# Hem or Fir - And a look at the Jiusion F210 WiFi USB Digital Microscope



## V. Kelly Bellis (Sep 13, 2020)

Found some pretty nice 2x4s last month at Home Depot for a clamp rack project. They were stamped HEM FIR, from Stimpson and the Eugene F. Burrill Lumber Co., and I think they're probably white fir from the Pacific Northwest of the U.S. Can't say I ever recall seeing waxed ends on 2x4s, but the ones I bought all did, and none of the ends were split, a nice touch. Dimensional variation from 1.500x3.500 was remarkably, and on random samples, only ± 0.01 in thickness and ± 0.025 in width. 

This also serves as a little review of the _Jiusion F210 WiFi USB Digital Microscope_ I bought a couple of weeks ago to aid in wood specie identifications. The hardware has a decent feel to it, and while the software has _much_ room for improvement, the device's image sensor (1/4) isn't too bad for an entry level device, or at least that's my take on it so far. You can arrive at your own conclusions from the full-sized side-by-side images attached below. Note that depending on which Android app was used; the size of the resulting image saved to the phone varied: DW WiFi (1280x720); Max-see (1920x1080). One cautionary note, both apps write JPEG files, but are incorrectly appended with the extension *.png, so you will need to rename them *.jpg. I've written to Jiusion informing them about this bug FWIW.

The sample was prepared a couple of weeks ago using a freshly sharpened cutting iron and a hand plane; either a No. 4 Stanley or a No. 14B Millers Falls, before sawing off the end of the 2x4. The photos were taken today using my cell phone, a couple different Android apps already mentioned, and the device's own WiFi. The (English) documentation that comes with the device is poorly written, but there are sufficient graphics that help get the key points across to the new user. Just note that when you're using a wireless connection, you first need to turn on the Jiusion device. This then becomes a new WiFi access point that will be recognized by your phone to which your phone will need to connect, noting that it's 1) not connected to the internet, and 2) the range of the connection is limited. From my tests, using the Galaxy A71, I was able to stay connected and take pictures while being up to about a 100' from the device. Also, there is limit to the life of its 900mAh lithium battery. Depending on use of the integral 8 adjustable LED lights, or some other light source(s), or some combination of both, working time is listed as being about 1 to 1.5 hours. If you're using a light source other than the adjustable 8 LEDs that encircle the recessed lens seen in the photo below, the plastic (ABS) loupe-like shroud can introduce color and light modeling aberrations on the subject when the shroud is in contact with the subject. You can see this modeling I'm referring to in the [Hem or Fir - Highest magnification.jpg] examples.





Magnification is a direct function of the distance to the object and while the advertising boasts "50 to 1000x", it remains a complete mystery to me how Jiusion is able to make this claim. In the example [Hem-or-Fir---Low,-Medium,-High-Magnifications.jpg], and based upon the steel rule seen in each photo, there is a little 1mm square that I've drawn on each photo for scale. When comparing the lowest (mechanical) magnification to the highest magnification (and without using the internal software multiplier) there is about an increase of 5.5 times, which seems to me as a beginner, quite satisfactory for doing wood specie identification. The travel distance on the provided and nicely made stand, is about 4.5"; however, the device can focus to much greater distances. It can also output video (.mp4)





I tried using this device with different phones whose aspect ratios were quite different; the Galaxy A71 and the Moto E4 Plus. When viewing images from the F210 with the phone in portrait orientation, proportions of objects clearly appeared a little squished and when the phone is in landscape orientation, they look ridiculously squished. There doesn't appear to be any means within the Android apps DW WiFi, or MaxSee, to correct their displayed distortions; however, the actual captured image files are reasonably free of distortion when viewed in other applications.





Most of my using the Jiusion F210 was via its built-in WiFi; however, I did try some experiments using the provided USB cable, my Windows 10 machine and the two separate apps, S-EYE, and xploview. Everything worked and you can see and capture images, but like the Android apps, these programs for Windows are very basic and lack documentation.

The soft shell carrying case and sturdy metal stand really make this device a great value at just under $50.

One last thing, don't forget to take the lens cap off when you're taking pictures! It's also made from clear plastic, so it might not be immediately obvious the first time you use it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Thank You! 1


----------



## barry richardson (Sep 13, 2020)

Looks like a cool toy! Thanks for the excellent reivew,...

Reactions: Thank You! 1 | Agree 1


----------



## phinds (Sep 14, 2020)

Looks pretty good, but you'll find it more informative if you clean up your samples better.

This is part of a Douglas fir end grain cross section about 1/10 of a cm square

Reactions: Like 1 | Thank You! 1 | Funny 1


----------



## V. Kelly Bellis (Sep 15, 2020)

Thanks Paul. That looks really good. Did you do this using your ROS from 60 grit up to 1200 grit method?
This image doesn't look like it comes from the same camera rig as the samples at http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/
Did you shoot this yourself, and if so, what equipment did you use?


----------



## phinds (Sep 15, 2020)

V. Kelly Bellis said:


> Thanks Paul. That looks really good. Did you do this using your ROS from 60 grit up to 1200 grit method?


yes


> This image doesn't look like it comes from the same camera rig as the samples at http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/


Right. This was done with the same kind of rig you use, just a slightly more expensive microscope; about $80 as I recall, maybe a few bucks less


> Did you shoot this yourself, and if so, what equipment did you use?


https://woodbarter.com/threads/new-toy-for-wood-id.38184/

https://woodbarter.com/threads/more-on-my-new-wood-id-toy.40404/

Reactions: Thank You! 1


----------



## V. Kelly Bellis (Sep 15, 2020)

Nice rig. Thank you for posting a link to those two threads and for your inspirational work! 
I think I found _your instrument_ on Amazon, but this morning's price is about $120 (maybe cheaper elsewhere), and the optics, and image sensor looks much better than the Jiusion F210. Your instrument I see included a printed scale, measuring software and stage clips; all missing from the Jiusion F210. Still, no buyer's remorse here as I'm just getting my feet wet with this stuff, and I think _once I get my samples better prepared_, the F210 will work satisfactorily. I do very much appreciate the wireless aspects of the Jiusion F210.


----------



## phinds (Sep 15, 2020)

Yeah, that's the one. Wow --- that price has really gone up. I paid $75.

I had some trouble with it but the manufacturer was very helpful in working w/ me to solve the (software) problem. Also, in the summer, it overheats a bit and the output jpg gets all flaky. Have to turn it off for a while.


----------



## V. Kelly Bellis (Sep 19, 2020)

Sanding discs arrived in the mail this morning, and although the purchased kit included grits up to 3000, I stopped polishing at 1500. One disappointment was the last disc, 1500, imparted into the wood a bit of color. Lengthy sanding session lessened its pinkish tint, but is still easy to see. Thanks again Paul for your guidance and help in

Original image reduced slightly in size from 720 wide down to 500 px wide:

Reactions: Way Cool 1


----------



## phinds (Sep 19, 2020)

V. Kelly Bellis said:


> One disappointment was the last disc, 1500, imparted into the wood a bit of color.


I had exactly the same problem when I used red colored disks. I now use white disks and don't have the problem.

Going above 1500 would be a waste of time. Even my top 1200 is overkill for most woods. I can ID probably 80% to 90% of woods at just 400 grit (IF I'm going to be able to ID them through end grain characteristics).

One problem I have with the fine grits is that on hardwoods with open pores, the fine grits make dust small enough to stick in the pores so the pores come out looking white instead of open. Bummer but for this methodology there's no getting around it. Wetting the surface after sanding is a terrible idea since it raises wood fibers and obscures the characteristics somewhat.

You should be in the habit of re-orienting all your end grain pics so that the pith is down and the bark is up. That's the standard presentation. See my own anatomy pages. Here's professional reference site:

https://images.lib.ncsu.edu/luna/servlet/view/all (type a botanical name into the upper right search box)

Or just check out my wowzers page (so called because it often makes people say whatever their own personal version of *WOWZERS!* is)

www.phinds.com/endgrain

Reactions: Thank You! 1 | Informative 1


----------



## phinds (Sep 20, 2020)

Oh, and I should add, reorienting the pics after the fact is much worse than just rotating the microscope so that the orientation is right when the pics are taken.


----------



## Mr. Peet (Sep 20, 2020)

phinds said:


> I had exactly the same problem when I used red colored disks. I now use white disks and don't have the problem.
> 
> Going above 1500 would be a waste of time. Even my top 1200 is overkill for most woods. I can ID probably 80% to 90% of woods at just 400 grit (IF I'm going to be able to ID them through end grain characteristics).
> 
> ...



I'd guess the Festol sander with vacuum system might have some cleaner pore results. Think Jean Claude and Ed use vacuum systems on their sanders. But as you said, much can be determined at the lower grits anyway.


----------



## phinds (Sep 20, 2020)

Mr. Peet said:


> I'd guess the Festol sander with vacuum system might have some cleaner pore results. Think Jean Claude and Ed use vacuum systems on their sanders. But as you said, much can be determined at the lower grits anyway.


Correct on all counts. Also, Jean Claude goes to 4,000 grit AND has a better microscope. As you well know, his results are much better than mine. BUT ... mine will get the job done almost as often as his.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## V. Kelly Bellis (Sep 21, 2020)

FWIW - The DeWalt ROS I use is hooked up to my shop vac and works pretty good with all of the reddish discs, but the 1500 was the bleeder that imparted its tint.




@phinds - " _reorienting the pics after the fact is much worse than just rotating the microscope so that the orientation is right when the pics are taken _"

I don't see any image degradation after rotation:


----------



## phinds (Sep 21, 2020)

So what magnification do you reckon that is? The ad for your device says it goes to 1000X but I doubt that.

I'd guess that what you're showing there is maybe 50X, if that (I do realize that that isn't necessarily the highest magnification you can get).


----------



## V. Kelly Bellis (Sep 21, 2020)

phinds said:


> So what magnification do you reckon that is? The ad for your device says it goes to 1000X but I doubt that.
> 
> I'd guess that what you're showing there is maybe 50X, if that (I do realize that that isn't necessarily the highest magnification you can get).



That's a good question. Because _that image_ didn't contain a graphic scale, I prepared another sample (stopped polishing at 1000 grit), this time an end of a pine 2x6, and then photographed it with a steel rule in the frame, similarly as shown with the device in contact with the specimen & ruler. The unaltered image measured 720 px wide. The mean value of (5) measurements along the steel rule's 1mm increments was about 192.875 pixels. Rounding to the nearest whole pixel, a derived scale of 193 pixels equals 1mm, the scale of the full width of the image is therefore 3.73mm, or a magnification of about 68.1 times. The device does allow the magnification to be increased up to it being doubled, but I believe that it's through software as the image quality is quite horrible.


----------



## phinds (Sep 21, 2020)

V. Kelly Bellis said:


> a magnification of about 68.1 times.


Not bad for a microscope at that price, and at that magnification the image is very clear. You should try it on hardwoods where the end grain characteristics are more interesting.

http://www.phinds.com/endgrain/ (these pics are all at 12X)

Here's my max-magnification ruler pic shown here at 20% of full size. At full size the width on my computer is 27" and the pic is of .224cm, which works out to 301X


----------



## phinds (Sep 21, 2020)

Here's a piece of red oak, first at 67X and then with the area in the blue box shown in the next pic at 300X. I think the forum will blow them up to full size if you click on them. What's shown on this page is them at about 50% of full size.

EDIT: Yep,when you click on them and then click on the magnify icon, they do go to full size. You should be able pretty much exactly the same results at the first pic. I chose this particular pic because many of the larger pores did not fill up with dust.

EDIT: Oh, well I guess you won't get quite the same results as the first pic since you said your image resolution is 720 pixels square. Mine is 1920x1080

Reactions: EyeCandy! 1 | Way Cool 1


----------



## V. Kelly Bellis (Sep 21, 2020)

Beautiful! Looks like the patient should be put on a statin!



phinds said:


> Here's my max-magnification ruler pic shown here at 20% of full size. At full size the width on my computer is 27" and the pic is of .224cm, which works out to 301X



Is that image of the calibration ruler, the same one included with _your rig_?



phinds said:


> EDIT: Oh, well I guess you won't get quite the same results as the first pic since you said your image resolution is 720 pixels square. Mine is 1920x1080



What I said was the unaltered image width was 720. The native sized image depends on which Android app was used; the size of the resulting image saved to the phone varied: DW WiFi (1280x720); Max-see (1920x1080).


----------



## phinds (Sep 21, 2020)

V. Kelly Bellis said:


> Is that image of the calibration ruler, the same one included with _your rig_?


Not sure what you mean but I'm sure the answer is no since that calibration rule is not used with any of my pics. I have a similar one glued to a block of wood that I use below all the pics I take at 12X. I don't need a rule when I use the rig because the microscope is calibrated (by my markings on the barrel)


> What I said was the unaltered image width was 720. The native sized image depends on which Android app was used; the size of the resulting image saved to the phone varied: DW WiFi (1280x720); Max-see (1920x1080).


Oh, good. That means you CAN get exactly the same as my 67X (when you use the 1920x1080). Do your images come out circular or do you crop them that way? Mine come out rectangular. I have the option of using various lower resolution settings but they all seem pointless.


----------



## V. Kelly Bellis (Sep 21, 2020)

phinds said:


> Not sure what you mean but I'm sure the answer is no since that calibration rule is not used with any of my pics. I have a similar one glued to a block of wood that I use below all the pics I take at 12X. I don't need a rule when I use the rig because the microscope is calibrated (by my markings on the barrel)


----------



## phinds (Sep 21, 2020)

OH. Yeah, I think that is what I used. Only reason I'm not positive is that I have two similar ones, that one and one from a previous microscope. In either case, they are very accurate and so good for calibration.


----------



## DKMD (Sep 21, 2020)

V. Kelly Bellis said:


> Beautiful! Looks like the patient should be put on a statin!



You could try it, but I think it’s genetic with some oak...


----------

