Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Imaging Biological Samples with Optical Microscopy01:18

Imaging Biological Samples with Optical Microscopy

Optical microscopy uses optic principles to provide detailed images of samples. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek designed the first compound optical microscope in the 17th century to visualize blood cells, bacteria, and yeast cells. In 1830, Joseph Jackson Lister created an essentially modern light microscope. The 20th century saw the development of microscopes with enhanced magnification and resolution.
In optical microscopy, the specimen to be viewed is placed on a glass slide and clipped on the stage...
Super-resolution Fluorescence Microscopy01:37

Super-resolution Fluorescence Microscopy

Super-resolution fluorescence microscopy (SRFM) provides a better resolution than conventional fluorescence microscopy by reducing the point spread function (PSF). PSF is the light intensity distribution from a point that causes it to appear blurred. Due to PSF, each fluorescing point appears bigger than its actual size, and it is the PSF interference of nearby fluorophores that causes the blurred image. Various approaches to achieving higher resolution through SRFM have recently been developed.
Overview of Electron Microscopy01:25

Overview of Electron Microscopy

The wavelengths of visible light ultimately limit the maximum theoretical resolution of images created by light microscopes. Most light microscopes can only magnify 1000X, and a few can magnify up to 1500X. Electrons, like electromagnetic radiation, can behave like waves, but with wavelengths of 0.005 nm, they produce significantly greater resolution up to 0.05 nm as compared to 500 nm for visible light. An electron microscope (EM) can create a sharp image that is magnified up to 2,000,000X.
Three-Dimensional Microscopy in Microbiology01:28

Three-Dimensional Microscopy in Microbiology

Three-dimensional imaging techniques are essential in cell biology, allowing researchers to visualize intricate cellular structures with high resolution. Two prominent methods, Differential Interference Contrast Microscopy (DIC) and Confocal Scanning Laser Microscopy (CSLM), provide distinct advantages for imaging live and thick specimens, respectively.Differential Interference Contrast MicroscopyDIC microscopy enhances contrast in transparent, unstained samples by converting phase...
Phase Contrast and Differential Interference Contrast Microscopy01:26

Phase Contrast and Differential Interference Contrast Microscopy

Phase-Contrast Microscopes
In-phase-contrast microscopes, interference between light directly passing through a cell and light refracted by cellular components is used to create high-contrast, high-resolution images without staining. It is the oldest and simplest type of microscope that creates an image by altering the wavelengths of light rays passing through the specimen. Altered wavelength paths are created using an annular stop in the condenser. The annular stop produces a hollow cone of...
Overview of Microscopy Techniques01:22

Overview of Microscopy Techniques

The early pioneers of microscopy opened a window into the invisible world of microorganisms. In 1830, Joseph Jackson Lister created an essentially modern light microscope. The 20th century saw the development of microscopes that leveraged nonvisible light, such as fluorescence microscopy that uses an ultraviolet light source and electron microscopy that uses short-wavelength electron beams. These advances significantly improved magnification, image resolution, and contrast. By comparison, the...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Urine PD-L1 as a non-invasive biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in bladder cancer.

Advances in biomarker sciences and technology·2026
Same author

Advances in Precision Diagnostics: The Emerging Role of Digital Pathology and Artificial Intelligence.

Advances in anatomic pathology·2026
Same author

Incidence, Clinicopathologic Features, and Follow-up Results of Invasive Ductal Carcinoma With Lobular-Like Growth Pattern.

Clinical breast cancer·2026
Same author

Advances in Digital Cytopathology and Artificial Intelligence Applications.

Advances in anatomic pathology·2026
Same author

Pixelomics: The Omics-Style Interrogation of Whole Slide Images for Precision Pathology.

Advances in anatomic pathology·2026
Same author

Updates on Digital Pathology and Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Applications in Surgical Pathology.

Advances in anatomic pathology·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 7, 2026

High-resolution Episcopic Microscopy (HREM) - Simple and Robust Protocols for Processing and Visualizing Organic Materials
08:52

High-resolution Episcopic Microscopy (HREM) - Simple and Robust Protocols for Processing and Visualizing Organic Materials

Published on: July 7, 2017

Relationship between magnification and resolution in digital pathology systems.

Tiffany L Sellaro1, Robert Filkins, Chelsea Hoffman

  • 1Omnyx, LLC, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Journal of Pathology Informatics
|October 2, 2013
PubMed
Summary

Digital pathology systems offer varying image resolution and magnification compared to traditional microscopes. Understanding these differences is crucial for pathologists to ensure accurate cellular feature assessment and an optimal viewing experience.

Keywords:
Digitalmagnificationpathologyresolutionwhole slide image

More Related Videos

Super-Resolution Imaging and Shared Management: A Protocol for Confocal Microscopy with Multiplex Detection
07:42

Super-Resolution Imaging and Shared Management: A Protocol for Confocal Microscopy with Multiplex Detection

Published on: February 24, 2026

Highly Resolved Intravital Striped-illumination Microscopy of Germinal Centers
10:07

Highly Resolved Intravital Striped-illumination Microscopy of Germinal Centers

Published on: April 9, 2014

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 7, 2026

High-resolution Episcopic Microscopy (HREM) - Simple and Robust Protocols for Processing and Visualizing Organic Materials
08:52

High-resolution Episcopic Microscopy (HREM) - Simple and Robust Protocols for Processing and Visualizing Organic Materials

Published on: July 7, 2017

Super-Resolution Imaging and Shared Management: A Protocol for Confocal Microscopy with Multiplex Detection
07:42

Super-Resolution Imaging and Shared Management: A Protocol for Confocal Microscopy with Multiplex Detection

Published on: February 24, 2026

Highly Resolved Intravital Striped-illumination Microscopy of Germinal Centers
10:07

Highly Resolved Intravital Striped-illumination Microscopy of Germinal Centers

Published on: April 9, 2014

Area of Science:

  • Pathology
  • Medical Imaging
  • Histotechnology

Background:

  • Digital pathology systems are increasingly adopted in laboratories worldwide.
  • Variations in image resolution and scanning magnification exist across different digital pathology platforms.
  • Differences in cellular feature size perception exist between digital images and traditional microscopy.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To highlight the key differences in magnification and resolution between conventional microscopes and digital pathology systems.
  • To inform pathologists about the impact of these variations on their diagnostic capabilities.
  • To enhance the understanding of digital image quality and its implications for pathology practice.

Main Methods:

  • Comparative analysis of image resolution parameters.
  • Evaluation of magnification differences between optical microscopy and digital scanning.
  • Qualitative assessment of cellular feature visualization across systems.

Main Results:

  • Significant variability in image resolution and digitization magnification was observed among digital pathology systems.
  • Cellular features may appear differently sized when viewed on digital platforms compared to traditional microscopes.
  • These variations directly influence the visual interpretation of histological slides.

Conclusions:

  • Pathologists must be aware of the technical specifications of digital pathology systems.
  • Understanding magnification and resolution differences is essential for accurate interpretation of digital slides.
  • Awareness of these factors can improve the overall viewing experience and diagnostic confidence in digital pathology.