Hamamatsu dual camera upgrade

[Reece, Jeff (NIH/NIDDK) [E]-2]

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

Hi Folks,

I am upgrading a TIRF microscope that has a single Hama Flash 4.0 v3 camera, to dual camera.
I have another system with the same model in dual-camera setup, and it works well.  Although I would rather have 2 Fusions or 2 Fusion BTs (assuming the latter works as advertised), I am not sure I have enough money to replace the existing camera.

  1.  Does anyone have experience running Flash 4.0 v3 with Fusion or Fusion BT simultaneously?  Please note software being used.
  2.  Is the Fusion BT as good in real life as it looks on paper?
  3.  Is there any practical reason, based on hands-on experience, to get the regular Fusion over the Fusion BT?

Thanks,
Jeff

Jeff Reece
Director, Advanced Light Microscopy & Image Analysis Core (ALMIAC)
NIH/NIDDK
Bethesda, MD  20892

[PAVAK SHAH]

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

Hi Jeff,

We currently have an iSIM that runs two Fusions simultaneously in
Micro-Manager. No troubles here yet, although I'm still in the midst of
figuring out how to script a fully hardware timed acquisition.

We purchased this before the BT was available so we have no real world
experience. Our Fusion's are definitely vastly superior to the Flash 4.0's
I've used before in terms of structured noise, but they have their own
issue with odd flashes of "hot" looking pixel clusters. They're fairly rare
(a few every thousand frames), but not as easy to correct as hot pixels
(they're non-stationary, not fully saturated, and are patches of a few 10's
of pixels rather than a single hot pixel). This has not been a major issue
for us from an image analysis standpoint, but make max projection movies of
timelapses annoying without some post-processing to clean up the hot
patches.

Regarding BT vs non-BT, others have previously discussed that BT cameras
tend to exhibit a small amount of blur that may be a concern for some super
resolution modalities, I have no practical experience with this however.

Best,
Pavak

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:21 AM Reece, Jeff (NIH/NIDDK) [E] <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I am upgrading a TIRF microscope that has a single Hama Flash 4.0 v3
> camera, to dual camera.
> I have another system with the same model in dual-camera setup, and it
> works well.  Although I would rather have 2 Fusions or 2 Fusion BTs
> (assuming the latter works as advertised), I am not sure I have enough
> money to replace the existing camera.
>
>   1.  Does anyone have experience running Flash 4.0 v3 with Fusion or
> Fusion BT simultaneously?  Please note software being used.
>   2.  Is the Fusion BT as good in real life as it looks on paper?
>   3.  Is there any practical reason, based on hands-on experience, to get
> the regular Fusion over the Fusion BT?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
> Jeff Reece
> Director, Advanced Light Microscopy & Image Analysis Core (ALMIAC)
> NIH/NIDDK
> Bethesda, MD  20892
>

[samuel connell]

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

Hi Jeff,

We have not done mixed simultaneous capture with a Flash and a Fusion, but
we have ran dual Fusions, dual Fusion BT and dual Flash 4.0 cameras with
SlideBook software. This mixed capture mode would present a number of
oddities in terms of real-world Materials and Methods discussions that I'd
recommend not going that route. I'm sure you've had the internal debate
with your self already, but as a reviewer, this would raise some red flags.
The Fusion BT is actually as good in real life as it is on paper. From my
perspective and experience in the last couple of months, I would not
suggest purchasing a regular Fusion if you can afford the Fusion BT at this
time.

Good luck with the upgrade project!

--
Sam

Samuel Connell
Director of Sales

Intelligent Imaging Innovations (3i)
3575 Ringsby Ct, Suite 102
Denver, CO 80216 USA
1-720-437-6926
www.intelligent-imaging.com
Twitter: @samuelconnell

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:20 AM Reece, Jeff (NIH/NIDDK) [E] <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I am upgrading a TIRF microscope that has a single Hama Flash 4.0 v3
> camera, to dual camera.
> I have another system with the same model in dual-camera setup, and it
> works well.  Although I would rather have 2 Fusions or 2 Fusion BTs
> (assuming the latter works as advertised), I am not sure I have enough
> money to replace the existing camera.
>
>   1.  Does anyone have experience running Flash 4.0 v3 with Fusion or
> Fusion BT simultaneously?  Please note software being used.
>   2.  Is the Fusion BT as good in real life as it looks on paper?
>   3.  Is there any practical reason, based on hands-on experience, to get
> the regular Fusion over the Fusion BT?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
> Jeff Reece
> Director, Advanced Light Microscopy & Image Analysis Core (ALMIAC)
> NIH/NIDDK
> Bethesda, MD  20892
>