Deconvolution question
Locked
12
12
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** I have a user who has unavoidable brightly fluorescent blobs in his field of view that interfere with deconvolution of the less fluorescent structures. I just found out he has been masking them out before deconvolving by making isosurface objects and setting the voxels inside the object to zero. From what I understand about deconvolution, this seems like a bad idea because it introduces (a) void(s) with sharp edges in the dataset as well as clipping out information that likely came from regions of the specimen outside the blob. I think he should crop the z stack to exclude the blobs and then deconvolve but I don't know how important this issue actually is. Can anyone advise me on this? Thanks Kate Luby-Phelps |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Hi, You might be able to do unsharp masking on the whole image stack. It is useful in EM diffraction to reduce the intensity of the central spot. I don't know of anyone who has used it for confocal stacks, however. Carol Heckman Center for Microscopy & Microanalysis Bowling Green State University ________________________________________ From: Confocal Microscopy List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kate Luby-Phelps [[hidden email]] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 12:15 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Deconvolution question ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** I have a user who has unavoidable brightly fluorescent blobs in his field of view that interfere with deconvolution of the less fluorescent structures. I just found out he has been masking them out before deconvolving by making isosurface objects and setting the voxels inside the object to zero. From what I understand about deconvolution, this seems like a bad idea because it introduces (a) void(s) with sharp edges in the dataset as well as clipping out information that likely came from regions of the specimen outside the blob. I think he should crop the z stack to exclude the blobs and then deconvolve but I don't know how important this issue actually is. Can anyone advise me on this? Thanks Kate Luby-Phelps |
|
|
In reply to this post by Kate Luby-Phelps
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Dear Kate, you are correct, clipping may introduce discontinuities. You may get away with it if there is enough (PSF support region) zero background around the clipping area. Generally I would not recommend it, unless you are using a nonlinear iterative algorithm that is capable of restoring missing data around the size of the PSF support (which I expect from most commercial deconvolution software). It also needs to be understood that objects will become brighter as "photons are being re-assigned". Deconvolution software usually allows for automatic normalization, which however may not be compatible with quantitative measurements. For the latter, a result in a floating point format would be desirable. You may get away with that if you have a camera with < 16bit (e.g. 12 or 14bit) grey level resolution and restore the image to its full 16bit capacity. In deconvolution microscopy it is understandable that you want to make use of the longest possible exposure time so that the full dynamic range of the camera is used, resulting in the least amounts of noise. Otherwise you would just use less exposure time. Another point is to avoid fluorescent and/or camera saturation at all cost. I hope this helped a bit. Regards Lutz -------------------------------------------------- From: "Kate Luby-Phelps" <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 12:15 To: <[hidden email]> Subject: Deconvolution question > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > I have a user who has unavoidable brightly fluorescent blobs in his field > of view > that interfere with deconvolution of the less fluorescent structures. I > just found > out he has been masking them out before deconvolving by making isosurface > objects and setting the voxels inside the object to zero. From what I > understand > about deconvolution, this seems like a bad idea because it introduces (a) > void(s) > with sharp edges in the dataset as well as clipping out information that > likely > came from regions of the specimen outside the blob. I think he should crop > the z > stack to exclude the blobs and then deconvolve but I don't know how > important > this issue actually is. Can anyone advise me on this? > > Thanks > > Kate Luby-Phelps |
|
|
In reply to this post by Kate Luby-Phelps
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** I think yould can ga for advise to SVI.nl fot deconvolution questions, mayve they can give you an advise! Good luck, Tineke Vendrig 2012/11/8 Kate Luby-Phelps <[hidden email]> > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > I have a user who has unavoidable brightly fluorescent blobs in his field > of view > that interfere with deconvolution of the less fluorescent structures. I > just found > out he has been masking them out before deconvolving by making isosurface > objects and setting the voxels inside the object to zero. From what I > understand > about deconvolution, this seems like a bad idea because it introduces (a) > void(s) > with sharp edges in the dataset as well as clipping out information that > likely > came from regions of the specimen outside the blob. I think he should crop > the z > stack to exclude the blobs and then deconvolve but I don't know how > important > this issue actually is. Can anyone advise me on this? > > Thanks > > Kate Luby-Phelps > |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** I think yould can ga for advise to SVI.nl fot deconvolution questions, mayve they can give you an advise! Good luck, Tineke Vendrig > > 2012/11/8 Kate Luby-Phelps <[hidden email]> > >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >> ***** >> >> I have a user who has unavoidable brightly fluorescent blobs in his field >> of view >> that interfere with deconvolution of the less fluorescent structures. I >> just found >> out he has been masking them out before deconvolving by making isosurface >> objects and setting the voxels inside the object to zero. From what I >> understand >> about deconvolution, this seems like a bad idea because it introduces (a) >> void(s) >> with sharp edges in the dataset as well as clipping out information that >> likely >> came from regions of the specimen outside the blob. I think he should >> crop the z >> stack to exclude the blobs and then deconvolve but I don't know how >> important >> this issue actually is. Can anyone advise me on this? >> >> Thanks >> >> Kate Luby-Phelps >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Kate Luby-Phelps
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** (Commercial producer of AutoQuant, but this particular answer is for any deconvolution system) The PSF of an optical system is modeled as (and deconvolved as) a linear shift invariant (LSI) system. Non-linear changes, such as zeroing out inconvenient data prior to deconvolution, will give you a bad deconvolution in any region (above, below, or near in XY) within the range of the PSF. That's because you will have a dimmer, unclipped remainder of the blob unsupported by a PSF, and you will have objects outside the blob that are missing their PSF extent through the clipping region. Not to mention the sharp edges of the cut region - those will indeed be likely to come through the deconvolution amplified to some extent. A sharp-edged clip is the worst possible method, introducing lots of high spatial frequency noise; a Gaussian dimming of the blob would be better, but more complex, and still a non-linear and shift variant change to the observations. [ Linear changes mean that Ax + Bx = (A+B)x, that the observed data can be treated as a simple sum of the PSF's of each fluorescent point in the original object; shift invariant means that the same PSF applies all through the objects ] Unless the bright objects are _saturating_ your camera/detector, leave them in. Perform the deconvolution and then, only then, clip the bright fluorescent blobs from the reconstruction. They'll be considerably smaller after deconvolution, non-linear clipping won't affect anything outside those regions, and it will be easier to adjust contrast for the objects of interest without them. If your user is saturating his images, that itself is a non-linear change of your observations - and may well be the source of his deconvolution issues. Have the user reduce exposure times until his observations are no longer saturated. If that is not workable (perhaps the features of interest become too dim, get lost in noise or quantization binning), I would suggest a higher bit depth camera. Otherwise, your user is going to have to live with some level of distortion in their deconvolution reconstructions. Kevin Ryan Media Cybernetics, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kate Luby-Phelps Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 12:16 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Deconvolution question ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** I have a user who has unavoidable brightly fluorescent blobs in his field of view that interfere with deconvolution of the less fluorescent structures. I just found out he has been masking them out before deconvolving by making isosurface objects and setting the voxels inside the object to zero. From what I understand about deconvolution, this seems like a bad idea because it introduces (a) void(s) with sharp edges in the dataset as well as clipping out information that likely came from regions of the specimen outside the blob. I think he should crop the z stack to exclude the blobs and then deconvolve but I don't know how important this issue actually is. Can anyone advise me on this? Thanks Kate Luby-Phelps ###################################################################################### CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission and its attachments contain confidential and proprietary information of Princeton Instruments, Acton Research, Media Cybernetics and their affiliates and is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. Any use, dissemination, printing, or copying of this transmission and its attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, print, copy, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or return email and promptly delete all copies of the original transmission and its attachments from your computer system. ####################################################################################### |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** I'd agree with Ryan in saying that, unless saturated the bright objects should be left in, and that any resulting artifacts would be a sign that something else was wrong with the deconvolution process (my money would be on the PSF measurement). If the user has saturated the bright objects, however, then the image will not be able to be deconvolved in a straight forward manner. Some deconvolution algorithms can deal with 'missing' data, ignoring certain pixels and reconstructing the image on the remainder, and this might be an option for dealing with saturated data if the software supports it (would any vendors care to comment here - is there a facility for specifying invalid pixels in any of the commercial packages?). I've done this quite successfully in the past with a custom variant of the ICTM algorithm in which the misfit on the invalid pixels is set to zero before being back-propagated. The missing data facility, in combination with padding, is used behind the scenes in practically all deconvolution algorithms to suppress edge effects, so it's mostly a question of whether this is exposed to the user in any form. cheers, David ________________________________ From: "Ryan, Kevin" <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Sent: Friday, 9 November 2012 10:08 AM Subject: Re: Deconvolution question ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** (Commercial producer of AutoQuant, but this particular answer is for any deconvolution system) The PSF of an optical system is modeled as (and deconvolved as) a linear shift invariant (LSI) system. Non-linear changes, such as zeroing out inconvenient data prior to deconvolution, will give you a bad deconvolution in any region (above, below, or near in XY) within the range of the PSF. That's because you will have a dimmer, unclipped remainder of the blob unsupported by a PSF, and you will have objects outside the blob that are missing their PSF extent through the clipping region. Not to mention the sharp edges of the cut region - those will indeed be likely to come through the deconvolution amplified to some extent. A sharp-edged clip is the worst possible method, introducing lots of high spatial frequency noise; a Gaussian dimming of the blob would be better, but more complex, and still a non-linear and shift variant change to the observations. [ Linear changes mean that Ax + Bx = (A+B)x, that the observed data can be treated as a simple sum of the PSF's of each fluorescent point in the original object; shift invariant means that the same PSF applies all through the objects ] Unless the bright objects are _saturating_ your camera/detector, leave them in. Perform the deconvolution and then, only then, clip the bright fluorescent blobs from the reconstruction. They'll be considerably smaller after deconvolution, non-linear clipping won't affect anything outside those regions, and it will be easier to adjust contrast for the objects of interest without them. If your user is saturating his images, that itself is a non-linear change of your observations - and may well be the source of his deconvolution issues. Have the user reduce exposure times until his observations are no longer saturated. If that is not workable (perhaps the features of interest become too dim, get lost in noise or quantization binning), I would suggest a higher bit depth camera. Otherwise, your user is going to have to live with some level of distortion in their deconvolution reconstructions. Kevin Ryan Media Cybernetics, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kate Luby-Phelps Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 12:16 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Deconvolution question ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** I have a user who has unavoidable brightly fluorescent blobs in his field of view that interfere with deconvolution of the less fluorescent structures. I just found out he has been masking them out before deconvolving by making isosurface objects and setting the voxels inside the object to zero. From what I understand about deconvolution, this seems like a bad idea because it introduces (a) void(s) with sharp edges in the dataset as well as clipping out information that likely came from regions of the specimen outside the blob. I think he should crop the z stack to exclude the blobs and then deconvolve but I don't know how important this issue actually is. Can anyone advise me on this? Thanks Kate Luby-Phelps ###################################################################################### CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission and its attachments contain confidential and proprietary information of Princeton Instruments, Acton Research, Media Cybernetics and their affiliates and is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. Any use, dissemination, printing, or copying of this transmission and its attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, print, copy, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or return email and promptly delete all copies of the original transmission and its attachments from your computer system. ####################################################################################### |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** David, the Zeiss ZEN iterative deconvolution algorithms use the missing data facility. It is activated simply by input pixels that have zero grey value and by setting the first estimate to the mean of the input image (selection via the advanced settings). It is important to consider that "missing" data is actually contained within the PSF support. Therefore, the region or volume of zero values should not be larger than the PSF. Hope that helps. Regards Lutz __________________________________ L u t z S c h a e f e r Sen. Scientist Mathematical modeling / Computational microscopy Advanced Imaging Methodology Consultation 16-715 Doon Village Rd. Kitchener, ON, N2P 2A2, Canada Phone/Fax: +1 519 894 8870 Email: [hidden email] ___________________________________ -------------------------------------------------- From: "David Baddeley" <[hidden email]> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 15:25 To: <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: Deconvolution question > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > I'd agree with Ryan in saying that, unless saturated the bright objects > should be left in, and that any resulting artifacts would be a sign that > something else was wrong with the deconvolution process (my money would be > on the PSF measurement). If the user has saturated the bright objects, > however, then the image will not be able to be deconvolved in a straight > forward manner. > > Some deconvolution algorithms can deal with 'missing' data, ignoring > certain pixels and reconstructing the image on the remainder, and this > might be an option for dealing with saturated data if the software > supports it (would any vendors care to comment here - is there a facility > for specifying invalid pixels in any of the commercial packages?). I've > done this quite successfully in the past with a custom variant of the ICTM > algorithm in which the misfit on the invalid pixels is set to zero before > being back-propagated. The missing data facility, in combination with > padding, is used behind the scenes in practically all deconvolution > algorithms to suppress edge effects, so it's mostly a question of whether > this is exposed to the user in any form. > > cheers, > David > > > > ________________________________ > From: "Ryan, Kevin" <[hidden email]> > To: [hidden email] > Sent: Friday, 9 November 2012 10:08 AM > Subject: Re: Deconvolution question > > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > (Commercial producer of AutoQuant, but this particular answer is for any > deconvolution system) > > The PSF of an optical system is modeled as (and deconvolved as) a linear > shift invariant (LSI) system. Non-linear changes, such as zeroing out > inconvenient data prior to deconvolution, will give you a bad > deconvolution in any region (above, below, or near in XY) within the range > of the PSF. That's because you will have a dimmer, unclipped remainder of > the blob unsupported by a PSF, and you will have objects outside the blob > that are missing their PSF extent through the clipping region. Not to > mention the sharp edges of the cut region - those will indeed be likely to > come through the deconvolution amplified to some extent. A sharp-edged > clip is the worst possible method, introducing lots of high spatial > frequency noise; a Gaussian dimming of the blob would be better, but more > complex, and still a non-linear and shift variant change to the > observations. > > [ Linear changes mean that Ax + Bx = (A+B)x, that the observed data can be > treated as a simple sum of the PSF's of each fluorescent point in the > original object; shift invariant means that the same PSF applies all > through the objects ] > > Unless the bright objects are _saturating_ your camera/detector, leave > them in. Perform the deconvolution and then, only then, clip the bright > fluorescent blobs from the reconstruction. They'll be considerably smaller > after deconvolution, non-linear clipping won't affect anything outside > those regions, and it will be easier to adjust contrast for the objects of > interest without them. > > If your user is saturating his images, that itself is a non-linear change > of your observations - and may well be the source of his deconvolution > issues. Have the user reduce exposure times until his observations are no > longer saturated. If that is not workable (perhaps the features of > interest become too dim, get lost in noise or quantization binning), I > would suggest a higher bit depth camera. > > Otherwise, your user is going to have to live with some level of > distortion in their deconvolution reconstructions. > > > Kevin Ryan > Media Cybernetics, Inc. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] > On Behalf Of Kate Luby-Phelps > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 12:16 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Deconvolution question > > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > I have a user who has unavoidable brightly fluorescent blobs in his field > of view that interfere with deconvolution of the less fluorescent > structures. I just found out he has been masking them out before > deconvolving by making isosurface objects and setting the voxels inside > the object to zero. From what I understand about deconvolution, this seems > like a bad idea because it introduces (a) void(s) with sharp edges in the > dataset as well as clipping out information that likely came from regions > of the specimen outside the blob. I think he should crop the z stack to > exclude the blobs and then deconvolve but I don't know how important this > issue actually is. Can anyone advise me on this? > > Thanks > > Kate Luby-Phelps > ###################################################################################### > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: > This email transmission and its attachments contain confidential and > proprietary information > of Princeton Instruments, Acton Research, Media Cybernetics and their > affiliates and is > intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. > Any use, dissemination, > printing, or copying of this transmission and its attachment(s) is > strictly prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please do not read, print, copy, > distribute or take action in > reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please > notify the sender immediately > by telephone or return email and promptly delete all copies of the > original transmission and its > attachments from your computer system. > ####################################################################################### |
 
|
Steffen Dietzel |
The first confocal microscope
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Dear all, it seems to be general textbook-knowledge that Marvin Minsky constructed the first confocal microscope. I am wondering about two things: 1. Did he? and 2. Did his description in the now famous patent have an impact on later work or did later authors reinvent the whole thing and only then found out that Minsky was earlier? Concerning 1: I recently found references to a paper by Hiroto Naora from 1951 which seems to describe a system with confocal apertures. He used them to avoid stray light by restricting illumination to a circle of some micrometers (!) at a time. He imaged (nearly) a whole cell nucleus at once and there was no scanning but the general principle seems to be there. Not diffraction limited of course, but probably Minsky's system, also was not, although he was using a small illumination spot: Science 14 September 1951 Vol. 114 no. 2959 pp. 279-280 DOI: 10.1126/science.114.2959.279 https://www.sciencemag.org/content/114/2959/279.extract?sid=aa1d62d2-4cc7-4087-8d30-01633ca3f84d An interesting article by Colin Sheppard (http://www.imaging-git.com/science/light-microscopy/confocal-microscopy) in addition mentions a paper from 1940 by Goldman with a confocal slit system, but I wasn't able to get the complete reference so far and thus couldn't get the paper. (Stupidly, the web site gives only the first three references. Maybe somebody can help here.) So I wonder, are these earlier descriptions not considered confocal for some reason or did they go unnoticed by text book authors? Concerning 2: For example the Petran et al. Paper from 1968 introduding the tandem-Nipkow Scanner (http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.58.000661) does not mention Minsky. Same with some other early confocal papers I checked. So I wonder when the confocal people acutally became aware of the Minsky patent. And an extra question: What is the first published or preserved picture taken with a confocal microscope? Would that be the ones in the 1967 Egger and Petran paper? (Science 21 July 1967: 305-307. [DOI:10.1126/science.157.3786.305] ) I am looking forward to get your thoughts on these questions. Steffen -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Walter-Brendel-Zentrum für experimentelle Medizin (WBex) Head of light microscopy Mail room: Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377 München Building location: Marchioninistr. 27, München-Großhadern |
|
|
John Oreopoulos |
Re: The first confocal microscope
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Hi Steffen, I don't have a definite answer for all your questions, but I'd certainly like to know as well. My impression from the early literature is (as you pointed out) that the spinning disk variant of the confocal microscope developed quite independently of the laser-scanning approach. I suspect this is because the scanning action of a Nipkow disk used to create an image had been known long before Minsky's ideas were put onto paper. In fact, some early mechanical televisions even used this principle. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gottlieb_Nipkow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GYGxEk0btA&feature=related There is a very good paper that details the history of the laser-scanning approach that emerged in the 1980's by Brad Amos: Amos, W.B. and J.G. White, How the confocal laser scanning microscope entered biological research. Biology of the Cell, 2003. 95(6): p. 335-342. I think by the time MRC came online commercially and during its development, the Minsky patent had probably run out, but the makers were well aware of it (the paper above mentions this). Don't forget Minsky was imaging microchip circuits, not biological materials, and the requirements/parts for a confocal microscope to be used for biological imaging probably only became practical when lasers/computers/etc (long after 1955) became cheaper. There are some significant differences. Looking back, you can definitely see that the confocal's (laser scanning or spinning disk) development was very incremental over the first few decades. John Oreopoulos Research Assistant Spectral Applied Research Richmond Hill, Ontario Canada www.spectral.ca On 2012-11-13, at 1:36 PM, Steffen Dietzel wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > Dear all, > > it seems to be general textbook-knowledge that Marvin Minsky constructed the first confocal microscope. > > I am wondering about two things: 1. Did he? and 2. Did his description in the now famous patent have an impact on later work or did later authors reinvent the whole thing and only then found out that Minsky was earlier? > > Concerning 1: > I recently found references to a paper by Hiroto Naora from 1951 which seems to describe a system with confocal apertures. He used them to avoid stray light by restricting illumination to a circle of some micrometers (!) at a time. He imaged (nearly) a whole cell nucleus at once and there was no scanning but the general principle seems to be there. Not diffraction limited of course, but probably Minsky's system, also was not, although he was using a small illumination spot: > Science 14 September 1951 > Vol. 114 no. 2959 pp. 279-280 > DOI: 10.1126/science.114.2959.279 > https://www.sciencemag.org/content/114/2959/279.extract?sid=aa1d62d2-4cc7-4087-8d30-01633ca3f84d > > An interesting article by Colin Sheppard (http://www.imaging-git.com/science/light-microscopy/confocal-microscopy) in addition mentions a paper from 1940 by Goldman with a confocal slit system, but I wasn't able to get the complete reference so far and thus couldn't get the paper. (Stupidly, the web site gives only the first three references. Maybe somebody can help here.) > > So I wonder, are these earlier descriptions not considered confocal for some reason or did they go unnoticed by text book authors? > > > Concerning 2: > For example the Petran et al. Paper from 1968 introduding the tandem-Nipkow Scanner (http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.58.000661) does not mention Minsky. Same with some other early confocal papers I checked. So I wonder when the confocal people acutally became aware of the Minsky patent. > > > And an extra question: What is the first published or preserved picture taken with a confocal microscope? Would that be the ones in the 1967 Egger and Petran paper? (Science 21 July 1967: 305-307. [DOI:10.1126/science.157.3786.305] ) > > > I am looking forward to get your thoughts on these questions. > > Steffen > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München > Walter-Brendel-Zentrum für experimentelle Medizin (WBex) > Head of light microscopy > > Mail room: > Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377 München > > Building location: > Marchioninistr. 27, München-Großhadern |
|
|
JOEL B. SHEFFIELD |
Re: The first confocal microscope
|
|
In reply to this post by Steffen Dietzel
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM, JOEL B. SHEFFIELD <[hidden email]> wrote: > From what I have been able to gather, according to this reminiscence > Minsky developed the machine, with a scanning stage, and then, almost > accidentally, patented it. There is an interesting addendum to this as > well in this link. > http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/ConfocalMemoir.html > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Steffen Dietzel <[hidden email]>wrote: > >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy> >> ***** >> >> Dear all, >> >> it seems to be general textbook-knowledge that Marvin Minsky constructed >> the first confocal microscope. >> >> I am wondering about two things: 1. Did he? and 2. Did his description in >> the now famous patent have an impact on later work or did later authors >> reinvent the whole thing and only then found out that Minsky was earlier? >> >> Concerning 1: >> I recently found references to a paper by Hiroto Naora from 1951 which >> seems to describe a system with confocal apertures. He used them to avoid >> stray light by restricting illumination to a circle of some micrometers (!) >> at a time. He imaged (nearly) a whole cell nucleus at once and there was no >> scanning but the general principle seems to be there. Not diffraction >> limited of course, but probably Minsky's system, also was not, although he >> was using a small illumination spot: >> Science 14 September 1951 >> Vol. 114 no. 2959 pp. 279-280 >> DOI: 10.1126/science.114.2959.279 >> https://www.sciencemag.org/**content/114/2959/279.extract?** >> sid=aa1d62d2-4cc7-4087-8d30-**01633ca3f84d<https://www.sciencemag.org/content/114/2959/279.extract?sid=aa1d62d2-4cc7-4087-8d30-01633ca3f84d> >> >> An interesting article by Colin Sheppard (http://www.imaging-git.com/** >> science/light-microscopy/**confocal-microscopy<http://www.imaging-git.com/science/light-microscopy/confocal-microscopy>) >> in addition mentions a paper from 1940 by Goldman with a confocal slit >> system, but I wasn't able to get the complete reference so far and thus >> couldn't get the paper. (Stupidly, the web site gives only the first three >> references. Maybe somebody can help here.) >> >> So I wonder, are these earlier descriptions not considered confocal for >> some reason or did they go unnoticed by text book authors? >> >> >> Concerning 2: >> For example the Petran et al. Paper from 1968 introduding the >> tandem-Nipkow Scanner (http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/**JOSA.58.000661<http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.58.000661>) >> does not mention Minsky. Same with some other early confocal papers I >> checked. So I wonder when the confocal people acutally became aware of the >> Minsky patent. >> >> >> And an extra question: What is the first published or preserved picture >> taken with a confocal microscope? Would that be the ones in the 1967 Egger >> and Petran paper? (Science 21 July 1967: 305-307. >> [DOI:10.1126/science.157.3786.**305] ) >> >> >> I am looking forward to get your thoughts on these questions. >> >> Steffen >> >> -- >> ------------------------------**------------------------------ >> Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat >> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München >> Walter-Brendel-Zentrum für experimentelle Medizin (WBex) >> Head of light microscopy >> >> Mail room: >> Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377 München >> >> Building location: >> Marchioninistr. 27, München-Großhadern >> > > > > -- > > > Joel B. Sheffield, Ph.D > Department of Biology > Temple University > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > Voice: 215 204 8839 > e-mail: [hidden email] > URL: http://astro.temple.edu/~jbs > > -- Joel B. Sheffield, Ph.D Department of Biology Temple University Philadelphia, PA 19122 Voice: 215 204 8839 e-mail: [hidden email] URL: http://astro.temple.edu/~jbs |
|
|
John Oreopoulos |
Re: The first confocal microscope
|
|
In reply to this post by John Oreopoulos
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Just correct my one comment about Minsky - he was using his microscope to image biological materials. I was momentarily confused about what he was investigating at the time (artificial intelligence vs. brains and neuroscience). There were other researchers who came along later that used laser-scanning (and single-point non-scanning) confocal microscopy for metallurgical imaging and microcircuit metrology. Too bad there are no recordings of those first confocal images he saw on his radar instrument. Thanks for sharing the memoir link. John Oreopoulos On 2012-11-13, at 2:36 PM, John Oreopoulos wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > Hi Steffen, > > I don't have a definite answer for all your questions, but I'd certainly like to know as well. My impression from the early literature is (as you pointed out) that the spinning disk variant of the confocal microscope developed quite independently of the laser-scanning approach. I suspect this is because the scanning action of a Nipkow disk used to create an image had been known long before Minsky's ideas were put onto paper. In fact, some early mechanical televisions even used this principle. See here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gottlieb_Nipkow > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GYGxEk0btA&feature=related > > There is a very good paper that details the history of the laser-scanning approach that emerged in the 1980's by Brad Amos: > > Amos, W.B. and J.G. White, How the confocal laser scanning microscope entered biological research. Biology of the Cell, 2003. 95(6): p. 335-342. > > I think by the time MRC came online commercially and during its development, the Minsky patent had probably run out, but the makers were well aware of it (the paper above mentions this). Don't forget Minsky was imaging microchip circuits, not biological materials, and the requirements/parts for a confocal microscope to be used for biological imaging probably only became practical when lasers/computers/etc (long after 1955) became cheaper. There are some significant differences. Looking back, you can definitely see that the confocal's (laser scanning or spinning disk) development was very incremental over the first few decades. > > John Oreopoulos > Research Assistant > Spectral Applied Research > Richmond Hill, Ontario > Canada > www.spectral.ca > > > > On 2012-11-13, at 1:36 PM, Steffen Dietzel wrote: > >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >> ***** >> >> Dear all, >> >> it seems to be general textbook-knowledge that Marvin Minsky constructed the first confocal microscope. >> >> I am wondering about two things: 1. Did he? and 2. Did his description in the now famous patent have an impact on later work or did later authors reinvent the whole thing and only then found out that Minsky was earlier? >> >> Concerning 1: >> I recently found references to a paper by Hiroto Naora from 1951 which seems to describe a system with confocal apertures. He used them to avoid stray light by restricting illumination to a circle of some micrometers (!) at a time. He imaged (nearly) a whole cell nucleus at once and there was no scanning but the general principle seems to be there. Not diffraction limited of course, but probably Minsky's system, also was not, although he was using a small illumination spot: >> Science 14 September 1951 >> Vol. 114 no. 2959 pp. 279-280 >> DOI: 10.1126/science.114.2959.279 >> https://www.sciencemag.org/content/114/2959/279.extract?sid=aa1d62d2-4cc7-4087-8d30-01633ca3f84d >> >> An interesting article by Colin Sheppard (http://www.imaging-git.com/science/light-microscopy/confocal-microscopy) in addition mentions a paper from 1940 by Goldman with a confocal slit system, but I wasn't able to get the complete reference so far and thus couldn't get the paper. (Stupidly, the web site gives only the first three references. Maybe somebody can help here.) >> >> So I wonder, are these earlier descriptions not considered confocal for some reason or did they go unnoticed by text book authors? >> >> >> Concerning 2: >> For example the Petran et al. Paper from 1968 introduding the tandem-Nipkow Scanner (http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.58.000661) does not mention Minsky. Same with some other early confocal papers I checked. So I wonder when the confocal people acutally became aware of the Minsky patent. >> >> >> And an extra question: What is the first published or preserved picture taken with a confocal microscope? Would that be the ones in the 1967 Egger and Petran paper? (Science 21 July 1967: 305-307. [DOI:10.1126/science.157.3786.305] ) >> >> >> I am looking forward to get your thoughts on these questions. >> >> Steffen >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat >> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München >> Walter-Brendel-Zentrum für experimentelle Medizin (WBex) >> Head of light microscopy >> >> Mail room: >> Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377 München >> >> Building location: >> Marchioninistr. 27, München-Großhadern |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steffen Dietzel
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Steffen, This matter has popped up on the list a few times before.... I've been waiting for Guy Cox to chip in, as he has spoken at length with Hiroto, where as I've only met him briefly and didn't actually know who he was at the time :-( I tell all of my students that Marvin Minsky *patented* the first confocal microscope... Cheers Daryl Webb | Light Microscopy Specialist | Centre for Advanced Microscopy | microscopy.anu.edu.au RN Robertson Building ( Bld #46) Sullivan's Creek Road, The Australian National University, Acton, ACT 0200 Australia Tel Direct: +61 (0)2 6125 4819 | CAM Reception: +61 (0)2 6125 3543 | Fax +61 (0)2 6125 3218 | [hidden email] | CRICOS Provider #00120C |
|
|
In reply to this post by John Oreopoulos
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** OK, a few points. Marvin Minsky probably did make the first confocal microscope that formed an image. Hiroto Naora made, in the 1940s, a confocal micro-spectrophotometer which measured one point at a time. He gave an historical paper about it at an Australian Microscopy Conference in Canberra some years ago (he was working in ANU at the time). His work was published in top US journals so I suspect it was known to Minsky but a long correspondence with Minsky ended abruptly when I asked that question. I find it improbable that Minsky was imaging silicon chips since they didn't exist at the time. Certainly what he wanted to image was the brain, or slices of it. Whether he ever did I don't know - none of his images (displayed on a long-persistence CRT) were recorded for posterity, which suggests that they weren't too inspiring. Petràn designed the first spinning disk microscope in Czechoslovakia - how much he knew about previous work is not clear. Davidovits & Eggar at Yale were initially collaborating with Petràn but then Steve Baer (who is still around and active) introduced them to Minsky's patent and they went on to make the first single-point laser scanning confocal. Their interest was also connections in the brain, and they did publish micrographs. This work was known to Colin Sheppard and Tony Wilson in Oxford, who made the first commercial CLSM, marketed as the Bio-Rad SOM100 until Bio-Rad ditched it in favour of Brad Amos' MRC design. This is a very telescoped account. I gave a paper on this many years ago at a US conference - either the combined FOM-Scanning meeting in Atlantic City or at a later Scanning meeting in Monterey. I also published an article in the Australian EM Newsletter, but I appreciate that this is not a very accessible reference. Guy -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Oreopoulos Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2012 6:36 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: The first confocal microscope ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Hi Steffen, I don't have a definite answer for all your questions, but I'd certainly like to know as well. My impression from the early literature is (as you pointed out) that the spinning disk variant of the confocal microscope developed quite independently of the laser-scanning approach. I suspect this is because the scanning action of a Nipkow disk used to create an image had been known long before Minsky's ideas were put onto paper. In fact, some early mechanical televisions even used this principle. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gottlieb_Nipkow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GYGxEk0btA&feature=related There is a very good paper that details the history of the laser-scanning approach that emerged in the 1980's by Brad Amos: Amos, W.B. and J.G. White, How the confocal laser scanning microscope entered biological research. Biology of the Cell, 2003. 95(6): p. 335-342. I think by the time MRC came online commercially and during its development, the Minsky patent had probably run out, but the makers were well aware of it (the paper above mentions this). Don't forget Minsky was imaging microchip circuits, not biological materials, and the requirements/parts for a confocal microscope to be used for biological imaging probably only became practical when lasers/computers/etc (long after 1955) became cheaper. There are some significant differences. Looking back, you can definitely see that the confocal's (laser scanning or spinning disk) development was very incremental over the first few decades. John Oreopoulos Research Assistant Spectral Applied Research Richmond Hill, Ontario Canada www.spectral.ca On 2012-11-13, at 1:36 PM, Steffen Dietzel wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > Dear all, > > it seems to be general textbook-knowledge that Marvin Minsky constructed the first confocal microscope. > > I am wondering about two things: 1. Did he? and 2. Did his description in the now famous patent have an impact on later work or did later authors reinvent the whole thing and only then found out that Minsky was earlier? > > Concerning 1: > I recently found references to a paper by Hiroto Naora from 1951 which seems to describe a system with confocal apertures. He used them to avoid stray light by restricting illumination to a circle of some micrometers (!) at a time. He imaged (nearly) a whole cell nucleus at once and there was no scanning but the general principle seems to be there. Not diffraction limited of course, but probably Minsky's system, also was not, although he was using a small illumination spot: > Science 14 September 1951 > Vol. 114 no. 2959 pp. 279-280 > DOI: 10.1126/science.114.2959.279 > https://www.sciencemag.org/content/114/2959/279.extract?sid=aa1d62d2-4 > cc7-4087-8d30-01633ca3f84d > > An interesting article by Colin Sheppard > (http://www.imaging-git.com/science/light-microscopy/confocal-microsco > py) in addition mentions a paper from 1940 by Goldman with a confocal > slit system, but I wasn't able to get the complete reference so far > and thus couldn't get the paper. (Stupidly, the web site gives only > the first three references. Maybe somebody can help here.) > > So I wonder, are these earlier descriptions not considered confocal for some reason or did they go unnoticed by text book authors? > > > Concerning 2: > For example the Petran et al. Paper from 1968 introduding the tandem-Nipkow Scanner (http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.58.000661) does not mention Minsky. Same with some other early confocal papers I checked. So I wonder when the confocal people acutally became aware of the Minsky patent. > > > And an extra question: What is the first published or preserved > picture taken with a confocal microscope? Would that be the ones in > the 1967 Egger and Petran paper? (Science 21 July 1967: 305-307. > [DOI:10.1126/science.157.3786.305] ) > > > I am looking forward to get your thoughts on these questions. > > Steffen > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Walter-Brendel-Zentrum für > experimentelle Medizin (WBex) Head of light microscopy > > Mail room: > Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377 München > > Building location: > Marchioninistr. 27, München-Großhadern |
|
|
Johannes Helm |
Re: The first confocal microscope
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Thank you, Guy, for this information. One more point, which you did not mention - and possibly neither you nor any other persons, including me, know any details about it - might be that Mojmir Petran was struck by the events in Praha in spring 1968 so that he could not continue his work as a scientist after this catastrophe. I have heard rumours about that as early as 1989 but I don't know any details, neither whether there is any historical truth in these rumours. What I do know is that a company named Stroj Import sold Petran type systems during the early nineties, but I am not sure whether they managed to sell a considerable number of them. Although I do have czech ancestors, I don't talk any czech. What I nevertheless find out from http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojm%C3%ADr_Petr%C3%A1%C5%88 is that Petran was awarded the Medaile Za zásluhy by President Klaus in 2005. Best wishes, Johannes > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > OK, a few points. Marvin Minsky probably did make the first confocal > microscope that formed an image. Hiroto Naora made, in the 1940s, a > confocal micro-spectrophotometer which measured one point at a time. He > gave an historical paper about it at an Australian Microscopy Conference > in Canberra some years ago (he was working in ANU at the time). His work > was published in top US journals so I suspect it was known to Minsky but a > long correspondence with Minsky ended abruptly when I asked that > question. > > I find it improbable that Minsky was imaging silicon chips since they > didn't exist at the time. Certainly what he wanted to image was the > brain, or slices of it. Whether he ever did I don't know - none of his > images (displayed on a long-persistence CRT) were recorded for posterity, > which suggests that they weren't too inspiring. > > Petràn designed the first spinning disk microscope in Czechoslovakia - how > much he knew about previous work is not clear. Davidovits & Eggar at Yale > were initially collaborating with Petràn but then Steve Baer (who is still > around and active) introduced them to Minsky's patent and they went on to > make the first single-point laser scanning confocal. Their interest was > also connections in the brain, and they did publish micrographs. > > This work was known to Colin Sheppard and Tony Wilson in Oxford, who made > the first commercial CLSM, marketed as the Bio-Rad SOM100 until Bio-Rad > ditched it in favour of Brad Amos' MRC design. > > This is a very telescoped account. I gave a paper on this many years ago > at a US conference - either the combined FOM-Scanning meeting in Atlantic > City or at a later Scanning meeting in Monterey. I also published an > article in the Australian EM Newsletter, but I appreciate that this is not > a very accessible reference. > > Guy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] > On Behalf Of John Oreopoulos > Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2012 6:36 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: The first confocal microscope > > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > Hi Steffen, > > I don't have a definite answer for all your questions, but I'd certainly > like to know as well. My impression from the early literature is (as you > pointed out) that the spinning disk variant of the confocal microscope > developed quite independently of the laser-scanning approach. I suspect > this is because the scanning action of a Nipkow disk used to create an > image had been known long before Minsky's ideas were put onto paper. In > fact, some early mechanical televisions even used this principle. See > here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gottlieb_Nipkow > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GYGxEk0btA&feature=related > > There is a very good paper that details the history of the laser-scanning > approach that emerged in the 1980's by Brad Amos: > > Amos, W.B. and J.G. White, How the confocal laser scanning microscope > entered biological research. Biology of the Cell, 2003. 95(6): p. 335-342. > > I think by the time MRC came online commercially and during its > development, the Minsky patent had probably run out, but the makers were > well aware of it (the paper above mentions this). Don't forget Minsky was > imaging microchip circuits, not biological materials, and the > requirements/parts for a confocal microscope to be used for biological > imaging probably only became practical when lasers/computers/etc (long > after 1955) became cheaper. There are some significant differences. > Looking back, you can definitely see that the confocal's (laser scanning > or spinning disk) development was very incremental over the first few > decades. > > John Oreopoulos > Research Assistant > Spectral Applied Research > Richmond Hill, Ontario > Canada > www.spectral.ca > > > > On 2012-11-13, at 1:36 PM, Steffen Dietzel wrote: > >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >> ***** >> >> Dear all, >> >> it seems to be general textbook-knowledge that Marvin Minsky constructed >> the first confocal microscope. >> >> I am wondering about two things: 1. Did he? and 2. Did his description >> in the now famous patent have an impact on later work or did later >> authors reinvent the whole thing and only then found out that Minsky was >> earlier? >> >> Concerning 1: >> I recently found references to a paper by Hiroto Naora from 1951 which >> seems to describe a system with confocal apertures. He used them to >> avoid stray light by restricting illumination to a circle of some >> micrometers (!) at a time. He imaged (nearly) a whole cell nucleus at >> once and there was no scanning but the general principle seems to be >> there. Not diffraction limited of course, but probably Minsky's system, >> also was not, although he was using a small illumination spot: >> Science 14 September 1951 >> Vol. 114 no. 2959 pp. 279-280 >> DOI: 10.1126/science.114.2959.279 >> https://www.sciencemag.org/content/114/2959/279.extract?sid=aa1d62d2-4 >> cc7-4087-8d30-01633ca3f84d >> >> An interesting article by Colin Sheppard >> (http://www.imaging-git.com/science/light-microscopy/confocal-microsco >> py) in addition mentions a paper from 1940 by Goldman with a confocal >> slit system, but I wasn't able to get the complete reference so far >> and thus couldn't get the paper. (Stupidly, the web site gives only >> the first three references. Maybe somebody can help here.) >> >> So I wonder, are these earlier descriptions not considered confocal for >> some reason or did they go unnoticed by text book authors? >> >> >> Concerning 2: >> For example the Petran et al. Paper from 1968 introduding the >> tandem-Nipkow Scanner (http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.58.000661) does >> not mention Minsky. Same with some other early confocal papers I >> checked. So I wonder when the confocal people acutally became aware of >> the Minsky patent. >> >> >> And an extra question: What is the first published or preserved >> picture taken with a confocal microscope? Would that be the ones in >> the 1967 Egger and Petran paper? (Science 21 July 1967: 305-307. >> [DOI:10.1126/science.157.3786.305] ) >> >> >> I am looking forward to get your thoughts on these questions. >> >> Steffen >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat >> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Walter-Brendel-Zentrum für >> experimentelle Medizin (WBex) Head of light microscopy >> >> Mail room: >> Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377 München >> >> Building location: >> Marchioninistr. 27, München-Großhadern > -- P. Johannes Helm Voice: (+47) 228 51159 (office) Fax: (+47) 228 51499 (office) |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Alan Boyde would be the one who knows most about that. Petràn was still publishing in 1969: Egger, M.D., Gezari, P., Davidovits, P., Hadravsky, M. and Petràn, M. 1969. Observation of nerve fibers in incident light. Experientia (Basel) 25, 1226-1226 As you say, Petràn's system was sold in limited quantities, and Alan Boyde purchased one such system, which led to their collaboration. He and Petràn published a paper on the general principles in 1985. This doesn't prove he was still an active scientist. Tracor-Northern (now Noran) marketed a much more effective and user-friendly version of Petràn's system c 1990. It was really quite nice to use but it was only a reflection system. Whether Petràns patent was still in force at that time I don't know, but I'd guess not so he probably didn't get much from it. Guy -----Original Message----- Thank you, Guy, for this information. One more point, which you did not mention - and possibly neither you nor any other persons, including me, know any details about it - might be that Mojmir Petran was struck by the events in Praha in spring 1968 so that he could not continue his work as a scientist after this catastrophe. I have heard rumours about that as early as 1989 but I don't know any details, neither whether there is any historical truth in these rumours. What I do know is that a company named Stroj Import sold Petran type systems during the early nineties, but I am not sure whether they managed to sell a considerable number of them. Although I do have czech ancestors, I don't talk any czech. What I nevertheless find out from http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojm%C3%ADr_Petr%C3%A1%C5%88 is that Petran was awarded the Medaile Za zásluhy by President Klaus in 2005. Best wishes, Johannes > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > OK, a few points. Marvin Minsky probably did make the first confocal > microscope that formed an image. Hiroto Naora made, in the 1940s, a > confocal micro-spectrophotometer which measured one point at a time. He > gave an historical paper about it at an Australian Microscopy Conference > in Canberra some years ago (he was working in ANU at the time). His work > was published in top US journals so I suspect it was known to Minsky but a > long correspondence with Minsky ended abruptly when I asked that > question. > > I find it improbable that Minsky was imaging silicon chips since they > didn't exist at the time. Certainly what he wanted to image was the > brain, or slices of it. Whether he ever did I don't know - none of his > images (displayed on a long-persistence CRT) were recorded for posterity, > which suggests that they weren't too inspiring. > > Petràn designed the first spinning disk microscope in Czechoslovakia - how > much he knew about previous work is not clear. Davidovits & Eggar at Yale > were initially collaborating with Petràn but then Steve Baer (who is still > around and active) introduced them to Minsky's patent and they went on to > make the first single-point laser scanning confocal. Their interest was > also connections in the brain, and they did publish micrographs. > > This work was known to Colin Sheppard and Tony Wilson in Oxford, who made > the first commercial CLSM, marketed as the Bio-Rad SOM100 until Bio-Rad > ditched it in favour of Brad Amos' MRC design. > > This is a very telescoped account. I gave a paper on this many years ago > at a US conference - either the combined FOM-Scanning meeting in Atlantic > City or at a later Scanning meeting in Monterey. I also published an > article in the Australian EM Newsletter, but I appreciate that this is not > a very accessible reference. > > Guy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] > On Behalf Of John Oreopoulos > Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2012 6:36 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: The first confocal microscope > > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > Hi Steffen, > > I don't have a definite answer for all your questions, but I'd certainly > like to know as well. My impression from the early literature is (as you > pointed out) that the spinning disk variant of the confocal microscope > developed quite independently of the laser-scanning approach. I suspect > this is because the scanning action of a Nipkow disk used to create an > image had been known long before Minsky's ideas were put onto paper. In > fact, some early mechanical televisions even used this principle. See > here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gottlieb_Nipkow > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GYGxEk0btA&feature=related > > There is a very good paper that details the history of the laser-scanning > approach that emerged in the 1980's by Brad Amos: > > Amos, W.B. and J.G. White, How the confocal laser scanning microscope > entered biological research. Biology of the Cell, 2003. 95(6): p. 335-342. > > I think by the time MRC came online commercially and during its > development, the Minsky patent had probably run out, but the makers were > well aware of it (the paper above mentions this). Don't forget Minsky was > imaging microchip circuits, not biological materials, and the > requirements/parts for a confocal microscope to be used for biological > imaging probably only became practical when lasers/computers/etc (long > after 1955) became cheaper. There are some significant differences. > Looking back, you can definitely see that the confocal's (laser scanning > or spinning disk) development was very incremental over the first few > decades. > > John Oreopoulos > Research Assistant > Spectral Applied Research > Richmond Hill, Ontario > Canada > www.spectral.ca > > > > On 2012-11-13, at 1:36 PM, Steffen Dietzel wrote: > >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >> ***** >> >> Dear all, >> >> it seems to be general textbook-knowledge that Marvin Minsky constructed >> the first confocal microscope. >> >> I am wondering about two things: 1. Did he? and 2. Did his description >> in the now famous patent have an impact on later work or did later >> authors reinvent the whole thing and only then found out that Minsky was >> earlier? >> >> Concerning 1: >> I recently found references to a paper by Hiroto Naora from 1951 which >> seems to describe a system with confocal apertures. He used them to >> avoid stray light by restricting illumination to a circle of some >> micrometers (!) at a time. He imaged (nearly) a whole cell nucleus at >> once and there was no scanning but the general principle seems to be >> there. Not diffraction limited of course, but probably Minsky's system, >> also was not, although he was using a small illumination spot: >> Science 14 September 1951 >> Vol. 114 no. 2959 pp. 279-280 >> DOI: 10.1126/science.114.2959.279 >> https://www.sciencemag.org/content/114/2959/279.extract?sid=aa1d62d2-4 >> cc7-4087-8d30-01633ca3f84d >> >> An interesting article by Colin Sheppard >> (http://www.imaging-git.com/science/light-microscopy/confocal-microsco >> py) in addition mentions a paper from 1940 by Goldman with a confocal >> slit system, but I wasn't able to get the complete reference so far >> and thus couldn't get the paper. (Stupidly, the web site gives only >> the first three references. Maybe somebody can help here.) >> >> So I wonder, are these earlier descriptions not considered confocal for >> some reason or did they go unnoticed by text book authors? >> >> >> Concerning 2: >> For example the Petran et al. Paper from 1968 introduding the >> tandem-Nipkow Scanner (http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.58.000661) does >> not mention Minsky. Same with some other early confocal papers I >> checked. So I wonder when the confocal people acutally became aware of >> the Minsky patent. >> >> >> And an extra question: What is the first published or preserved >> picture taken with a confocal microscope? Would that be the ones in >> the 1967 Egger and Petran paper? (Science 21 July 1967: 305-307. >> [DOI:10.1126/science.157.3786.305] ) >> >> >> I am looking forward to get your thoughts on these questions. >> >> Steffen >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat >> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Walter-Brendel-Zentrum für >> experimentelle Medizin (WBex) Head of light microscopy >> >> Mail room: >> Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377 München >> >> Building location: >> Marchioninistr. 27, München-Großhadern > -- P. Johannes Helm Voice: (+47) 228 51159 (office) Fax: (+47) 228 51499 (office) |
|
|
Artem Pliss |
Re: The first confocal microscope
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** I new Dr Petran in 1995-2001. I think that at that time he was still involved in research. I however could not find his article more recent than 1992. Here is a link http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sca.4950140303/abstract Hope this helps, Art On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Guy Cox <[hidden email]> wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > Alan Boyde would be the one who knows most about that. Petràn was still publishing in 1969: > Egger, M.D., Gezari, P., Davidovits, P., Hadravsky, M. and Petràn, M. 1969. Observation of nerve fibers in incident light. Experientia (Basel) 25, 1226-1226 > > As you say, Petràn's system was sold in limited quantities, and Alan Boyde purchased one such system, which led to their collaboration. He and Petràn published a paper on the general principles in 1985. This doesn't prove he was still an active scientist. > > Tracor-Northern (now Noran) marketed a much more effective and user-friendly version of Petràn's system c 1990. It was really quite nice to use but it was only a reflection system. Whether Petràns patent was still in force at that time I don't know, but I'd guess not so he probably didn't get much from it. > > Guy > > > -----Original Message----- > > > Thank you, Guy, for this information. > > One more point, which you did not mention - and possibly neither you nor > any other persons, including me, know any details about it - might be that > Mojmir Petran was struck by the events in Praha in spring 1968 so that he > could not continue his work as a scientist after this catastrophe. I have > heard rumours about that as early as 1989 but I don't know any details, > neither whether there is any historical truth in these rumours. > What I do know is that a company named Stroj Import sold Petran type > systems during the early nineties, but I am not sure whether they managed > to sell a considerable number of them. > > Although I do have czech ancestors, I don't talk any czech. What I > nevertheless find out from > http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojm%C3%ADr_Petr%C3%A1%C5%88 is that Petran > was awarded the Medaile Za zásluhy by President Klaus in 2005. > > > Best wishes, > > Johannes > > >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >> ***** >> >> OK, a few points. Marvin Minsky probably did make the first confocal >> microscope that formed an image. Hiroto Naora made, in the 1940s, a >> confocal micro-spectrophotometer which measured one point at a time. He >> gave an historical paper about it at an Australian Microscopy Conference >> in Canberra some years ago (he was working in ANU at the time). His work >> was published in top US journals so I suspect it was known to Minsky but a >> long correspondence with Minsky ended abruptly when I asked that >> question. >> >> I find it improbable that Minsky was imaging silicon chips since they >> didn't exist at the time. Certainly what he wanted to image was the >> brain, or slices of it. Whether he ever did I don't know - none of his >> images (displayed on a long-persistence CRT) were recorded for posterity, >> which suggests that they weren't too inspiring. >> >> Petràn designed the first spinning disk microscope in Czechoslovakia - how >> much he knew about previous work is not clear. Davidovits & Eggar at Yale >> were initially collaborating with Petràn but then Steve Baer (who is still >> around and active) introduced them to Minsky's patent and they went on to >> make the first single-point laser scanning confocal. Their interest was >> also connections in the brain, and they did publish micrographs. >> >> This work was known to Colin Sheppard and Tony Wilson in Oxford, who made >> the first commercial CLSM, marketed as the Bio-Rad SOM100 until Bio-Rad >> ditched it in favour of Brad Amos' MRC design. >> >> This is a very telescoped account. I gave a paper on this many years ago >> at a US conference - either the combined FOM-Scanning meeting in Atlantic >> City or at a later Scanning meeting in Monterey. I also published an >> article in the Australian EM Newsletter, but I appreciate that this is not >> a very accessible reference. >> >> Guy >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] >> On Behalf Of John Oreopoulos >> Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2012 6:36 AM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: The first confocal microscope >> >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >> ***** >> >> Hi Steffen, >> >> I don't have a definite answer for all your questions, but I'd certainly >> like to know as well. My impression from the early literature is (as you >> pointed out) that the spinning disk variant of the confocal microscope >> developed quite independently of the laser-scanning approach. I suspect >> this is because the scanning action of a Nipkow disk used to create an >> image had been known long before Minsky's ideas were put onto paper. In >> fact, some early mechanical televisions even used this principle. See >> here: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gottlieb_Nipkow >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GYGxEk0btA&feature=related >> >> There is a very good paper that details the history of the laser-scanning >> approach that emerged in the 1980's by Brad Amos: >> >> Amos, W.B. and J.G. White, How the confocal laser scanning microscope >> entered biological research. Biology of the Cell, 2003. 95(6): p. 335-342. >> >> I think by the time MRC came online commercially and during its >> development, the Minsky patent had probably run out, but the makers were >> well aware of it (the paper above mentions this). Don't forget Minsky was >> imaging microchip circuits, not biological materials, and the >> requirements/parts for a confocal microscope to be used for biological >> imaging probably only became practical when lasers/computers/etc (long >> after 1955) became cheaper. There are some significant differences. >> Looking back, you can definitely see that the confocal's (laser scanning >> or spinning disk) development was very incremental over the first few >> decades. >> >> John Oreopoulos >> Research Assistant >> Spectral Applied Research >> Richmond Hill, Ontario >> Canada >> www.spectral.ca >> >> >> >> On 2012-11-13, at 1:36 PM, Steffen Dietzel wrote: >> >>> ***** >>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >>> ***** >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> it seems to be general textbook-knowledge that Marvin Minsky constructed >>> the first confocal microscope. >>> >>> I am wondering about two things: 1. Did he? and 2. Did his description >>> in the now famous patent have an impact on later work or did later >>> authors reinvent the whole thing and only then found out that Minsky was >>> earlier? >>> >>> Concerning 1: >>> I recently found references to a paper by Hiroto Naora from 1951 which >>> seems to describe a system with confocal apertures. He used them to >>> avoid stray light by restricting illumination to a circle of some >>> micrometers (!) at a time. He imaged (nearly) a whole cell nucleus at >>> once and there was no scanning but the general principle seems to be >>> there. Not diffraction limited of course, but probably Minsky's system, >>> also was not, although he was using a small illumination spot: >>> Science 14 September 1951 >>> Vol. 114 no. 2959 pp. 279-280 >>> DOI: 10.1126/science.114.2959.279 >>> https://www.sciencemag.org/content/114/2959/279.extract?sid=aa1d62d2-4 >>> cc7-4087-8d30-01633ca3f84d >>> >>> An interesting article by Colin Sheppard >>> (http://www.imaging-git.com/science/light-microscopy/confocal-microsco >>> py) in addition mentions a paper from 1940 by Goldman with a confocal >>> slit system, but I wasn't able to get the complete reference so far >>> and thus couldn't get the paper. (Stupidly, the web site gives only >>> the first three references. Maybe somebody can help here.) >>> >>> So I wonder, are these earlier descriptions not considered confocal for >>> some reason or did they go unnoticed by text book authors? >>> >>> >>> Concerning 2: >>> For example the Petran et al. Paper from 1968 introduding the >>> tandem-Nipkow Scanner (http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.58.000661) does >>> not mention Minsky. Same with some other early confocal papers I >>> checked. So I wonder when the confocal people acutally became aware of >>> the Minsky patent. >>> >>> >>> And an extra question: What is the first published or preserved >>> picture taken with a confocal microscope? Would that be the ones in >>> the 1967 Egger and Petran paper? (Science 21 July 1967: 305-307. >>> [DOI:10.1126/science.157.3786.305] ) >>> >>> >>> I am looking forward to get your thoughts on these questions. >>> >>> Steffen >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat >>> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Walter-Brendel-Zentrum für >>> experimentelle Medizin (WBex) Head of light microscopy >>> >>> Mail room: >>> Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377 München >>> >>> Building location: >>> Marchioninistr. 27, München-Großhadern >> > > > -- > P. Johannes Helm > > Voice: (+47) 228 51159 (office) > Fax: (+47) 228 51499 (office) |
|
|
Doube, Michael |
Re: The first confocal microscope
|
|
In reply to this post by Guy Cox-2
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Hi Guy, Unless there has been a catastrophe, Alan's first system, imported from Czech to some great benefit to HMRC collecting import duty (so the story goes), is still in existence and maybe even working here in London. The Tracor was still working when I did my PhD a few years ago, and I think is still going today. As far as I'm aware Petràn saw very little royalty money from his inventions even when the patent was active, which I think had something to do with the communist government taking ownership of the work. Michael ________________________________________ From: Confocal Microscopy List [[hidden email]] on behalf of Guy Cox [[hidden email]] Sent: 14 November 2012 22:04 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: The first confocal microscope ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Alan Boyde would be the one who knows most about that. Petràn was still publishing in 1969: Egger, M.D., Gezari, P., Davidovits, P., Hadravsky, M. and Petràn, M. 1969. Observation of nerve fibers in incident light. Experientia (Basel) 25, 1226-1226 As you say, Petràn's system was sold in limited quantities, and Alan Boyde purchased one such system, which led to their collaboration. He and Petràn published a paper on the general principles in 1985. This doesn't prove he was still an active scientist. Tracor-Northern (now Noran) marketed a much more effective and user-friendly version of Petràn's system c 1990. It was really quite nice to use but it was only a reflection system. Whether Petràns patent was still in force at that time I don't know, but I'd guess not so he probably didn't get much from it. Guy -----Original Message----- Thank you, Guy, for this information. One more point, which you did not mention - and possibly neither you nor any other persons, including me, know any details about it - might be that Mojmir Petran was struck by the events in Praha in spring 1968 so that he could not continue his work as a scientist after this catastrophe. I have heard rumours about that as early as 1989 but I don't know any details, neither whether there is any historical truth in these rumours. What I do know is that a company named Stroj Import sold Petran type systems during the early nineties, but I am not sure whether they managed to sell a considerable number of them. Although I do have czech ancestors, I don't talk any czech. What I nevertheless find out from http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojm%C3%ADr_Petr%C3%A1%C5%88 is that Petran was awarded the Medaile Za zásluhy by President Klaus in 2005. Best wishes, Johannes > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > OK, a few points. Marvin Minsky probably did make the first confocal > microscope that formed an image. Hiroto Naora made, in the 1940s, a > confocal micro-spectrophotometer which measured one point at a time. He > gave an historical paper about it at an Australian Microscopy Conference > in Canberra some years ago (he was working in ANU at the time). His work > was published in top US journals so I suspect it was known to Minsky but a > long correspondence with Minsky ended abruptly when I asked that > question. > > I find it improbable that Minsky was imaging silicon chips since they > didn't exist at the time. Certainly what he wanted to image was the > brain, or slices of it. Whether he ever did I don't know - none of his > images (displayed on a long-persistence CRT) were recorded for posterity, > which suggests that they weren't too inspiring. > > Petràn designed the first spinning disk microscope in Czechoslovakia - how > much he knew about previous work is not clear. Davidovits & Eggar at Yale > were initially collaborating with Petràn but then Steve Baer (who is still > around and active) introduced them to Minsky's patent and they went on to > make the first single-point laser scanning confocal. Their interest was > also connections in the brain, and they did publish micrographs. > > This work was known to Colin Sheppard and Tony Wilson in Oxford, who made > the first commercial CLSM, marketed as the Bio-Rad SOM100 until Bio-Rad > ditched it in favour of Brad Amos' MRC design. > > This is a very telescoped account. I gave a paper on this many years ago > at a US conference - either the combined FOM-Scanning meeting in Atlantic > City or at a later Scanning meeting in Monterey. I also published an > article in the Australian EM Newsletter, but I appreciate that this is not > a very accessible reference. > > Guy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] > On Behalf Of John Oreopoulos > Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2012 6:36 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: The first confocal microscope > > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > Hi Steffen, > > I don't have a definite answer for all your questions, but I'd certainly > like to know as well. My impression from the early literature is (as you > pointed out) that the spinning disk variant of the confocal microscope > developed quite independently of the laser-scanning approach. I suspect > this is because the scanning action of a Nipkow disk used to create an > image had been known long before Minsky's ideas were put onto paper. In > fact, some early mechanical televisions even used this principle. See > here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gottlieb_Nipkow > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GYGxEk0btA&feature=related > > There is a very good paper that details the history of the laser-scanning > approach that emerged in the 1980's by Brad Amos: > > Amos, W.B. and J.G. White, How the confocal laser scanning microscope > entered biological research. Biology of the Cell, 2003. 95(6): p. 335-342. > > I think by the time MRC came online commercially and during its > development, the Minsky patent had probably run out, but the makers were > well aware of it (the paper above mentions this). Don't forget Minsky was > imaging microchip circuits, not biological materials, and the > requirements/parts for a confocal microscope to be used for biological > imaging probably only became practical when lasers/computers/etc (long > after 1955) became cheaper. There are some significant differences. > Looking back, you can definitely see that the confocal's (laser scanning > or spinning disk) development was very incremental over the first few > decades. > > John Oreopoulos > Research Assistant > Spectral Applied Research > Richmond Hill, Ontario > Canada > www.spectral.ca > > > > On 2012-11-13, at 1:36 PM, Steffen Dietzel wrote: > >> ***** >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy >> ***** >> >> Dear all, >> >> it seems to be general textbook-knowledge that Marvin Minsky constructed >> the first confocal microscope. >> >> I am wondering about two things: 1. Did he? and 2. Did his description >> in the now famous patent have an impact on later work or did later >> authors reinvent the whole thing and only then found out that Minsky was >> earlier? >> >> Concerning 1: >> I recently found references to a paper by Hiroto Naora from 1951 which >> seems to describe a system with confocal apertures. He used them to >> avoid stray light by restricting illumination to a circle of some >> micrometers (!) at a time. He imaged (nearly) a whole cell nucleus at >> once and there was no scanning but the general principle seems to be >> there. Not diffraction limited of course, but probably Minsky's system, >> also was not, although he was using a small illumination spot: >> Science 14 September 1951 >> Vol. 114 no. 2959 pp. 279-280 >> DOI: 10.1126/science.114.2959.279 >> https://www.sciencemag.org/content/114/2959/279.extract?sid=aa1d62d2-4 >> cc7-4087-8d30-01633ca3f84d >> >> An interesting article by Colin Sheppard >> (http://www.imaging-git.com/science/light-microscopy/confocal-microsco >> py) in addition mentions a paper from 1940 by Goldman with a confocal >> slit system, but I wasn't able to get the complete reference so far >> and thus couldn't get the paper. (Stupidly, the web site gives only >> the first three references. Maybe somebody can help here.) >> >> So I wonder, are these earlier descriptions not considered confocal for >> some reason or did they go unnoticed by text book authors? >> >> >> Concerning 2: >> For example the Petran et al. Paper from 1968 introduding the >> tandem-Nipkow Scanner (http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.58.000661) does >> not mention Minsky. Same with some other early confocal papers I >> checked. So I wonder when the confocal people acutally became aware of >> the Minsky patent. >> >> >> And an extra question: What is the first published or preserved >> picture taken with a confocal microscope? Would that be the ones in >> the 1967 Egger and Petran paper? (Science 21 July 1967: 305-307. >> [DOI:10.1126/science.157.3786.305] ) >> >> >> I am looking forward to get your thoughts on these questions. >> >> Steffen >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat >> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Walter-Brendel-Zentrum für >> experimentelle Medizin (WBex) Head of light microscopy >> >> Mail room: >> Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377 München >> >> Building location: >> Marchioninistr. 27, München-Großhadern > -- P. Johannes Helm Voice: (+47) 228 51159 (office) Fax: (+47) 228 51499 (office) [http://www.rvc.ac.uk/cf_images/button_rvc.png]<http://www.rvc.ac.uk> [http://www.rvc.ac.uk/cf_images/button_twitter.png] <http://twitter.com/RoyalVetCollege> [http://www.rvc.ac.uk/cf_images/button_facebook.png] <http://www.facebook.com/theRVC> This message, together with any attachments, is intended for the stated addressee(s) only and may contain privileged or confidential information. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Royal Veterinary College (RVC). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying is strictly prohibited. Unless stated expressly in this email, this email does not create, form part of, or vary any contractual or unilateral obligation. Email communication cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, incomplete or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept liability for any such matters or their consequences. Communication with us by email will be taken as acceptance of the risks inherent in doing so. |
|
|
Andreas Bruckbauer |
Re: The first confocal microscope
|
|
In reply to this post by Guy Cox-2
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** This seems to be Marvin Minsky himself about his invention and the biologica problem he wanted to solve http://www.webofstories.com/play/53057?o=R and Aaron Klug about the debvelopments at the LMB http://www.webofstories.com/play/17028?o=S&srId=314441 http://www.webofstories.com/play/17029?o=MS Andreas -----Original Message----- From: Guy Cox <[hidden email]> To: CONFOCALMICROSCOPY <[hidden email]> Sent: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:29 Subject: Re: The first confocal microscope ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** OK, a few points. Marvin Minsky probably did make the first confocal microscope that formed an image. Hiroto Naora made, in the 1940s, a confocal micro-spectrophotometer which measured one point at a time. He gave an historical paper about it at an Australian Microscopy Conference in Canberra some years ago (he was working in ANU at the time). His work was published in top US journals so I suspect it was known to Minsky but a long correspondence with Minsky ended abruptly when I asked that question. I find it improbable that Minsky was imaging silicon chips since they didn't exist at the time. Certainly what he wanted to image was the brain, or slices of it. Whether he ever did I don't know - none of his images (displayed on a long-persistence CRT) were recorded for posterity, which suggests that they weren't too inspiring. Petràn designed the first spinning disk microscope in Czechoslovakia - how much he knew about previous work is not clear. Davidovits & Eggar at Yale were initially collaborating with Petràn but then Steve Baer (who is still around and active) introduced them to Minsky's patent and they went on to make the first single-point laser scanning confocal. Their interest was also connections in the brain, and they did publish micrographs. This work was known to Colin Sheppard and Tony Wilson in Oxford, who made the first commercial CLSM, marketed as the Bio-Rad SOM100 until Bio-Rad ditched it in favour of Brad Amos' MRC design. This is a very telescoped account. I gave a paper on this many years ago at a US conference - either the combined FOM-Scanning meeting in Atlantic City or at a later Scanning meeting in Monterey. I also published an article in the Australian EM Newsletter, but I appreciate that this is not a very accessible reference. Guy -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Oreopoulos Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2012 6:36 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: The first confocal microscope ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Hi Steffen, I don't have a definite answer for all your questions, but I'd certainly like to know as well. My impression from the early literature is (as you pointed out) that the spinning disk variant of the confocal microscope developed quite independently of the laser-scanning approach. I suspect this is because the scanning action of a Nipkow disk used to create an image had been known long before Minsky's ideas were put onto paper. In fact, some early mechanical televisions even used this principle. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gottlieb_Nipkow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GYGxEk0btA&feature=related There is a very good paper that details the history of the laser-scanning approach that emerged in the 1980's by Brad Amos: Amos, W.B. and J.G. White, How the confocal laser scanning microscope entered biological research. Biology of the Cell, 2003. 95(6): p. 335-342. I think by the time MRC came online commercially and during its development, the Minsky patent had probably run out, but the makers were well aware of it (the paper above mentions this). Don't forget Minsky was imaging microchip circuits, not biological materials, and the requirements/parts for a confocal microscope to be used for biological imaging probably only became practical when lasers/computers/etc (long after 1955) became cheaper. There are some significant differences. Looking back, you can definitely see that the confocal's (laser scanning or spinning disk) development was very incremental over the first few decades. John Oreopoulos Research Assistant Spectral Applied Research Richmond Hill, Ontario Canada www.spectral.ca On 2012-11-13, at 1:36 PM, Steffen Dietzel wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > Dear all, > > it seems to be general textbook-knowledge that Marvin Minsky constructed the first confocal microscope. > > I am wondering about two things: 1. Did he? and 2. Did his description in the now famous patent have an impact on later work or did later authors reinvent the whole thing and only then found out that Minsky was earlier? > > Concerning 1: > I recently found references to a paper by Hiroto Naora from 1951 which seems to describe a system with confocal apertures. He used them to avoid stray light by restricting illumination to a circle of some micrometers (!) at a time. He imaged (nearly) a whole cell nucleus at once and there was no scanning but the general principle seems to be there. Not diffraction limited of course, but probably Minsky's system, also was not, although he was using a small illumination spot: > Science 14 September 1951 > Vol. 114 no. 2959 pp. 279-280 > DOI: 10.1126/science.114.2959.279 > https://www.sciencemag.org/content/114/2959/279.extract?sid=aa1d62d2-4 > cc7-4087-8d30-01633ca3f84d > > An interesting article by Colin Sheppard > (http://www.imaging-git.com/science/light-microscopy/confocal-microsco > py) in addition mentions a paper from 1940 by Goldman with a confocal > slit system, but I wasn't able to get the complete reference so far > and thus couldn't get the paper. (Stupidly, the web site gives only > the first three references. Maybe somebody can help here.) > > So I wonder, are these earlier descriptions not considered confocal for some > > > Concerning 2: > For example the Petran et al. Paper from 1968 introduding the tandem-Nipkow Scanner (http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.58.000661) does not mention Minsky. Same with some other early confocal papers I checked. So I wonder when the confocal people acutally became aware of the Minsky patent. > > > And an extra question: What is the first published or preserved > picture taken with a confocal microscope? Would that be the ones in > the 1967 Egger and Petran paper? (Science 21 July 1967: 305-307. > [DOI:10.1126/science.157.3786.305] ) > > > I am looking forward to get your thoughts on these questions. > > Steffen > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Walter-Brendel-Zentrum für > experimentelle Medizin (WBex) Head of light microscopy > > Mail room: > Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377 München > > Building location: > Marchioninistr. 27, München-Großhadern |
|
|
Minsky wrote a memoir about this work - with a picture of the microscope:
Minsky, M., 1988. Memoir on inventing the confocal scanning microscope. Scanning, 10, 128-138. For those interested in the slit-scanning ophthalmological microscopes mentioned by Fred Brakenhoff (and which seem to have well predated the point-scanning confocal) the following references may be of interest: Koester, C. J., 1980. Scanning mirror microscope with optical sectioning characteristics: applications in opthalmology. Appl. Optics, 19 1749-1757. Koester, C. J., 1990. A comparison of various optical sectioning methods: the scanning slit confocal microscope. In: Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy, 2nd edn. Pawley, J. B., (ed.) Plenum Press, pp. 207 214. Maurice, D., 1974. A scanning slit optical microscope. Invest. Opthal. 13, 1033-1037. These generally used a beam-path in which illumination was through one half of the objective and detection through the other half. I don't know if Goldman's 1940 microscope used this approach. (Fred?) Guy -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Andreas Bruckbauer Sent: Friday, 16 November 2012 9:39 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: The first confocal microscope ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** This seems to be Marvin Minsky himself about his invention and the biologica problem he wanted to solve http://www.webofstories.com/play/53057?o=R and Aaron Klug about the debvelopments at the LMB http://www.webofstories.com/play/17028?o=S&srId=314441 http://www.webofstories.com/play/17029?o=MS Andreas -----Original Message----- From: Guy Cox <[hidden email]> To: CONFOCALMICROSCOPY <[hidden email]> Sent: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:29 Subject: Re: The first confocal microscope ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** OK, a few points. Marvin Minsky probably did make the first confocal microscope that formed an image. Hiroto Naora made, in the 1940s, a confocal micro-spectrophotometer which measured one point at a time. He gave an historical paper about it at an Australian Microscopy Conference in Canberra some years ago (he was working in ANU at the time). His work was published in top US journals so I suspect it was known to Minsky but a long correspondence with Minsky ended abruptly when I asked that question. I find it improbable that Minsky was imaging silicon chips since they didn't exist at the time. Certainly what he wanted to image was the brain, or slices of it. Whether he ever did I don't know - none of his images (displayed on a long-persistence CRT) were recorded for posterity, which suggests that they weren't too inspiring. Petràn designed the first spinning disk microscope in Czechoslovakia - how much he knew about previous work is not clear. Davidovits & Eggar at Yale were initially collaborating with Petràn but then Steve Baer (who is still around and active) introduced them to Minsky's patent and they went on to make the first single-point laser scanning confocal. Their interest was also connections in the brain, and they did publish micrographs. This work was known to Colin Sheppard and Tony Wilson in Oxford, who made the first commercial CLSM, marketed as the Bio-Rad SOM100 until Bio-Rad ditched it in favour of Brad Amos' MRC design. This is a very telescoped account. I gave a paper on this many years ago at a US conference - either the combined FOM-Scanning meeting in Atlantic City or at a later Scanning meeting in Monterey. I also published an article in the Australian EM Newsletter, but I appreciate that this is not a very accessible reference. Guy -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Oreopoulos Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2012 6:36 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: The first confocal microscope ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy ***** Hi Steffen, I don't have a definite answer for all your questions, but I'd certainly like to know as well. My impression from the early literature is (as you pointed out) that the spinning disk variant of the confocal microscope developed quite independently of the laser-scanning approach. I suspect this is because the scanning action of a Nipkow disk used to create an image had been known long before Minsky's ideas were put onto paper. In fact, some early mechanical televisions even used this principle. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gottlieb_Nipkow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GYGxEk0btA&feature=related There is a very good paper that details the history of the laser-scanning approach that emerged in the 1980's by Brad Amos: Amos, W.B. and J.G. White, How the confocal laser scanning microscope entered biological research. Biology of the Cell, 2003. 95(6): p. 335-342. I think by the time MRC came online commercially and during its development, the Minsky patent had probably run out, but the makers were well aware of it (the paper above mentions this). Don't forget Minsky was imaging microchip circuits, not biological materials, and the requirements/parts for a confocal microscope to be used for biological imaging probably only became practical when lasers/computers/etc (long after 1955) became cheaper. There are some significant differences. Looking back, you can definitely see that the confocal's (laser scanning or spinning disk) development was very incremental over the first few decades. John Oreopoulos Research Assistant Spectral Applied Research Richmond Hill, Ontario Canada www.spectral.ca On 2012-11-13, at 1:36 PM, Steffen Dietzel wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > ***** > > Dear all, > > it seems to be general textbook-knowledge that Marvin Minsky > constructed the first confocal microscope. > > I am wondering about two things: 1. Did he? and 2. Did his description > in the now famous patent have an impact on later work or did later authors reinvent the whole thing and only then found out that Minsky was earlier? > > Concerning 1: > I recently found references to a paper by Hiroto Naora from 1951 which > seems to describe a system with confocal apertures. He used them to avoid stray light by restricting illumination to a circle of some micrometers (!) at a time. He imaged (nearly) a whole cell nucleus at once and there was no scanning but the general principle seems to be there. Not diffraction limited of course, but probably Minsky's system, also was not, although he was using a small illumination spot: > Science 14 September 1951 > Vol. 114 no. 2959 pp. 279-280 > DOI: 10.1126/science.114.2959.279 > https://www.sciencemag.org/content/114/2959/279.extract?sid=aa1d62d2-4 > cc7-4087-8d30-01633ca3f84d > > An interesting article by Colin Sheppard > (http://www.imaging-git.com/science/light-microscopy/confocal-microsco > py) in addition mentions a paper from 1940 by Goldman with a confocal > slit system, but I wasn't able to get the complete reference so far > and thus couldn't get the paper. (Stupidly, the web site gives only > the first three references. Maybe somebody can help here.) > > So I wonder, are these earlier descriptions not considered confocal > for some > > > Concerning 2: > For example the Petran et al. Paper from 1968 introduding the > tandem-Nipkow Scanner (http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.58.000661) does not mention Minsky. Same with some other early confocal papers I checked. So I wonder when the confocal people acutally became aware of the Minsky patent. > > > And an extra question: What is the first published or preserved > picture taken with a confocal microscope? Would that be the ones in > the 1967 Egger and Petran paper? (Science 21 July 1967: 305-307. > [DOI:10.1126/science.157.3786.305] ) > > > I am looking forward to get your thoughts on these questions. > > Steffen > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Walter-Brendel-Zentrum für > experimentelle Medizin (WBex) Head of light microscopy > > Mail room: > Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377 München > > Building location: > Marchioninistr. 27, München-Großhadern |
«
Return to Confocal Microscopy List
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |