrin
>> >
>> > Darrin Landry, CRA, OCT-C
>> > Bryson Taylor Inc.
>> > <photo.JPG>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:43:47 -0800 (PST)
From: H Nguyen <emailforeyefriends@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [optimal] Re: artifact issue
I agreed with Jonathan.� Looks like tear/snot spots.�
Alignment fixation aids spots tend not to be that prominent.
On Monday, November 25, 2013 8:52 PM, Jonathan Shankle
<jonathan.shankle@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I'm not 100% it's a spit/blink/tear spot, but I am 100% it's on the front
element. There's actually two spots, and the alignment of the two doesn't match
up with the typical alignment you see with the fixation aids, likely moot
anyways as it's a 50x and they didn't feature those.�
If I had a nickel for every time someone swore a front element was clean, only
to find it looked like someone had covered it in oatmeal.. Well, I'd have a few
nickels.�
- Jonathan�
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 25, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Marc Gilels <vasion@xxxxxxx> wrote:
spit spot ....100% positive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Darrin Landry <darrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: optimal <optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 7:29 pm
>Subject: [optimal] artifact issue
>
>
>Optimalers:
>
>
>I have a practice with an artifact problem. They are using a Topcon 50X
camera.�
>At first blush it looks like a typical tears on the objective lens issue, but
fervent cleaning of the lens didn't fix the problem, and it can't be viewed
either from the front or through the minus diopter lens setting. I have asked 5
times if they are sure they cleaned the lens well.
>�I am assuming it's something on the objective lens, as it's a white artifact
(I am troubleshooting this over the phone, as they are very rural, and no
chance
I will be in their neck of the woods anytime soon. If I am, something has gone
terribly wrong in my career).�
>I am thinking it's on the anterior surface of the objective lens, but it's not
easy talking someone through dismantling the objective lens over the phone.
Changing filters, magnification and focus doesn't change the appearance of this
artifact. This came on rather sudden as well- not a slow growing problem.
>I have attached the example they sent me- if anyone has any ideas, thoughts,
etc, I welcome your input.
>
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>
>Darrin
>
>
>Darrin Landry, CRA, OCT-C
>Bryson Taylor Inc.
>
------------------------------
End of optimal Digest V4 #227
*****************************
Other related posts:
