Pedro Camello |
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal Dear Siv, many thanks for your table, is more complete for others I had got. Regarding the low structures, at the moment 500 nm is enough for me Dear Paul, thanks for your figure. My objective is the same, though my system is a non-UV 1024. However, at zoom = 1 my pixel size is 410 nm!. Should I concern about a possible error in the parameters files of the software (Lasersharp, OS/2)? Could please anybody with a Biorad 1024 system report me the pixel size for 60X and zoom 1? Dear Glenn and Martin, I thought the zoom in the Biorad 1024 was real. Are you saying that between 2 and 4 I´m introducing garbage? I missed that line in the manual (if present there) Many thanks to all of you giving me a hand. Nice list. -- Dr Pedro J Camello Dpt Physiology Faculty of Veterinary Sciences University of Extremadura 10071 Caceres Spain Ph: 927257100 Extension 1321 Fax:927257110 |
Glen MacDonald-2 |
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal On Feb 11, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Pedro J Camello wrote: > Search the CONFOCAL archive at > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > > Dear Siv, > > many thanks for your table, is more complete for others I had got. > Regarding the low structures, at the moment 500 nm is enough for me > > Dear Paul, > > thanks for your figure. My objective is the same, though my system > is a > non-UV 1024. However, at zoom = 1 my pixel size is 410 nm!. Should I > concern about a possible error in the parameters files of the software > (Lasersharp, OS/2)? > > Could please anybody with a Biorad 1024 system report me the pixel > size > for 60X and zoom 1? > > Dear Glenn and Martin, to a smaller field. As I recall, galvo deflection voltage on is set in 8-bit increments on the 1000/1024 scanner. Zooms that are not in multiples of 2 will have interpolation errors causing some variation in positioning. I may be wrong on the details, but couldn't find the old discussion thread in the archives. Pixel size at zoom =1 for any lens will be affected by calibration of scan area by the service engineer and variation in total mag to the detector, which is slightly different for each system, at least for the MRC systems. Regards, Glen > > I thought the zoom in the Biorad 1024 was real. Are you saying that > between 2 and 4 I´m introducing garbage? > I missed that line in the manual > (if present there) > I've looked for that line myself. > Many thanks to all of you giving me a hand. > > Nice list. > -- > Dr Pedro J Camello > Dpt Physiology > Faculty of Veterinary Sciences > University of Extremadura > 10071 Caceres > Spain > Ph: 927257100 Extension 1321 > Fax:927257110 |
William Hatton |
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal Dear Siv, Would it also be possible to get a copy of that table? Will William J. Hatton, PhD Res. Asst. Professor Director of Imaging and Morphology Core, NIH Center of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) Department of Pharmacology/318 University of Nevada School of Medicine Reno, NV 89557-0046 USA -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Glen MacDonald Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 2:31 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Best parameters for optimal slicing Search the CONFOCAL archive at http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal On Feb 11, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Pedro J Camello wrote: > Search the CONFOCAL archive at > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > > Dear Siv, > > many thanks for your table, is more complete for others I had got. > Regarding the low structures, at the moment 500 nm is enough for me > > Dear Paul, > > thanks for your figure. My objective is the same, though my system > is a > non-UV 1024. However, at zoom = 1 my pixel size is 410 nm!. Should I > concern about a possible error in the parameters files of the software > (Lasersharp, OS/2)? > > Could please anybody with a Biorad 1024 system report me the pixel > size > for 60X and zoom 1? > > Dear Glenn and Martin, to a smaller field. As I recall, galvo deflection voltage on is set in 8-bit increments on the 1000/1024 scanner. Zooms that are not in multiples of 2 will have interpolation errors causing some variation in positioning. I may be wrong on the details, but couldn't find the old discussion thread in the archives. Pixel size at zoom =1 for any lens will be affected by calibration of scan area by the service engineer and variation in total mag to the detector, which is slightly different for each system, at least for the MRC systems. Regards, Glen > > I thought the zoom in the Biorad 1024 was real. Are you saying that > between 2 and 4 I´m introducing garbage? > I missed that line in the manual > (if present there) > I've looked for that line myself. > Many thanks to all of you giving me a hand. > > Nice list. > -- > Dr Pedro J Camello > Dpt Physiology > Faculty of Veterinary Sciences > University of Extremadura > 10071 Caceres > Spain > Ph: 927257100 Extension 1321 > Fax:927257110 |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |