[optimal] Re: artifact issue
- From: "Darrin Landry" <darrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 06:41:36 -0700
Thanks for all the input.
This is an older 50X model with no alignment dots. I am not in physical contact
with the camera, so I am relying on a somewhat inexperienced photographer to
relay info to me.
I agree with Jonathan that it is probably something on the front of the lens,
but as I mentioned, they insist they've cleaned the front element. I can't
imagine that anything is on the interior or anterior aspect of the front
element, but I'm not prepared to walk this person through disassembling their
camera.
It does appear in the same location on every patient, in every modality, at
every magnification.
Darrin Landry, CRA, OCT-C
Bryson Taylor Inc.
----------------------------------------
From: "Angiographics" <angiolith@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 7:43 AM
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] 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&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&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&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 <*"
target=_blank>http://www.stuartalfred.com>* >>> >>>
********************************************************** >>> 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] 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] 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] 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:
