Re: SEM stereo - reflections

[T3D John Bercovitz <bercov@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ted G writes:
 
> The way i think of the set up sometimes is like a table top full of
> ping-pong balls.  I am standing above the table with a powerful 
> garden hose (no nasty jokes, now)  sweeping it in a raster pattern 
> across the table top.  As it hits the balls its tiny stream is 
> reflected off in various directions, which are determined by the 
> angle of incidence of the stream with the ball's surface. 
 
Now this is different again from what I understood before.  I'd 
better get a book on SEMs if I want to continue on this topic.  
However, there's one thing I can ask about without actually doing 
any work.  8-)  
 
You know we were talking about Lambertian surfaces the other day.  
Specular surfaces are very likely to give different images to the two 
different eyes because they are reflecting different things according 
to the angle you're seeing them from.  In fact, that's how we tell 
they're specular.  Then there's the broadest class of surfaces which 
is those that are neither perfectly diffuse nor perfectly specular.
 
Which brings me to SEMs.  You talk about all these ping pong balls 
bouncing off surfaces.  Do they bounce off a given part of the 
specimen the same regardless of the tilt of the specimen table?  If 
not, we might have the equivalent of something between specular and 
diffuse.  So the questions is, do you notice anything your mind would 
interpret as a semi-specular surface when looking at SEM stereo pairs?
 
Thanks,
John B


------------------------------