95b versus the world

[Tim Feinstein]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi all,

Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b against leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to know how it compares in real world use, especially:

• Sensitivity, taking into account that larger pixels might need more C-mount magnification to reach Nyquist resolution
• Does non-uniform pixel noise inherent to sCMOS complicate your quantifications?  This seems like an bigger deal in low light situations where a 95% QE sensor would be most desirable.  
• How are you controlling it – Metamorph, Micro-Manager, or something else?  Some major scope makers still do not have driver support.  

I have heard that other manufacturers will release their own back-thinned sCMOS cameras soon.  It will be nice to have some competition in that category.  

No commercial interest.  Thanks!


Tim
       
Timothy Feinstein, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
University of Pittsburgh Department of Developmental Biology

[Kurt Thorn]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

On 2/8/2017 8:36 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
> Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b against leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to know how it compares in real world use, especially:

Here's the comparison I did last summer:
http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/2016/07/testing-the-prime95b-a-back-illuminated-scmos-camera-with-95-qe/

Kurt


--
Kurt Thorn
Associate Professor
Director, Nikon Imaging Center
http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/

[Rusty Nicovich]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Kurt's comparison is excellent and covers most of the issues with this
camera.

We have one on our SMLM rig, replacing a 70% QE PCO sCMOS and with a 82% QE
Orca v2 on the other side port.  This is not a back-thinned version of the
usual sCMOS camera (all? using the CIS2020 sensor chip, now the
back-thinned SCI2020 from Fairchild), but rather a different back-thinned
sensor chip all together (GSense 144 BSI).  There was some trepidation
buying a camera based on a new chip from a new company, packaged by a small
camera company, but

The 95B is more sensitive than the other two cameras, though the field of
view is reduced.  That is both because of the smaller chip and because of
the need for the 1.5x optivar with a 100x objective to get to sub-Nyquist
sampling.  The larger pixels are slightly annoying, but it's still better
than an 897 or even 888.  We have ours on the output of an adaptive optics
module so we're actually constrained by the size of the deformable mirror
rather than the chip.  As such we have to tolerate some larger-than-desired
pixels.

The 95B has better fixed pattern noise characteristics than the usual sCMOS
cameras.  There is some additional on-device correction that helps. For the
highest precision you'd want to map the fixed pattern noise/pixel response
but that's true for all chips.

We have ours running in MicroManager (1.4 and 2.0) and Metamorph.  There
may be more options but that's all of the acquisition softwares on that
system.  We also have it on a water circulator to cut the fan when needed.
This adds ~$1k to the cost.

One fun quirk is that the camera doesn't use a frame grabber.  Instead it
has a small card allowing it to act as a PCIe x4 device directly.  This is
nice for less fooling with frame grabber software, but it means that the
camera *has* to be turned on when the PC boots or the PC won't recognize
it.  You can imagine some small complications with this if you, for
example, do data transfers overnight from instrument PCs and now have to
shutdown/start up the computer before acquisitions.

Price is basically halfway between the usual sCMOS cameras (Orca, Zyla, PCO
Edge) and an EMCCD (897, 888...).

With these 95% QE chips on the low-light end and the Sony Pregius machine
vision sensors on the low end (ie the Point Grey Blackfly - 5 MP, 75 fps,
70+% QE, USB 3.0, and $1100 USD) there are a lot of exciting options for
cameras in the last year.

Thanks,
Rusty



On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Kurt Thorn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> On 2/8/2017 8:36 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
>
>> Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b against
>> leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to know how it compares
>> in real world use, especially:
>>
>
> Here's the comparison I did last summer: http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/2016/
> 07/testing-the-prime95b-a-back-illuminated-scmos-camera-with-95-qe/
>
> Kurt
>
>
> --
> Kurt Thorn
> Associate Professor
> Director, Nikon Imaging Center
> http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
>

[Andrea Latini]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

hi List,
the new 95B 25mm Large FOV is available, for your information:
https://www.photometrics.com/products/datasheets/Prime95B-25mm-Datasheet.pdf 

Andrea Latini
CrestOptics Spa

[Dr. K N Ganesh]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Thanks a lot it gives lot more clarity on SCMOS selection on top Kurt's detailed practical explanation..
Now it looks like some of the statements made by these companies are practically do not have any advantage.
Regards
Ganesh

Sent from my iPhone

> On 08-Feb-2017, at 11:06 PM, Rusty Nicovich <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> chips

[Gerhard Holst]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Dear Rusty,

I just wanted to correct your assumption that the recent QE improvement in the CSI2020 Image sensor (BAE Fairchild) cameras by PCO, Andor and Hamamatsu with an QE increase up to 80% is NOT based on a back thinned version, but on a process improvement in the fab and an optimized optical stack (e.g. better microlenses).
The BSI400 base cameras from Photometrics, Princeton Instruments and Tucsen are based on a backside thinned sCMOS image sensor.

While backside thinning usually comes with an improved QE (no need for microlenses) it also comes at a cost, it always has a reduction of the MTF as consequence, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always less MTF compared to frontside illuminated and second, the additional boundary layer is always an additional source for dark current and noise, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always more compared to frontside illuminated. These are semiconductor physics.

But like all other camera applications, the camera has to fit to the application.

with best regards,

Gerhard
___________________________
Dr. Gerhard Holst
PCO AG
Donaupark 11
93309 Kelheim, Germany
fon [phone]
fax [phone]
www.pco.de
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Johann Plöb
Umsatzsteuer ID-Nr.: DE128590843
Steuernummer: 132/120/68033
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Regensburg HRB 9157

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Rusty Nicovich
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 18:36
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: 95b versus the world

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Kurt's comparison is excellent and covers most of the issues with this camera.

We have one on our SMLM rig, replacing a 70% QE PCO sCMOS and with a 82% QE Orca v2 on the other side port.  This is not a back-thinned version of the usual sCMOS camera (all? using the CIS2020 sensor chip, now the back-thinned SCI2020 from Fairchild), but rather a different back-thinned sensor chip all together (GSense 144 BSI).  There was some trepidation buying a camera based on a new chip from a new company, packaged by a small camera company, but

The 95B is more sensitive than the other two cameras, though the field of view is reduced.  That is both because of the smaller chip and because of the need for the 1.5x optivar with a 100x objective to get to sub-Nyquist sampling.  The larger pixels are slightly annoying, but it's still better than an 897 or even 888.  We have ours on the output of an adaptive optics module so we're actually constrained by the size of the deformable mirror rather than the chip.  As such we have to tolerate some larger-than-desired pixels.

The 95B has better fixed pattern noise characteristics than the usual sCMOS cameras.  There is some additional on-device correction that helps. For the highest precision you'd want to map the fixed pattern noise/pixel response but that's true for all chips.

We have ours running in MicroManager (1.4 and 2.0) and Metamorph.  There may be more options but that's all of the acquisition softwares on that system.  We also have it on a water circulator to cut the fan when needed.
This adds ~$1k to the cost.

One fun quirk is that the camera doesn't use a frame grabber.  Instead it has a small card allowing it to act as a PCIe x4 device directly.  This is nice for less fooling with frame grabber software, but it means that the camera *has* to be turned on when the PC boots or the PC won't recognize it.  You can imagine some small complications with this if you, for example, do data transfers overnight from instrument PCs and now have to shutdown/start up the computer before acquisitions.

Price is basically halfway between the usual sCMOS cameras (Orca, Zyla, PCO
Edge) and an EMCCD (897, 888...).

With these 95% QE chips on the low-light end and the Sony Pregius machine vision sensors on the low end (ie the Point Grey Blackfly - 5 MP, 75 fps,
70+% QE, USB 3.0, and $1100 USD) there are a lot of exciting options for
cameras in the last year.

Thanks,
Rusty



On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Kurt Thorn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> On 2/8/2017 8:36 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
>
>> Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b against
>> leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to know how it
>> compares in real world use, especially:
>>
>
> Here's the comparison I did last summer:
> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/2016/ 
> 07/testing-the-prime95b-a-back-illuminated-scmos-camera-with-95-qe/
>
> Kurt
>
>
> --
> Kurt Thorn
> Associate Professor
> Director, Nikon Imaging Center
> http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
>

[Jeff Spector]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

I've often read and heard the new 95B can be used for single molecule work,
but I'd like to know how it compares to an emccd and other cameras on the
market for single molecule work where the single fluorophores are moving
around and the exposure is short (say between 20 and 100 ms). I see a lot
of cameras marketed as 'single molecule' but they mean 'stationary single
molecule in fixed samples with good exposure times'. Anyone have any info
on how this camera compares hen looking at dynamic single molecules?


On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Gerhard Holst <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Dear Rusty,
>
> I just wanted to correct your assumption that the recent QE improvement in
> the CSI2020 Image sensor (BAE Fairchild) cameras by PCO, Andor and
> Hamamatsu with an QE increase up to 80% is NOT based on a back thinned
> version, but on a process improvement in the fab and an optimized optical
> stack (e.g. better microlenses).
> The BSI400 base cameras from Photometrics, Princeton Instruments and
> Tucsen are based on a backside thinned sCMOS image sensor.
>
> While backside thinning usually comes with an improved QE (no need for
> microlenses) it also comes at a cost, it always has a reduction of the MTF
> as consequence, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always less MTF
> compared to frontside illuminated and second, the additional boundary layer
> is always an additional source for dark current and noise, sometimes more,
> sometimes less, but always more compared to frontside illuminated. These
> are semiconductor physics.
>
> But like all other camera applications, the camera has to fit to the
> application.
>
> with best regards,
>
> Gerhard
> ___________________________
> Dr. Gerhard Holst
> PCO AG
> Donaupark 11
> 93309 Kelheim, Germany
> fon [phone]
> fax [phone]
> www.pco.de
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Johann Plöb
> Umsatzsteuer ID-Nr.: DE128590843
> Steuernummer: 132/120/68033
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Regensburg HRB 9157
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Im Auftrag von Rusty Nicovich
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 18:36
> An: [hidden email]
> Betreff: Re: 95b versus the world
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Kurt's comparison is excellent and covers most of the issues with this
> camera.
>
> We have one on our SMLM rig, replacing a 70% QE PCO sCMOS and with a 82%
> QE Orca v2 on the other side port.  This is not a back-thinned version of
> the usual sCMOS camera (all? using the CIS2020 sensor chip, now the
> back-thinned SCI2020 from Fairchild), but rather a different back-thinned
> sensor chip all together (GSense 144 BSI).  There was some trepidation
> buying a camera based on a new chip from a new company, packaged by a small
> camera company, but
>
> The 95B is more sensitive than the other two cameras, though the field of
> view is reduced.  That is both because of the smaller chip and because of
> the need for the 1.5x optivar with a 100x objective to get to sub-Nyquist
> sampling.  The larger pixels are slightly annoying, but it's still better
> than an 897 or even 888.  We have ours on the output of an adaptive optics
> module so we're actually constrained by the size of the deformable mirror
> rather than the chip.  As such we have to tolerate some larger-than-desired
> pixels.
>
> The 95B has better fixed pattern noise characteristics than the usual
> sCMOS cameras.  There is some additional on-device correction that helps.
> For the highest precision you'd want to map the fixed pattern noise/pixel
> response but that's true for all chips.
>
> We have ours running in MicroManager (1.4 and 2.0) and Metamorph.  There
> may be more options but that's all of the acquisition softwares on that
> system.  We also have it on a water circulator to cut the fan when needed.
> This adds ~$1k to the cost.
>
> One fun quirk is that the camera doesn't use a frame grabber.  Instead it
> has a small card allowing it to act as a PCIe x4 device directly.  This is
> nice for less fooling with frame grabber software, but it means that the
> camera *has* to be turned on when the PC boots or the PC won't recognize
> it.  You can imagine some small complications with this if you, for
> example, do data transfers overnight from instrument PCs and now have to
> shutdown/start up the computer before acquisitions.
>
> Price is basically halfway between the usual sCMOS cameras (Orca, Zyla, PCO
> Edge) and an EMCCD (897, 888...).
>
> With these 95% QE chips on the low-light end and the Sony Pregius machine
> vision sensors on the low end (ie the Point Grey Blackfly - 5 MP, 75 fps,
> 70+% QE, USB 3.0, and $1100 USD) there are a lot of exciting options for
> cameras in the last year.
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Kurt Thorn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > On 2/8/2017 8:36 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
> >
> >> Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b against
> >> leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to know how it
> >> compares in real world use, especially:
> >>
> >
> > Here's the comparison I did last summer:
> > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/2016/
> > 07/testing-the-prime95b-a-back-illuminated-scmos-camera-with-95-qe/
> >
> > Kurt
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kurt Thorn
> > Associate Professor
> > Director, Nikon Imaging Center
> > http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
> > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
> >
>

[Rusty Nicovich]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Gerhard,

Happy to be corrected.  Thanks for the info!

Rusty

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Gerhard Holst <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Dear Rusty,
>
> I just wanted to correct your assumption that the recent QE improvement in
> the CSI2020 Image sensor (BAE Fairchild) cameras by PCO, Andor and
> Hamamatsu with an QE increase up to 80% is NOT based on a back thinned
> version, but on a process improvement in the fab and an optimized optical
> stack (e.g. better microlenses).
> The BSI400 base cameras from Photometrics, Princeton Instruments and
> Tucsen are based on a backside thinned sCMOS image sensor.
>
> While backside thinning usually comes with an improved QE (no need for
> microlenses) it also comes at a cost, it always has a reduction of the MTF
> as consequence, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always less MTF
> compared to frontside illuminated and second, the additional boundary layer
> is always an additional source for dark current and noise, sometimes more,
> sometimes less, but always more compared to frontside illuminated. These
> are semiconductor physics.
>
> But like all other camera applications, the camera has to fit to the
> application.
>
> with best regards,
>
> Gerhard
> ___________________________
> Dr. Gerhard Holst
> PCO AG
> Donaupark 11
> 93309 Kelheim, Germany
> fon [phone]
> fax [phone]
> www.pco.de
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Johann Plöb
> Umsatzsteuer ID-Nr.: DE128590843
> Steuernummer: 132/120/68033
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Regensburg HRB 9157
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Im Auftrag von Rusty Nicovich
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 18:36
> An: [hidden email]
> Betreff: Re: 95b versus the world
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Kurt's comparison is excellent and covers most of the issues with this
> camera.
>
> We have one on our SMLM rig, replacing a 70% QE PCO sCMOS and with a 82%
> QE Orca v2 on the other side port.  This is not a back-thinned version of
> the usual sCMOS camera (all? using the CIS2020 sensor chip, now the
> back-thinned SCI2020 from Fairchild), but rather a different back-thinned
> sensor chip all together (GSense 144 BSI).  There was some trepidation
> buying a camera based on a new chip from a new company, packaged by a small
> camera company, but
>
> The 95B is more sensitive than the other two cameras, though the field of
> view is reduced.  That is both because of the smaller chip and because of
> the need for the 1.5x optivar with a 100x objective to get to sub-Nyquist
> sampling.  The larger pixels are slightly annoying, but it's still better
> than an 897 or even 888.  We have ours on the output of an adaptive optics
> module so we're actually constrained by the size of the deformable mirror
> rather than the chip.  As such we have to tolerate some larger-than-desired
> pixels.
>
> The 95B has better fixed pattern noise characteristics than the usual
> sCMOS cameras.  There is some additional on-device correction that helps.
> For the highest precision you'd want to map the fixed pattern noise/pixel
> response but that's true for all chips.
>
> We have ours running in MicroManager (1.4 and 2.0) and Metamorph.  There
> may be more options but that's all of the acquisition softwares on that
> system.  We also have it on a water circulator to cut the fan when needed.
> This adds ~$1k to the cost.
>
> One fun quirk is that the camera doesn't use a frame grabber.  Instead it
> has a small card allowing it to act as a PCIe x4 device directly.  This is
> nice for less fooling with frame grabber software, but it means that the
> camera *has* to be turned on when the PC boots or the PC won't recognize
> it.  You can imagine some small complications with this if you, for
> example, do data transfers overnight from instrument PCs and now have to
> shutdown/start up the computer before acquisitions.
>
> Price is basically halfway between the usual sCMOS cameras (Orca, Zyla, PCO
> Edge) and an EMCCD (897, 888...).
>
> With these 95% QE chips on the low-light end and the Sony Pregius machine
> vision sensors on the low end (ie the Point Grey Blackfly - 5 MP, 75 fps,
> 70+% QE, USB 3.0, and $1100 USD) there are a lot of exciting options for
> cameras in the last year.
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Kurt Thorn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > On 2/8/2017 8:36 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
> >
> >> Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b against
> >> leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to know how it
> >> compares in real world use, especially:
> >>
> >
> > Here's the comparison I did last summer:
> > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/2016/
> > 07/testing-the-prime95b-a-back-illuminated-scmos-camera-with-95-qe/
> >
> > Kurt
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kurt Thorn
> > Associate Professor
> > Director, Nikon Imaging Center
> > http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
> > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
> >
>

[Andrew York]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

 I'm also happy to receive this education; I didn't know cameras had an
MTF!

 I'd noticed before that I've never managed to focus light onto a single
pixel of an SCMOS without also illuminating adjacent pixels, but I assumed
this was due to my optics. I suspected the sensor, but didn't have a
mechanism to blame.

Does anyone know typical MTF values for SCMOS and EMCCD sensors?

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Rusty Nicovich <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Gerhard,
>
> Happy to be corrected.  Thanks for the info!
>
> Rusty
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Gerhard Holst <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Dear Rusty,
> >
> > I just wanted to correct your assumption that the recent QE improvement
> in
> > the CSI2020 Image sensor (BAE Fairchild) cameras by PCO, Andor and
> > Hamamatsu with an QE increase up to 80% is NOT based on a back thinned
> > version, but on a process improvement in the fab and an optimized optical
> > stack (e.g. better microlenses).
> > The BSI400 base cameras from Photometrics, Princeton Instruments and
> > Tucsen are based on a backside thinned sCMOS image sensor.
> >
> > While backside thinning usually comes with an improved QE (no need for
> > microlenses) it also comes at a cost, it always has a reduction of the
> MTF
> > as consequence, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always less MTF
> > compared to frontside illuminated and second, the additional boundary
> layer
> > is always an additional source for dark current and noise, sometimes
> more,
> > sometimes less, but always more compared to frontside illuminated. These
> > are semiconductor physics.
> >
> > But like all other camera applications, the camera has to fit to the
> > application.
> >
> > with best regards,
> >
> > Gerhard
> > ___________________________
> > Dr. Gerhard Holst
> > PCO AG
> > Donaupark 11
> > 93309 Kelheim, Germany
> > fon [phone]
> > fax [phone]
> > www.pco.de
> > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Johann Plöb
> > Umsatzsteuer ID-Nr.: DE128590843
> > Steuernummer: 132/120/68033
> > Registergericht: Amtsgericht Regensburg HRB 9157
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Im Auftrag von Rusty Nicovich
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 18:36
> > An: [hidden email]
> > Betreff: Re: 95b versus the world
> >
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Kurt's comparison is excellent and covers most of the issues with this
> > camera.
> >
> > We have one on our SMLM rig, replacing a 70% QE PCO sCMOS and with a 82%
> > QE Orca v2 on the other side port.  This is not a back-thinned version of
> > the usual sCMOS camera (all? using the CIS2020 sensor chip, now the
> > back-thinned SCI2020 from Fairchild), but rather a different back-thinned
> > sensor chip all together (GSense 144 BSI).  There was some trepidation
> > buying a camera based on a new chip from a new company, packaged by a
> small
> > camera company, but
> >
> > The 95B is more sensitive than the other two cameras, though the field of
> > view is reduced.  That is both because of the smaller chip and because of
> > the need for the 1.5x optivar with a 100x objective to get to sub-Nyquist
> > sampling.  The larger pixels are slightly annoying, but it's still better
> > than an 897 or even 888.  We have ours on the output of an adaptive
> optics
> > module so we're actually constrained by the size of the deformable mirror
> > rather than the chip.  As such we have to tolerate some
> larger-than-desired
> > pixels.
> >
> > The 95B has better fixed pattern noise characteristics than the usual
> > sCMOS cameras.  There is some additional on-device correction that helps.
> > For the highest precision you'd want to map the fixed pattern noise/pixel
> > response but that's true for all chips.
> >
> > We have ours running in MicroManager (1.4 and 2.0) and Metamorph.  There
> > may be more options but that's all of the acquisition softwares on that
> > system.  We also have it on a water circulator to cut the fan when
> needed.
> > This adds ~$1k to the cost.
> >
> > One fun quirk is that the camera doesn't use a frame grabber.  Instead it
> > has a small card allowing it to act as a PCIe x4 device directly.  This
> is
> > nice for less fooling with frame grabber software, but it means that the
> > camera *has* to be turned on when the PC boots or the PC won't recognize
> > it.  You can imagine some small complications with this if you, for
> > example, do data transfers overnight from instrument PCs and now have to
> > shutdown/start up the computer before acquisitions.
> >
> > Price is basically halfway between the usual sCMOS cameras (Orca, Zyla,
> PCO
> > Edge) and an EMCCD (897, 888...).
> >
> > With these 95% QE chips on the low-light end and the Sony Pregius machine
> > vision sensors on the low end (ie the Point Grey Blackfly - 5 MP, 75 fps,
> > 70+% QE, USB 3.0, and $1100 USD) there are a lot of exciting options for
> > cameras in the last year.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rusty
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Kurt Thorn <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > *****
> > > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> > posting.
> > > *****
> > >
> > > On 2/8/2017 8:36 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
> > >
> > >> Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b against
> > >> leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to know how it
> > >> compares in real world use, especially:
> > >>
> > >
> > > Here's the comparison I did last summer:
> > > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/2016/
> > > 07/testing-the-prime95b-a-back-illuminated-scmos-camera-with-95-qe/
> > >
> > > Kurt
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kurt Thorn
> > > Associate Professor
> > > Director, Nikon Imaging Center
> > > http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
> > > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
> > >
> >
>

[Reece, Jeff (NIH/NIDDK) [E]]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

I have two add-on questions, one for Rusty and one for all the camera gurus out there.  

Rusty, your response was very informative so thanks much; but when you refer to "the usual sCMOS cameras", does that include the latest generation, Ham Flash 4.0 v3, pco.panda, etc., that are supposed to handle fixed pattern noise better than previous versions?

And to camera gurus: I sometimes see reference to "2nd generation" and "3rd generation" for sCMOS.  Is there an industry standard of these definitions, or are they vendor-specific?

Thanks and Kind Regards,
Jeff


-----Original Message-----
From: Rusty Nicovich [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 11:40 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: 95b versus the world

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Gerhard,

Happy to be corrected.  Thanks for the info!

Rusty

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Gerhard Holst <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Dear Rusty,
>
> I just wanted to correct your assumption that the recent QE
> improvement in the CSI2020 Image sensor (BAE Fairchild) cameras by
> PCO, Andor and Hamamatsu with an QE increase up to 80% is NOT based on
> a back thinned version, but on a process improvement in the fab and an
> optimized optical stack (e.g. better microlenses).
> The BSI400 base cameras from Photometrics, Princeton Instruments and
> Tucsen are based on a backside thinned sCMOS image sensor.
>
> While backside thinning usually comes with an improved QE (no need for
> microlenses) it also comes at a cost, it always has a reduction of the
> MTF as consequence, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always less
> MTF compared to frontside illuminated and second, the additional
> boundary layer is always an additional source for dark current and
> noise, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always more compared to
> frontside illuminated. These are semiconductor physics.
>
> But like all other camera applications, the camera has to fit to the
> application.
>
> with best regards,
>
> Gerhard
> ___________________________
> Dr. Gerhard Holst
> PCO AG
> Donaupark 11
> 93309 Kelheim, Germany
> fon [phone]
> fax [phone]
> www.pco.de
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Johann Plöb Umsatzsteuer ID-Nr.:
> DE128590843
> Steuernummer: 132/120/68033
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Regensburg HRB 9157
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Im Auftrag von Rusty Nicovich
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 18:36
> An: [hidden email]
> Betreff: Re: 95b versus the world
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Kurt's comparison is excellent and covers most of the issues with this
> camera.
>
> We have one on our SMLM rig, replacing a 70% QE PCO sCMOS and with a
> 82% QE Orca v2 on the other side port.  This is not a back-thinned
> version of the usual sCMOS camera (all? using the CIS2020 sensor chip,
> now the back-thinned SCI2020 from Fairchild), but rather a different
> back-thinned sensor chip all together (GSense 144 BSI).  There was
> some trepidation buying a camera based on a new chip from a new
> company, packaged by a small camera company, but
>
> The 95B is more sensitive than the other two cameras, though the field
> of view is reduced.  That is both because of the smaller chip and
> because of the need for the 1.5x optivar with a 100x objective to get
> to sub-Nyquist sampling.  The larger pixels are slightly annoying, but
> it's still better than an 897 or even 888.  We have ours on the output
> of an adaptive optics module so we're actually constrained by the size
> of the deformable mirror rather than the chip.  As such we have to
> tolerate some larger-than-desired pixels.
>
> The 95B has better fixed pattern noise characteristics than the usual
> sCMOS cameras.  There is some additional on-device correction that helps.
> For the highest precision you'd want to map the fixed pattern
> noise/pixel response but that's true for all chips.
>
> We have ours running in MicroManager (1.4 and 2.0) and Metamorph.  
> There may be more options but that's all of the acquisition softwares
> on that system.  We also have it on a water circulator to cut the fan when needed.
> This adds ~$1k to the cost.
>
> One fun quirk is that the camera doesn't use a frame grabber.  Instead
> it has a small card allowing it to act as a PCIe x4 device directly.  
> This is nice for less fooling with frame grabber software, but it
> means that the camera *has* to be turned on when the PC boots or the
> PC won't recognize it.  You can imagine some small complications with
> this if you, for example, do data transfers overnight from instrument
> PCs and now have to shutdown/start up the computer before acquisitions.
>
> Price is basically halfway between the usual sCMOS cameras (Orca,
> Zyla, PCO
> Edge) and an EMCCD (897, 888...).
>
> With these 95% QE chips on the low-light end and the Sony Pregius
> machine vision sensors on the low end (ie the Point Grey Blackfly - 5
> MP, 75 fps,
> 70+% QE, USB 3.0, and $1100 USD) there are a lot of exciting options
> 70+for
> cameras in the last year.
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Kurt Thorn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > On 2/8/2017 8:36 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
> >
> >> Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b
> >> against leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to know
> >> how it compares in real world use, especially:
> >>
> >
> > Here's the comparison I did last summer:
> > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/2016/
> > 07/testing-the-prime95b-a-back-illuminated-scmos-camera-with-95-qe/
> >
> > Kurt
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kurt Thorn
> > Associate Professor
> > Director, Nikon Imaging Center
> > http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
> > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
> >
>

[Craig Brideau]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Not specific for individual cameras, but Edmund has a good intro to MTF
page on their site.
http://www.edmundoptics.com/resources/application-notes/optics/introduction-to-modulation-transfer-function/


Craig

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Andrew York <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
>  I'm also happy to receive this education; I didn't know cameras had an
> MTF!
>
>  I'd noticed before that I've never managed to focus light onto a single
> pixel of an SCMOS without also illuminating adjacent pixels, but I assumed
> this was due to my optics. I suspected the sensor, but didn't have a
> mechanism to blame.
>
> Does anyone know typical MTF values for SCMOS and EMCCD sensors?
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Rusty Nicovich <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Gerhard,
> >
> > Happy to be corrected.  Thanks for the info!
> >
> > Rusty
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Gerhard Holst <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > *****
> > > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> > posting.
> > > *****
> > >
> > > Dear Rusty,
> > >
> > > I just wanted to correct your assumption that the recent QE improvement
> > in
> > > the CSI2020 Image sensor (BAE Fairchild) cameras by PCO, Andor and
> > > Hamamatsu with an QE increase up to 80% is NOT based on a back thinned
> > > version, but on a process improvement in the fab and an optimized
> optical
> > > stack (e.g. better microlenses).
> > > The BSI400 base cameras from Photometrics, Princeton Instruments and
> > > Tucsen are based on a backside thinned sCMOS image sensor.
> > >
> > > While backside thinning usually comes with an improved QE (no need for
> > > microlenses) it also comes at a cost, it always has a reduction of the
> > MTF
> > > as consequence, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always less MTF
> > > compared to frontside illuminated and second, the additional boundary
> > layer
> > > is always an additional source for dark current and noise, sometimes
> > more,
> > > sometimes less, but always more compared to frontside illuminated.
> These
> > > are semiconductor physics.
> > >
> > > But like all other camera applications, the camera has to fit to the
> > > application.
> > >
> > > with best regards,
> > >
> > > Gerhard
> > > ___________________________
> > > Dr. Gerhard Holst
> > > PCO AG
> > > Donaupark 11
> > > 93309 Kelheim, Germany
> > > fon [phone]
> > > fax [phone]
> > > www.pco.de
> > > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Johann Plöb
> > > Umsatzsteuer ID-Nr.: DE128590843
> > > Steuernummer: 132/120/68033
> > > Registergericht: Amtsgericht Regensburg HRB 9157
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]
> ]
> > > Im Auftrag von Rusty Nicovich
> > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 18:36
> > > An: [hidden email]
> > > Betreff: Re: 95b versus the world
> > >
> > > *****
> > > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> > posting.
> > > *****
> > >
> > > Kurt's comparison is excellent and covers most of the issues with this
> > > camera.
> > >
> > > We have one on our SMLM rig, replacing a 70% QE PCO sCMOS and with a
> 82%
> > > QE Orca v2 on the other side port.  This is not a back-thinned version
> of
> > > the usual sCMOS camera (all? using the CIS2020 sensor chip, now the
> > > back-thinned SCI2020 from Fairchild), but rather a different
> back-thinned
> > > sensor chip all together (GSense 144 BSI).  There was some trepidation
> > > buying a camera based on a new chip from a new company, packaged by a
> > small
> > > camera company, but
> > >
> > > The 95B is more sensitive than the other two cameras, though the field
> of
> > > view is reduced.  That is both because of the smaller chip and because
> of
> > > the need for the 1.5x optivar with a 100x objective to get to
> sub-Nyquist
> > > sampling.  The larger pixels are slightly annoying, but it's still
> better
> > > than an 897 or even 888.  We have ours on the output of an adaptive
> > optics
> > > module so we're actually constrained by the size of the deformable
> mirror
> > > rather than the chip.  As such we have to tolerate some
> > larger-than-desired
> > > pixels.
> > >
> > > The 95B has better fixed pattern noise characteristics than the usual
> > > sCMOS cameras.  There is some additional on-device correction that
> helps.
> > > For the highest precision you'd want to map the fixed pattern
> noise/pixel
> > > response but that's true for all chips.
> > >
> > > We have ours running in MicroManager (1.4 and 2.0) and Metamorph.
> There
> > > may be more options but that's all of the acquisition softwares on that
> > > system.  We also have it on a water circulator to cut the fan when
> > needed.
> > > This adds ~$1k to the cost.
> > >
> > > One fun quirk is that the camera doesn't use a frame grabber.  Instead
> it
> > > has a small card allowing it to act as a PCIe x4 device directly.  This
> > is
> > > nice for less fooling with frame grabber software, but it means that
> the
> > > camera *has* to be turned on when the PC boots or the PC won't
> recognize
> > > it.  You can imagine some small complications with this if you, for
> > > example, do data transfers overnight from instrument PCs and now have
> to
> > > shutdown/start up the computer before acquisitions.
> > >
> > > Price is basically halfway between the usual sCMOS cameras (Orca, Zyla,
> > PCO
> > > Edge) and an EMCCD (897, 888...).
> > >
> > > With these 95% QE chips on the low-light end and the Sony Pregius
> machine
> > > vision sensors on the low end (ie the Point Grey Blackfly - 5 MP, 75
> fps,
> > > 70+% QE, USB 3.0, and $1100 USD) there are a lot of exciting options
> for
> > > cameras in the last year.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rusty
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Kurt Thorn <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > *****
> > > > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > > > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > > > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> > > posting.
> > > > *****
> > > >
> > > > On 2/8/2017 8:36 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b
> against
> > > >> leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to know how it
> > > >> compares in real world use, especially:
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Here's the comparison I did last summer:
> > > > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/2016/
> > > > 07/testing-the-prime95b-a-back-illuminated-scmos-camera-with-95-qe/
> > > >
> > > > Kurt
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Kurt Thorn
> > > > Associate Professor
> > > > Director, Nikon Imaging Center
> > > > http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
> > > > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Rusty Nicovich]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Jeff,

I was not including these latest-generation cameras.  I was referring to
the 1st and 2nd generation sCMOS cameras (ie PCO.Edge 4.2 and Orca v2).

There obviously is a lot of movement in the sector and it's hard to keep up
(and news doesn't always make it to Sydney quickly)!

Thanks,
Rusty

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Reece, Jeff (NIH/NIDDK) [E] <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> I have two add-on questions, one for Rusty and one for all the camera
> gurus out there.
>
> Rusty, your response was very informative so thanks much; but when you
> refer to "the usual sCMOS cameras", does that include the latest
> generation, Ham Flash 4.0 v3, pco.panda, etc., that are supposed to handle
> fixed pattern noise better than previous versions?
>
> And to camera gurus: I sometimes see reference to "2nd generation" and
> "3rd generation" for sCMOS.  Is there an industry standard of these
> definitions, or are they vendor-specific?
>
> Thanks and Kind Regards,
> Jeff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rusty Nicovich [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 11:40 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: 95b versus the world
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Gerhard,
>
> Happy to be corrected.  Thanks for the info!
>
> Rusty
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Gerhard Holst <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Dear Rusty,
> >
> > I just wanted to correct your assumption that the recent QE
> > improvement in the CSI2020 Image sensor (BAE Fairchild) cameras by
> > PCO, Andor and Hamamatsu with an QE increase up to 80% is NOT based on
> > a back thinned version, but on a process improvement in the fab and an
> > optimized optical stack (e.g. better microlenses).
> > The BSI400 base cameras from Photometrics, Princeton Instruments and
> > Tucsen are based on a backside thinned sCMOS image sensor.
> >
> > While backside thinning usually comes with an improved QE (no need for
> > microlenses) it also comes at a cost, it always has a reduction of the
> > MTF as consequence, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always less
> > MTF compared to frontside illuminated and second, the additional
> > boundary layer is always an additional source for dark current and
> > noise, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always more compared to
> > frontside illuminated. These are semiconductor physics.
> >
> > But like all other camera applications, the camera has to fit to the
> > application.
> >
> > with best regards,
> >
> > Gerhard
> > ___________________________
> > Dr. Gerhard Holst
> > PCO AG
> > Donaupark 11
> > 93309 Kelheim, Germany
> > fon [phone]
> > fax [phone]
> > www.pco.de
> > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Johann Plöb Umsatzsteuer ID-Nr.:
> > DE128590843
> > Steuernummer: 132/120/68033
> > Registergericht: Amtsgericht Regensburg HRB 9157
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Confocal Microscopy List
> > [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Im Auftrag von Rusty Nicovich
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 18:36
> > An: [hidden email]
> > Betreff: Re: 95b versus the world
> >
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Kurt's comparison is excellent and covers most of the issues with this
> > camera.
> >
> > We have one on our SMLM rig, replacing a 70% QE PCO sCMOS and with a
> > 82% QE Orca v2 on the other side port.  This is not a back-thinned
> > version of the usual sCMOS camera (all? using the CIS2020 sensor chip,
> > now the back-thinned SCI2020 from Fairchild), but rather a different
> > back-thinned sensor chip all together (GSense 144 BSI).  There was
> > some trepidation buying a camera based on a new chip from a new
> > company, packaged by a small camera company, but
> >
> > The 95B is more sensitive than the other two cameras, though the field
> > of view is reduced.  That is both because of the smaller chip and
> > because of the need for the 1.5x optivar with a 100x objective to get
> > to sub-Nyquist sampling.  The larger pixels are slightly annoying, but
> > it's still better than an 897 or even 888.  We have ours on the output
> > of an adaptive optics module so we're actually constrained by the size
> > of the deformable mirror rather than the chip.  As such we have to
> > tolerate some larger-than-desired pixels.
> >
> > The 95B has better fixed pattern noise characteristics than the usual
> > sCMOS cameras.  There is some additional on-device correction that helps.
> > For the highest precision you'd want to map the fixed pattern
> > noise/pixel response but that's true for all chips.
> >
> > We have ours running in MicroManager (1.4 and 2.0) and Metamorph.
> > There may be more options but that's all of the acquisition softwares
> > on that system.  We also have it on a water circulator to cut the fan
> when needed.
> > This adds ~$1k to the cost.
> >
> > One fun quirk is that the camera doesn't use a frame grabber.  Instead
> > it has a small card allowing it to act as a PCIe x4 device directly.
> > This is nice for less fooling with frame grabber software, but it
> > means that the camera *has* to be turned on when the PC boots or the
> > PC won't recognize it.  You can imagine some small complications with
> > this if you, for example, do data transfers overnight from instrument
> > PCs and now have to shutdown/start up the computer before acquisitions.
> >
> > Price is basically halfway between the usual sCMOS cameras (Orca,
> > Zyla, PCO
> > Edge) and an EMCCD (897, 888...).
> >
> > With these 95% QE chips on the low-light end and the Sony Pregius
> > machine vision sensors on the low end (ie the Point Grey Blackfly - 5
> > MP, 75 fps,
> > 70+% QE, USB 3.0, and $1100 USD) there are a lot of exciting options
> > 70+for
> > cameras in the last year.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rusty
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Kurt Thorn <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > *****
> > > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> > posting.
> > > *****
> > >
> > > On 2/8/2017 8:36 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
> > >
> > >> Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b
> > >> against leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to know
> > >> how it compares in real world use, especially:
> > >>
> > >
> > > Here's the comparison I did last summer:
> > > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/2016/
> > > 07/testing-the-prime95b-a-back-illuminated-scmos-camera-with-95-qe/
> > >
> > > Kurt
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kurt Thorn
> > > Associate Professor
> > > Director, Nikon Imaging Center
> > > http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
> > > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
> > >
> >
>

[Michael Giacomelli]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

When you illuminate a single pixel, some charge inevitably leaks to
adjacent pixels.  The result of this is a roll off of the MTF.

For what it's worth, Sony and various vendor's claimed to have solved
this problem with techniques like deep trench isolation, where a deep
nonconductive barrier is etched between pixels. This is pretty
important for applications like cell phone cameras where the pixels
are extremely densely packed.  It is less important as pixel sizes get
larger, but will probably trickle down from mass market to scientific
imaging eventually.

Mike

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Andrew York
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
>  I'm also happy to receive this education; I didn't know cameras had an
> MTF!
>
>  I'd noticed before that I've never managed to focus light onto a single
> pixel of an SCMOS without also illuminating adjacent pixels, but I assumed
> this was due to my optics. I suspected the sensor, but didn't have a
> mechanism to blame.
>
> Does anyone know typical MTF values for SCMOS and EMCCD sensors?
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Rusty Nicovich <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
>> *****
>>
>> Gerhard,
>>
>> Happy to be corrected.  Thanks for the info!
>>
>> Rusty
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Gerhard Holst <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > *****
>> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
>> posting.
>> > *****
>> >
>> > Dear Rusty,
>> >
>> > I just wanted to correct your assumption that the recent QE improvement
>> in
>> > the CSI2020 Image sensor (BAE Fairchild) cameras by PCO, Andor and
>> > Hamamatsu with an QE increase up to 80% is NOT based on a back thinned
>> > version, but on a process improvement in the fab and an optimized optical
>> > stack (e.g. better microlenses).
>> > The BSI400 base cameras from Photometrics, Princeton Instruments and
>> > Tucsen are based on a backside thinned sCMOS image sensor.
>> >
>> > While backside thinning usually comes with an improved QE (no need for
>> > microlenses) it also comes at a cost, it always has a reduction of the
>> MTF
>> > as consequence, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always less MTF
>> > compared to frontside illuminated and second, the additional boundary
>> layer
>> > is always an additional source for dark current and noise, sometimes
>> more,
>> > sometimes less, but always more compared to frontside illuminated. These
>> > are semiconductor physics.
>> >
>> > But like all other camera applications, the camera has to fit to the
>> > application.
>> >
>> > with best regards,
>> >
>> > Gerhard
>> > ___________________________
>> > Dr. Gerhard Holst
>> > PCO AG
>> > Donaupark 11
>> > 93309 Kelheim, Germany
>> > fon [phone]
>> > fax [phone]
>> > www.pco.de
>> > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Johann Plöb
>> > Umsatzsteuer ID-Nr.: DE128590843
>> > Steuernummer: 132/120/68033
>> > Registergericht: Amtsgericht Regensburg HRB 9157
>> >
>> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> > Von: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> > Im Auftrag von Rusty Nicovich
>> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 18:36
>> > An: [hidden email]
>> > Betreff: Re: 95b versus the world
>> >
>> > *****
>> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
>> posting.
>> > *****
>> >
>> > Kurt's comparison is excellent and covers most of the issues with this
>> > camera.
>> >
>> > We have one on our SMLM rig, replacing a 70% QE PCO sCMOS and with a 82%
>> > QE Orca v2 on the other side port.  This is not a back-thinned version of
>> > the usual sCMOS camera (all? using the CIS2020 sensor chip, now the
>> > back-thinned SCI2020 from Fairchild), but rather a different back-thinned
>> > sensor chip all together (GSense 144 BSI).  There was some trepidation
>> > buying a camera based on a new chip from a new company, packaged by a
>> small
>> > camera company, but
>> >
>> > The 95B is more sensitive than the other two cameras, though the field of
>> > view is reduced.  That is both because of the smaller chip and because of
>> > the need for the 1.5x optivar with a 100x objective to get to sub-Nyquist
>> > sampling.  The larger pixels are slightly annoying, but it's still better
>> > than an 897 or even 888.  We have ours on the output of an adaptive
>> optics
>> > module so we're actually constrained by the size of the deformable mirror
>> > rather than the chip.  As such we have to tolerate some
>> larger-than-desired
>> > pixels.
>> >
>> > The 95B has better fixed pattern noise characteristics than the usual
>> > sCMOS cameras.  There is some additional on-device correction that helps.
>> > For the highest precision you'd want to map the fixed pattern noise/pixel
>> > response but that's true for all chips.
>> >
>> > We have ours running in MicroManager (1.4 and 2.0) and Metamorph.  There
>> > may be more options but that's all of the acquisition softwares on that
>> > system.  We also have it on a water circulator to cut the fan when
>> needed.
>> > This adds ~$1k to the cost.
>> >
>> > One fun quirk is that the camera doesn't use a frame grabber.  Instead it
>> > has a small card allowing it to act as a PCIe x4 device directly.  This
>> is
>> > nice for less fooling with frame grabber software, but it means that the
>> > camera *has* to be turned on when the PC boots or the PC won't recognize
>> > it.  You can imagine some small complications with this if you, for
>> > example, do data transfers overnight from instrument PCs and now have to
>> > shutdown/start up the computer before acquisitions.
>> >
>> > Price is basically halfway between the usual sCMOS cameras (Orca, Zyla,
>> PCO
>> > Edge) and an EMCCD (897, 888...).
>> >
>> > With these 95% QE chips on the low-light end and the Sony Pregius machine
>> > vision sensors on the low end (ie the Point Grey Blackfly - 5 MP, 75 fps,
>> > 70+% QE, USB 3.0, and $1100 USD) there are a lot of exciting options for
>> > cameras in the last year.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Rusty
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Kurt Thorn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > *****
>> > > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> > > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> > > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
>> > posting.
>> > > *****
>> > >
>> > > On 2/8/2017 8:36 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b against
>> > >> leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to know how it
>> > >> compares in real world use, especially:
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Here's the comparison I did last summer:
>> > > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/2016/
>> > > 07/testing-the-prime95b-a-back-illuminated-scmos-camera-with-95-qe/
>> > >
>> > > Kurt
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Kurt Thorn
>> > > Associate Professor
>> > > Director, Nikon Imaging Center
>> > > http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
>> > > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
>> > >
>> >
>>

[Gerhard Holst]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Jeff and hi Rusty,

I dare to answer, although I don't look at myself as a camera guru, but was responsible on our side for the sCMOS project between PCO, Andor and Fairchild. In our experience whether you see or nor not see "fixed pattern" in the dark (=> offset calibration) or in the bright (=> gain calibration) depends on how good the calibration is and if the temperature of the sensor (once in steady state) doesn't change too much.

Some sCMOS cameras use a column and row calibration, which might still show some fixed pattern, while the pixel calibration, if done properly, should not. The fortunate thing is, that for all the sCMOS image sensors from either BAE Fairchild or Gpixel the required calibration to my knowledge is always linear and beside hot pixel removal does not involve neighbourhood operations. We have checked this intensively, because there are quite a lot of other CMOS image sensors out there, which require a non-linear calibration to deliver high quality image data.

Some word on the expression 1st and 2nd generation, which was first used by our friends from Japan. When the first sCMOS image sensor was developed by PCO, Andor and Fairchild, Fairchild tested as well a variety of different structures. As the group decide to go for a Rolling AND Global shutter image sensor, it might be that Fairchild, who was at the time in favour for a pure rolling shutter continued testing and later on offered this to Hamamatsu. When Hamamatsu came out with their sCMOS camera, they marketed it as 2nd generation. Well, it had a transistor and therefore a layer less, a different resolution, which makes it different from the first image sensor, but I am not sure if this qualifies it as 2nd generation.
Then BAE Fairchild has improved together with the Fab the process and achieved by this a higher QE, and they started with the rolling shutter sensor, these are the pco.edge 4.2, Zyla 4.2 and Orca v2 cameras, and this you might consider as 2nd generation, because it is a further improvement of the same image sensor. In case, as a manufacturer, if you already have used the term "2nd generation" your only choice is to increase the number further, which is, I agree confusing.
Then, due to the success of sCMOS other image sensor designers have thought about it and there are new players on the market, and one of them is Gpixel, who makes the BSI400 image sensor and as well sCMOS sensors with a little smaller pixels. They have found their first cameras in the 95b, Kouro (BSI400) and the pco.panda (smaller pixels). These image sensor also show sCMOS performance with similar fixed pattern but also even higher QE (BSI400) and a little nicer dark current behavior, that's why the pco.panda is not cooled.

@Jeff, to answer your question. There is no industry naming convention for the xth generation, and I am sorry for the confusion that it generates. As far as I can see, we don't use it.

with best regards,

Gerhard
___________________________
Dr. Gerhard Holst
PCO AG
Donaupark 11
93309 Kelheim, Germany
fon [phone]
fax [phone]
www.pco.de
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Johann Plöb
Umsatzsteuer ID-Nr.: DE128590843
Steuernummer: 132/120/68033
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Regensburg HRB 9157


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Rusty Nicovich
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 21:57
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: 95b versus the world

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Jeff,

I was not including these latest-generation cameras.  I was referring to the 1st and 2nd generation sCMOS cameras (ie PCO.Edge 4.2 and Orca v2).

There obviously is a lot of movement in the sector and it's hard to keep up (and news doesn't always make it to Sydney quickly)!

Thanks,
Rusty

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Reece, Jeff (NIH/NIDDK) [E] < [hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> I have two add-on questions, one for Rusty and one for all the camera
> gurus out there.
>
> Rusty, your response was very informative so thanks much; but when you
> refer to "the usual sCMOS cameras", does that include the latest
> generation, Ham Flash 4.0 v3, pco.panda, etc., that are supposed to
> handle fixed pattern noise better than previous versions?
>
> And to camera gurus: I sometimes see reference to "2nd generation" and
> "3rd generation" for sCMOS.  Is there an industry standard of these
> definitions, or are they vendor-specific?
>
> Thanks and Kind Regards,
> Jeff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rusty Nicovich [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 11:40 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: 95b versus the world
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Gerhard,
>
> Happy to be corrected.  Thanks for the info!
>
> Rusty
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Gerhard Holst <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Dear Rusty,
> >
> > I just wanted to correct your assumption that the recent QE
> > improvement in the CSI2020 Image sensor (BAE Fairchild) cameras by
> > PCO, Andor and Hamamatsu with an QE increase up to 80% is NOT based
> > on a back thinned version, but on a process improvement in the fab
> > and an optimized optical stack (e.g. better microlenses).
> > The BSI400 base cameras from Photometrics, Princeton Instruments and
> > Tucsen are based on a backside thinned sCMOS image sensor.
> >
> > While backside thinning usually comes with an improved QE (no need
> > for
> > microlenses) it also comes at a cost, it always has a reduction of
> > the MTF as consequence, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always
> > less MTF compared to frontside illuminated and second, the
> > additional boundary layer is always an additional source for dark
> > current and noise, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always more
> > compared to frontside illuminated. These are semiconductor physics.
> >
> > But like all other camera applications, the camera has to fit to the
> > application.
> >
> > with best regards,
> >
> > Gerhard
> > ___________________________
> > Dr. Gerhard Holst
> > PCO AG
> > Donaupark 11
> > 93309 Kelheim, Germany
> > fon [phone]
> > fax [phone]
> > www.pco.de
> > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Johann Plöb Umsatzsteuer ID-Nr.:
> > DE128590843
> > Steuernummer: 132/120/68033
> > Registergericht: Amtsgericht Regensburg HRB 9157
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Confocal Microscopy List
> > [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Im Auftrag von Rusty Nicovich
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 18:36
> > An: [hidden email]
> > Betreff: Re: 95b versus the world
> >
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Kurt's comparison is excellent and covers most of the issues with
> > this camera.
> >
> > We have one on our SMLM rig, replacing a 70% QE PCO sCMOS and with a
> > 82% QE Orca v2 on the other side port.  This is not a back-thinned
> > version of the usual sCMOS camera (all? using the CIS2020 sensor
> > chip, now the back-thinned SCI2020 from Fairchild), but rather a
> > different back-thinned sensor chip all together (GSense 144 BSI).  
> > There was some trepidation buying a camera based on a new chip from
> > a new company, packaged by a small camera company, but
> >
> > The 95B is more sensitive than the other two cameras, though the
> > field of view is reduced.  That is both because of the smaller chip
> > and because of the need for the 1.5x optivar with a 100x objective
> > to get to sub-Nyquist sampling.  The larger pixels are slightly
> > annoying, but it's still better than an 897 or even 888.  We have
> > ours on the output of an adaptive optics module so we're actually
> > constrained by the size of the deformable mirror rather than the
> > chip.  As such we have to tolerate some larger-than-desired pixels.
> >
> > The 95B has better fixed pattern noise characteristics than the
> > usual sCMOS cameras.  There is some additional on-device correction that helps.
> > For the highest precision you'd want to map the fixed pattern
> > noise/pixel response but that's true for all chips.
> >
> > We have ours running in MicroManager (1.4 and 2.0) and Metamorph.
> > There may be more options but that's all of the acquisition
> > softwares on that system.  We also have it on a water circulator to
> > cut the fan
> when needed.
> > This adds ~$1k to the cost.
> >
> > One fun quirk is that the camera doesn't use a frame grabber.  
> > Instead it has a small card allowing it to act as a PCIe x4 device directly.
> > This is nice for less fooling with frame grabber software, but it
> > means that the camera *has* to be turned on when the PC boots or the
> > PC won't recognize it.  You can imagine some small complications
> > with this if you, for example, do data transfers overnight from
> > instrument PCs and now have to shutdown/start up the computer before acquisitions.
> >
> > Price is basically halfway between the usual sCMOS cameras (Orca,
> > Zyla, PCO
> > Edge) and an EMCCD (897, 888...).
> >
> > With these 95% QE chips on the low-light end and the Sony Pregius
> > machine vision sensors on the low end (ie the Point Grey Blackfly -
> > 5 MP, 75 fps,
> > 70+% QE, USB 3.0, and $1100 USD) there are a lot of exciting options
> > 70+for
> > cameras in the last year.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rusty
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Kurt Thorn <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > *****
> > > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> > posting.
> > > *****
> > >
> > > On 2/8/2017 8:36 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
> > >
> > >> Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b
> > >> against leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to
> > >> know how it compares in real world use, especially:
> > >>
> > >
> > > Here's the comparison I did last summer:
> > > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/2016/
> > > 07/testing-the-prime95b-a-back-illuminated-scmos-camera-with-95-qe
> > > /
> > >
> > > Kurt
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kurt Thorn
> > > Associate Professor
> > > Director, Nikon Imaging Center
> > > http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
> > > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
> > >
> >
>

[Gerhard Holst]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Mike,

You wrote:
" When you illuminate a single pixel, some charge inevitably leaks to adjacent pixels.  The result of this is a roll off of the MTF."

that's correct, but also it might be a scattering issue, because the photon has to travel through a relatively thick EPI layer, such that it might scatter to the next pixel area and generate a charge carrier there. If the image sensor is prepared for better NIR sensitivity, usually the EPI layer thickness is larger, which in turns decreases the MTF further. The deep trench isolation and other counter measures work nicely with the very small pixel like image sensors in smart phones, but have not been shown yet in larger pixel sensors. This would make them more complex and expensive, because they never reach the quantities like smartphone image sensors. On the other hand the effect still might be acceptable.
Another possibility would be to add again microlenses, this would also improve the MTF on the cost of UV sensitivity.

with best regards,

Gerhard
___________________________
Dr. Gerhard Holst
PCO AG
Donaupark 11
93309 Kelheim, Germany
fon [phone]
fax [phone]
www.pco.de
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Johann Plöb
Umsatzsteuer ID-Nr.: DE128590843
Steuernummer: 132/120/68033
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Regensburg HRB 9157


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Michael Giacomelli
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 23:05
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: 95b versus the world

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

When you illuminate a single pixel, some charge inevitably leaks to adjacent pixels.  The result of this is a roll off of the MTF.

For what it's worth, Sony and various vendor's claimed to have solved this problem with techniques like deep trench isolation, where a deep nonconductive barrier is etched between pixels. This is pretty important for applications like cell phone cameras where the pixels are extremely densely packed.  It is less important as pixel sizes get larger, but will probably trickle down from mass market to scientific imaging eventually.

Mike

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Andrew York <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
>  I'm also happy to receive this education; I didn't know cameras had
> an MTF!
>
>  I'd noticed before that I've never managed to focus light onto a
> single pixel of an SCMOS without also illuminating adjacent pixels,
> but I assumed this was due to my optics. I suspected the sensor, but
> didn't have a mechanism to blame.
>
> Does anyone know typical MTF values for SCMOS and EMCCD sensors?
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Rusty Nicovich
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
>> *****
>>
>> Gerhard,
>>
>> Happy to be corrected.  Thanks for the info!
>>
>> Rusty
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Gerhard Holst <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > *****
>> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
>> posting.
>> > *****
>> >
>> > Dear Rusty,
>> >
>> > I just wanted to correct your assumption that the recent QE
>> > improvement
>> in
>> > the CSI2020 Image sensor (BAE Fairchild) cameras by PCO, Andor and
>> > Hamamatsu with an QE increase up to 80% is NOT based on a back
>> > thinned version, but on a process improvement in the fab and an
>> > optimized optical stack (e.g. better microlenses).
>> > The BSI400 base cameras from Photometrics, Princeton Instruments
>> > and Tucsen are based on a backside thinned sCMOS image sensor.
>> >
>> > While backside thinning usually comes with an improved QE (no need
>> > for
>> > microlenses) it also comes at a cost, it always has a reduction of
>> > the
>> MTF
>> > as consequence, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always less MTF
>> > compared to frontside illuminated and second, the additional
>> > boundary
>> layer
>> > is always an additional source for dark current and noise,
>> > sometimes
>> more,
>> > sometimes less, but always more compared to frontside illuminated.
>> > These are semiconductor physics.
>> >
>> > But like all other camera applications, the camera has to fit to
>> > the application.
>> >
>> > with best regards,
>> >
>> > Gerhard
>> > ___________________________
>> > Dr. Gerhard Holst
>> > PCO AG
>> > Donaupark 11
>> > 93309 Kelheim, Germany
>> > fon [phone]
>> > fax [phone]
>> > www.pco.de
>> > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Johann Plöb Umsatzsteuer ID-Nr.:
>> > DE128590843
>> > Steuernummer: 132/120/68033
>> > Registergericht: Amtsgericht Regensburg HRB 9157
>> >
>> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> > Von: Confocal Microscopy List
>> > [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> > Im Auftrag von Rusty Nicovich
>> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 18:36
>> > An: [hidden email]
>> > Betreff: Re: 95b versus the world
>> >
>> > *****
>> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
>> posting.
>> > *****
>> >
>> > Kurt's comparison is excellent and covers most of the issues with
>> > this camera.
>> >
>> > We have one on our SMLM rig, replacing a 70% QE PCO sCMOS and with
>> > a 82% QE Orca v2 on the other side port.  This is not a
>> > back-thinned version of the usual sCMOS camera (all? using the
>> > CIS2020 sensor chip, now the back-thinned SCI2020 from Fairchild),
>> > but rather a different back-thinned sensor chip all together
>> > (GSense 144 BSI).  There was some trepidation buying a camera based
>> > on a new chip from a new company, packaged by a
>> small
>> > camera company, but
>> >
>> > The 95B is more sensitive than the other two cameras, though the
>> > field of view is reduced.  That is both because of the smaller chip
>> > and because of the need for the 1.5x optivar with a 100x objective
>> > to get to sub-Nyquist sampling.  The larger pixels are slightly
>> > annoying, but it's still better than an 897 or even 888.  We have
>> > ours on the output of an adaptive
>> optics
>> > module so we're actually constrained by the size of the deformable
>> > mirror rather than the chip.  As such we have to tolerate some
>> larger-than-desired
>> > pixels.
>> >
>> > The 95B has better fixed pattern noise characteristics than the
>> > usual sCMOS cameras.  There is some additional on-device correction that helps.
>> > For the highest precision you'd want to map the fixed pattern
>> > noise/pixel response but that's true for all chips.
>> >
>> > We have ours running in MicroManager (1.4 and 2.0) and Metamorph.  
>> > There may be more options but that's all of the acquisition
>> > softwares on that system.  We also have it on a water circulator to
>> > cut the fan when
>> needed.
>> > This adds ~$1k to the cost.
>> >
>> > One fun quirk is that the camera doesn't use a frame grabber.  
>> > Instead it has a small card allowing it to act as a PCIe x4 device
>> > directly.  This
>> is
>> > nice for less fooling with frame grabber software, but it means
>> > that the camera *has* to be turned on when the PC boots or the PC
>> > won't recognize it.  You can imagine some small complications with
>> > this if you, for example, do data transfers overnight from
>> > instrument PCs and now have to shutdown/start up the computer before acquisitions.
>> >
>> > Price is basically halfway between the usual sCMOS cameras (Orca,
>> > Zyla,
>> PCO
>> > Edge) and an EMCCD (897, 888...).
>> >
>> > With these 95% QE chips on the low-light end and the Sony Pregius
>> > machine vision sensors on the low end (ie the Point Grey Blackfly -
>> > 5 MP, 75 fps,
>> > 70+% QE, USB 3.0, and $1100 USD) there are a lot of exciting
>> > 70+options for
>> > cameras in the last year.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Rusty
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Kurt Thorn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > *****
>> > > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> > > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> > > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
>> > posting.
>> > > *****
>> > >
>> > > On 2/8/2017 8:36 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b
>> > >> against leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to
>> > >> know how it compares in real world use, especially:
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Here's the comparison I did last summer:
>> > > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/2016/
>> > > 07/testing-the-prime95b-a-back-illuminated-scmos-camera-with-95-q
>> > > e/
>> > >
>> > > Kurt
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Kurt Thorn
>> > > Associate Professor
>> > > Director, Nikon Imaging Center
>> > > http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
>> > > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
>> > >
>> >
>>

[Kurt Thorn]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

On 2/9/2017 8:16 AM, Jeff Spector wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> I've often read and heard the new 95B can be used for single molecule work,
> but I'd like to know how it compares to an emccd and other cameras on the
> market for single molecule work where the single fluorophores are moving
> around and the exposure is short (say between 20 and 100 ms). I see a lot
> of cameras marketed as 'single molecule' but they mean 'stationary single
> molecule in fixed samples with good exposure times'. Anyone have any info
> on how this camera compares hen looking at dynamic single molecules?

I know Ahmet Yildiz tested it for single molecule imaging, but I don't
know what he found.

Kurt

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Gerhard Holst <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
>> *****
>>
>> Dear Rusty,
>>
>> I just wanted to correct your assumption that the recent QE improvement in
>> the CSI2020 Image sensor (BAE Fairchild) cameras by PCO, Andor and
>> Hamamatsu with an QE increase up to 80% is NOT based on a back thinned
>> version, but on a process improvement in the fab and an optimized optical
>> stack (e.g. better microlenses).
>> The BSI400 base cameras from Photometrics, Princeton Instruments and
>> Tucsen are based on a backside thinned sCMOS image sensor.
>>
>> While backside thinning usually comes with an improved QE (no need for
>> microlenses) it also comes at a cost, it always has a reduction of the MTF
>> as consequence, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always less MTF
>> compared to frontside illuminated and second, the additional boundary layer
>> is always an additional source for dark current and noise, sometimes more,
>> sometimes less, but always more compared to frontside illuminated. These
>> are semiconductor physics.
>>
>> But like all other camera applications, the camera has to fit to the
>> application.
>>
>> with best regards,
>>
>> Gerhard
>> ___________________________
>> Dr. Gerhard Holst
>> PCO AG
>> Donaupark 11
>> 93309 Kelheim, Germany
>> fon [phone]
>> fax [phone]
>> www.pco.de
>> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Johann Plöb
>> Umsatzsteuer ID-Nr.: DE128590843
>> Steuernummer: 132/120/68033
>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Regensburg HRB 9157
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Im Auftrag von Rusty Nicovich
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 18:36
>> An: [hidden email]
>> Betreff: Re: 95b versus the world
>>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
>> *****
>>
>> Kurt's comparison is excellent and covers most of the issues with this
>> camera.
>>
>> We have one on our SMLM rig, replacing a 70% QE PCO sCMOS and with a 82%
>> QE Orca v2 on the other side port.  This is not a back-thinned version of
>> the usual sCMOS camera (all? using the CIS2020 sensor chip, now the
>> back-thinned SCI2020 from Fairchild), but rather a different back-thinned
>> sensor chip all together (GSense 144 BSI).  There was some trepidation
>> buying a camera based on a new chip from a new company, packaged by a small
>> camera company, but
>>
>> The 95B is more sensitive than the other two cameras, though the field of
>> view is reduced.  That is both because of the smaller chip and because of
>> the need for the 1.5x optivar with a 100x objective to get to sub-Nyquist
>> sampling.  The larger pixels are slightly annoying, but it's still better
>> than an 897 or even 888.  We have ours on the output of an adaptive optics
>> module so we're actually constrained by the size of the deformable mirror
>> rather than the chip.  As such we have to tolerate some larger-than-desired
>> pixels.
>>
>> The 95B has better fixed pattern noise characteristics than the usual
>> sCMOS cameras.  There is some additional on-device correction that helps.
>> For the highest precision you'd want to map the fixed pattern noise/pixel
>> response but that's true for all chips.
>>
>> We have ours running in MicroManager (1.4 and 2.0) and Metamorph.  There
>> may be more options but that's all of the acquisition softwares on that
>> system.  We also have it on a water circulator to cut the fan when needed.
>> This adds ~$1k to the cost.
>>
>> One fun quirk is that the camera doesn't use a frame grabber.  Instead it
>> has a small card allowing it to act as a PCIe x4 device directly.  This is
>> nice for less fooling with frame grabber software, but it means that the
>> camera *has* to be turned on when the PC boots or the PC won't recognize
>> it.  You can imagine some small complications with this if you, for
>> example, do data transfers overnight from instrument PCs and now have to
>> shutdown/start up the computer before acquisitions.
>>
>> Price is basically halfway between the usual sCMOS cameras (Orca, Zyla, PCO
>> Edge) and an EMCCD (897, 888...).
>>
>> With these 95% QE chips on the low-light end and the Sony Pregius machine
>> vision sensors on the low end (ie the Point Grey Blackfly - 5 MP, 75 fps,
>> 70+% QE, USB 3.0, and $1100 USD) there are a lot of exciting options for
>> cameras in the last year.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rusty
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Kurt Thorn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
>> posting.
>>> *****
>>>
>>> On 2/8/2017 8:36 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b against
>>>> leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to know how it
>>>> compares in real world use, especially:
>>>>
>>> Here's the comparison I did last summer:
>>> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/2016/
>>> 07/testing-the-prime95b-a-back-illuminated-scmos-camera-with-95-qe/
>>>
>>> Kurt
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kurt Thorn
>>> Associate Professor
>>> Director, Nikon Imaging Center
>>> http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
>>> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
>>>

--
Kurt Thorn
Associate Professor
Director, Nikon Imaging Center
http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/