Re: FocalCheck test slide: Vendor Update

[Ignatius, Mike-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Dear Listserve members,

We are pleased to announce that we were able to improve the mounted
tetraspec beads products described in this colorful email string from over a
year ago (with some comments extending back to 2005).    

Tertraspec beads are now mounted on the #1.5 coverslips, not the slides.  

It took some doing - overspray from the mask used to find the bead focal
plane was our biggest unanticipated issue that delayed this so much.  Many
apologies to anyone out there that remained on backorder.  But the product,
T14792 and other bead mounted slides, like our intensity and size bead series,
F36909, are now on the coverslip.  

Frankly they look terrific - wish I could post an image.

Kind Regards,

Mike Ignatius
Molecular Probes/LifeTechnologies

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:31:10 -0400, Ignatius, Mike
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>Dear Listservors,
>
>Thank you all very much for your contributions to this discussion.
>
>We have always used #1.5 coverslips(which range from 160 to 190
microns).  All biological objectives (except those with correction collars) are
designed for these. Going to #1 coverslips would only narrow things by 30
microns at best and defeat the optical correction factor.
>
>We continue to encourage do-it-yourselfers (DYI) slides as others have
mentioned, and include protocols to do this.  We are very generous in the
quantities of beads shipped - you can make dozens to hundreds of slides from
one vial. However we developed the multiple bead slides as a cost savings to
the customer needing more than one bead type.  Buying 10 bead preps is 2-5x
what one of the prepared slides will cost.  
>
>Unfortunately, the prepared slides are a quite a challenges to make in
quantity.  We have strict QC standards - our scrap rate and thus costs are
high.  We haven't implemented a QC step with oil objectives because of the
damage to the slide that would entail.  As mentioned in an earlier post we are
addressing this going forward (first up mounting on coverslips).  
>
>We will refund anyone that is unable to see their beads on our slides of
course.  Just call our Tech Support for a credit or replacement, at 800-955-
6288, then selection 2, then selection 4 to request this.

>
>Regards,
>
>Mike Ignatius
>
>Molecular Probes/Lifetechnologies
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Confocal Microscopy List

[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Peter Pitrone
>Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 6:03 AM
>To: [hidden email]
>Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide
>
>They sell these "test slides" for hundreds of dollars, yet they don't take the
time to make them right?!?! They should be made with correct coverslips
chosen for their thickness, deposited on them and then mounted on the glass
slide... I see that there is a disconnect some where, how much does it cost
them to produce these slides? 10 bucks maybe...
>
>Pete
>
>On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Guy Cox wrote:
>
>> No, no, it IS the problem!  As Mike Ignatius explained, MP put the beads on
the slide, not the coverslip, then add mountant and then the coverslip.  If you
are using a #1.5 coverslip you need to put the beads directly on the
coverslip.  With the beads on the slide the extra thickness of the mountant
needs to be corrected for by using a thinner coverslip - #1 or #0 - which
must be found by trial and error.  (But since I guess they are using very
reproducible conditions they only need to do the test once).  At least it seems
they have realized they have a problem.  
>>
>>                                       Guy
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Confocal Microscopy List
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of MICROSCOPIA
CONFOCAL y CCD

>> Sent: Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:15 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide
>>
>>> Thanks a lot for your answers.
>>
>>> Of course I put the slide upside down when using
>>> inverted microscope and I asked for Molecular
>>> probes about coverslip and they answered me:
>>> "The coverslip thickness for the FocalCheck
>>> prepared slides is 0.13-0.16 mm" It´s no ideal
>>> but I think that this is not the problem.
>>
>> M. Teresa
>>
>> SERVICIO de MICROSCOPIA CONFOCAL y CCD
>> Mª Teresa Seisdedos Domínguez
>> Oscar Hidalgo Blanco
>> Amadeo Cazaña Soto
>> [hidden email]
>> Centro Investigaciones Biológicas (CIB) CSIC
>> C/Ramiro de Maeztu, 9
>> 28040 Madrid
>> Phone: + 34-91 8373112 ext.4401
>> Fax: + 34-91 536 04 32  

[Peter Gabriel Pitrone]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Dear Mike,

This is great news! Thanks for listening to your costumers wishes.

I still am of the opinion that each bead size should be on it's own
slide. The "one slide fits all" method (with 6 positions in a straight
line) needs to be discarded, because it is impossible to even reach the
last two positions.

Thanks again!

and best regards,

Pete


On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 16:01 -0500, Mike Ignatius wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Dear Listserve members,
>
> We are pleased to announce that we were able to improve the mounted
> tetraspec beads products described in this colorful email string from over a
> year ago (with some comments extending back to 2005).    
>
> Tertraspec beads are now mounted on the #1.5 coverslips, not the slides.  
>
> It took some doing - overspray from the mask used to find the bead focal
> plane was our biggest unanticipated issue that delayed this so much.  Many
> apologies to anyone out there that remained on backorder.  But the product,
> T14792 and other bead mounted slides, like our intensity and size bead series,
> F36909, are now on the coverslip.  
>
> Frankly they look terrific - wish I could post an image.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Mike Ignatius
> Molecular Probes/LifeTechnologies
>
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:31:10 -0400, Ignatius, Mike
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >Dear Listservors,
> >
> >Thank you all very much for your contributions to this discussion.
> >
> >We have always used #1.5 coverslips(which range from 160 to 190
> microns).  All biological objectives (except those with correction collars) are
> designed for these. Going to #1 coverslips would only narrow things by 30
> microns at best and defeat the optical correction factor.
> >
> >We continue to encourage do-it-yourselfers (DYI) slides as others have
> mentioned, and include protocols to do this.  We are very generous in the
> quantities of beads shipped - you can make dozens to hundreds of slides from
> one vial. However we developed the multiple bead slides as a cost savings to
> the customer needing more than one bead type.  Buying 10 bead preps is 2-5x
> what one of the prepared slides will cost.  
> >
> >Unfortunately, the prepared slides are a quite a challenges to make in
> quantity.  We have strict QC standards - our scrap rate and thus costs are
> high.  We haven't implemented a QC step with oil objectives because of the
> damage to the slide that would entail.  As mentioned in an earlier post we are
> addressing this going forward (first up mounting on coverslips).  
> >
> >We will refund anyone that is unable to see their beads on our slides of
> course.  Just call our Tech Support for a credit or replacement, at 800-955-
> 6288, then selection 2, then selection 4 to request this.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Mike Ignatius
> >
> >Molecular Probes/Lifetechnologies
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Peter Pitrone
> >Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 6:03 AM
> >To: [hidden email]
> >Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide
> >
> >They sell these "test slides" for hundreds of dollars, yet they don't take the
> time to make them right?!?! They should be made with correct coverslips
> chosen for their thickness, deposited on them and then mounted on the glass
> slide... I see that there is a disconnect some where, how much does it cost
> them to produce these slides? 10 bucks maybe...
> >
> >Pete
> >
> >On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Guy Cox wrote:
> >
> >> No, no, it IS the problem!  As Mike Ignatius explained, MP put the beads on
> the slide, not the coverslip, then add mountant and then the coverslip.  If you
> are using a #1.5 coverslip you need to put the beads directly on the
> coverslip.  With the beads on the slide the extra thickness of the mountant
> needs to be corrected for by using a thinner coverslip - #1 or #0 - which
> must be found by trial and error.  (But since I guess they are using very
> reproducible conditions they only need to do the test once).  At least it seems
> they have realized they have a problem.  
> >>
> >>                                       Guy
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of MICROSCOPIA
> CONFOCAL y CCD
> >> Sent: Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:15 PM
> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide
> >>
> >>> Thanks a lot for your answers.
> >>
> >>> Of course I put the slide upside down when using
> >>> inverted microscope and I asked for Molecular
> >>> probes about coverslip and they answered me:
> >>> "The coverslip thickness for the FocalCheck
> >>> prepared slides is 0.13-0.16 mm" It´s no ideal
> >>> but I think that this is not the problem.
> >>
> >> M. Teresa
> >>
> >> SERVICIO de MICROSCOPIA CONFOCAL y CCD
> >> Mª Teresa Seisdedos Domínguez
> >> Oscar Hidalgo Blanco
> >> Amadeo Cazaña Soto
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Centro Investigaciones Biológicas (CIB) CSIC
> >> C/Ramiro de Maeztu, 9
> >> 28040 Madrid
> >> Phone: + 34-91 8373112 ext.4401
> >> Fax: + 34-91 536 04 32  

--
Peter Gabriel Pitrone
Microscope Specialist
Max Planck Institute
for Molecular Cell
Biology and Genetics
Pfotenhauerstr. 108
01307 Dresden
Germany

[Daniel James White]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Mike and Pete

On Apr 15, 2011, at 7:02 AM, CONFOCALMICROSCOPY automatic digest system wrote:

>
> Date:    Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:27:38 +0200
> From:    Peter Gabriel Pitrone <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide: Vendor Update
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Dear Mike,
>
> This is great news! Thanks for listening to your costumers wishes.

Halleluja!

>
> I still am of the opinion that each bead size should be on it's own
> slide. The "one slide fits all" method (with 6 positions in a straight
> line) needs to be discarded, because it is impossible to even reach the
> last two positions.

yes, and the beads need to be in the middle of the slide to be visible on an OMX
or other system / stage with restricted stage travel.

Also.. what exactly is the refractive index of the mounting medium,
and what exactly is it anyway?

Can we get 50 nm diameter bead slides for super resolution structured illumination microscope systems like the omx?

100 or 170 nm are not small enough....

cheers

Dan

>
> Thanks again!
>
> and best regards,
>
> Pete
>
>
> On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 16:01 -0500, Mike Ignatius wrote:
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> *****
>>
>> Dear Listserve members,
>>
>> We are pleased to announce that we were able to improve the mounted
>> tetraspec beads products described in this colorful email string from over a
>> year ago (with some comments extending back to 2005).    
>>
>> Tertraspec beads are now mounted on the #1.5 coverslips, not the slides.  
>>
>> It took some doing - overspray from the mask used to find the bead focal
>> plane was our biggest unanticipated issue that delayed this so much.  Many
>> apologies to anyone out there that remained on backorder.  But the product,
>> T14792 and other bead mounted slides, like our intensity and size bead series,
>> F36909, are now on the coverslip.  
>>
>> Frankly they look terrific - wish I could post an image.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Mike Ignatius
>> Molecular Probes/LifeTechnologies
>>
>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:31:10 -0400, Ignatius, Mike
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Listservors,
>>>
>>> Thank you all very much for your contributions to this discussion.
>>>
>>> We have always used #1.5 coverslips(which range from 160 to 190
>> microns).  All biological objectives (except those with correction collars) are
>> designed for these. Going to #1 coverslips would only narrow things by 30
>> microns at best and defeat the optical correction factor.
>>>
>>> We continue to encourage do-it-yourselfers (DYI) slides as others have
>> mentioned, and include protocols to do this.  We are very generous in the
>> quantities of beads shipped - you can make dozens to hundreds of slides from
>> one vial. However we developed the multiple bead slides as a cost savings to
>> the customer needing more than one bead type.  Buying 10 bead preps is 2-5x
>> what one of the prepared slides will cost.  
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the prepared slides are a quite a challenges to make in
>> quantity.  We have strict QC standards - our scrap rate and thus costs are
>> high.  We haven't implemented a QC step with oil objectives because of the
>> damage to the slide that would entail.  As mentioned in an earlier post we are
>> addressing this going forward (first up mounting on coverslips).  
>>>
>>> We will refund anyone that is unable to see their beads on our slides of
>> course.  Just call our Tech Support for a credit or replacement, at 800-955-
>> 6288, then selection 2, then selection 4 to request this.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mike Ignatius
>>>
>>> Molecular Probes/Lifetechnologies
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Confocal Microscopy List
>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Peter Pitrone
>>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 6:03 AM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide
>>>
>>> They sell these "test slides" for hundreds of dollars, yet they don't take the
>> time to make them right?!?! They should be made with correct coverslips
>> chosen for their thickness, deposited on them and then mounted on the glass
>> slide... I see that there is a disconnect some where, how much does it cost
>> them to produce these slides? 10 bucks maybe...
>>>
>>> Pete
>>>
>>> On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Guy Cox wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, no, it IS the problem!  As Mike Ignatius explained, MP put the beads on
>> the slide, not the coverslip, then add mountant and then the coverslip.  If you
>> are using a #1.5 coverslip you need to put the beads directly on the
>> coverslip.  With the beads on the slide the extra thickness of the mountant
>> needs to be corrected for by using a thinner coverslip - #1 or #0 - which
>> must be found by trial and error.  (But since I guess they are using very
>> reproducible conditions they only need to do the test once).  At least it seems
>> they have realized they have a problem.  
>>>>
>>>>                                      Guy
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Confocal Microscopy List
>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of MICROSCOPIA
>> CONFOCAL y CCD
>>>> Sent: Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:15 PM
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks a lot for your answers.
>>>>
>>>>> Of course I put the slide upside down when using
>>>>> inverted microscope and I asked for Molecular
>>>>> probes about coverslip and they answered me:
>>>>> "The coverslip thickness for the FocalCheck
>>>>> prepared slides is 0.13-0.16 mm" It´s no ideal
>>>>> but I think that this is not the problem.
>>>>
>>>> M. Teresa
>>>>
>>>> SERVICIO de MICROSCOPIA CONFOCAL y CCD
>>>> Mª Teresa Seisdedos Domínguez
>>>> Oscar Hidalgo Blanco
>>>> Amadeo Cazaña Soto
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> Centro Investigaciones Biológicas (CIB) CSIC
>>>> C/Ramiro de Maeztu, 9
>>>> 28040 Madrid
>>>> Phone: + 34-91 8373112 ext.4401
>>>> Fax: + 34-91 536 04 32  
>
> --
> Peter Gabriel Pitrone
> Microscope Specialist
> Max Planck Institute
> for Molecular Cell
> Biology and Genetics
> Pfotenhauerstr. 108
> 01307 Dresden
> Germany

Dr. Daniel James White BSc. (Hons.) PhD
Senior Microscopist / Image Processing and Analysis
Light Microscopy Facility
Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics
Pfotenhauerstrasse 108
01307 DRESDEN
Germany

[phone] (German Mobile)
+49  (0)351 210 2627 (Work phone at MPI-CBG)
+49  (0)351 210 1078 (Fax MPI-CBG LMF)

http://www.bioimagexd.net                BioImageXD
http://pacific.mpi-cbg.de                Fiji (is just ImageJ - batteries included)
http://www.chalkie.org.uk
[hidden email]
( [hidden email] )

[Julio Vazquez]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Polysciences sells polystyrene nanobeads starting at 40 nm and  
increasing in size in 10 and/or 25 nm increments. These would give  
you complete freedom with respect to  bead size, label, mounting  
medium, coverslip type and thickness, and location on the slide.
--
Julio Vazquez
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Seattle, WA

On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Dan White wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hi Mike and Pete
>
> On Apr 15, 2011, at 7:02 AM, CONFOCALMICROSCOPY automatic digest  
> system wrote:
>
>>
>> Date:    Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:27:38 +0200
>> From:    Peter Gabriel Pitrone <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide: Vendor Update
>>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> *****
>>
>> Dear Mike,
>>
>> This is great news! Thanks for listening to your costumers wishes.
>
> Halleluja!
>
>>
>> I still am of the opinion that each bead size should be on it's own
>> slide. The "one slide fits all" method (with 6 positions in a  
>> straight
>> line) needs to be discarded, because it is impossible to even  
>> reach the
>> last two positions.
>
> yes, and the beads need to be in the middle of the slide to be  
> visible on an OMX
> or other system / stage with restricted stage travel.
>
> Also.. what exactly is the refractive index of the mounting medium,
> and what exactly is it anyway?
>
> Can we get 50 nm diameter bead slides for super resolution  
> structured illumination microscope systems like the omx?
>
> 100 or 170 nm are not small enough....
>
> cheers
>
> Dan
>
>>
>> Thanks again!
>>
>> and best regards,
>>
>> Pete
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 16:01 -0500, Mike Ignatius wrote:
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>> *****
>>>
>>> Dear Listserve members,
>>>
>>> We are pleased to announce that we were able to improve the mounted
>>> tetraspec beads products described in this colorful email string  
>>> from over a
>>> year ago (with some comments extending back to 2005).
>>>
>>> Tertraspec beads are now mounted on the #1.5 coverslips, not the  
>>> slides.
>>>
>>> It took some doing - overspray from the mask used to find the  
>>> bead focal
>>> plane was our biggest unanticipated issue that delayed this so  
>>> much.  Many
>>> apologies to anyone out there that remained on backorder.  But  
>>> the product,
>>> T14792 and other bead mounted slides, like our intensity and size  
>>> bead series,
>>> F36909, are now on the coverslip.
>>>
>>> Frankly they look terrific - wish I could post an image.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> Mike Ignatius
>>> Molecular Probes/LifeTechnologies
>>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:31:10 -0400, Ignatius, Mike
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Listservors,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you all very much for your contributions to this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> We have always used #1.5 coverslips(which range from 160 to 190
>>> microns).  All biological objectives (except those with  
>>> correction collars) are
>>> designed for these. Going to #1 coverslips would only narrow  
>>> things by 30
>>> microns at best and defeat the optical correction factor.
>>>>
>>>> We continue to encourage do-it-yourselfers (DYI) slides as  
>>>> others have
>>> mentioned, and include protocols to do this.  We are very  
>>> generous in the
>>> quantities of beads shipped - you can make dozens to hundreds of  
>>> slides from
>>> one vial. However we developed the multiple bead slides as a cost  
>>> savings to
>>> the customer needing more than one bead type.  Buying 10 bead  
>>> preps is 2-5x
>>> what one of the prepared slides will cost.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, the prepared slides are a quite a challenges to  
>>>> make in
>>> quantity.  We have strict QC standards - our scrap rate and thus  
>>> costs are
>>> high.  We haven't implemented a QC step with oil objectives  
>>> because of the
>>> damage to the slide that would entail.  As mentioned in an  
>>> earlier post we are
>>> addressing this going forward (first up mounting on coverslips).
>>>>
>>>> We will refund anyone that is unable to see their beads on our  
>>>> slides of
>>> course.  Just call our Tech Support for a credit or replacement,  
>>> at 800-955-
>>> 6288, then selection 2, then selection 4 to request this.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Mike Ignatius
>>>>
>>>> Molecular Probes/Lifetechnologies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Confocal Microscopy List
>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Peter Pitrone
>>>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 6:03 AM
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide
>>>>
>>>> They sell these "test slides" for hundreds of dollars, yet they  
>>>> don't take the
>>> time to make them right?!?! They should be made with correct  
>>> coverslips
>>> chosen for their thickness, deposited on them and then mounted on  
>>> the glass
>>> slide... I see that there is a disconnect some where, how much  
>>> does it cost
>>> them to produce these slides? 10 bucks maybe...
>>>>
>>>> Pete
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Guy Cox wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, no, it IS the problem!  As Mike Ignatius explained, MP put  
>>>>> the beads on
>>> the slide, not the coverslip, then add mountant and then the  
>>> coverslip.  If you
>>> are using a #1.5 coverslip you need to put the beads directly on the
>>> coverslip.  With the beads on the slide the extra thickness of  
>>> the mountant
>>> needs to be corrected for by using a thinner coverslip - #1 or #0  
>>> - which
>>> must be found by trial and error.  (But since I guess they are  
>>> using very
>>> reproducible conditions they only need to do the test once).  At  
>>> least it seems
>>> they have realized they have a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>                                      Guy
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Confocal Microscopy List
>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of MICROSCOPIA
>>> CONFOCAL y CCD
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:15 PM
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks a lot for your answers.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course I put the slide upside down when using
>>>>>> inverted microscope and I asked for Molecular
>>>>>> probes about coverslip and they answered me:
>>>>>> "The coverslip thickness for the FocalCheck
>>>>>> prepared slides is 0.13-0.16 mm" It´s no ideal
>>>>>> but I think that this is not the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> M. Teresa
>>>>>
>>>>> SERVICIO de MICROSCOPIA CONFOCAL y CCD
>>>>> Mª Teresa Seisdedos Domínguez
>>>>> Oscar Hidalgo Blanco
>>>>> Amadeo Cazaña Soto
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> Centro Investigaciones Biológicas (CIB) CSIC
>>>>> C/Ramiro de Maeztu, 9
>>>>> 28040 Madrid
>>>>> Phone: + 34-91 8373112 ext.4401
>>>>> Fax: + 34-91 536 04 32
>>
>> --
>> Peter Gabriel Pitrone
>> Microscope Specialist
>> Max Planck Institute
>> for Molecular Cell
>> Biology and Genetics
>> Pfotenhauerstr. 108
>> 01307 Dresden
>> Germany
>
> Dr. Daniel James White BSc. (Hons.) PhD
> Senior Microscopist / Image Processing and Analysis
> Light Microscopy Facility
> Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics
> Pfotenhauerstrasse 108
> 01307 DRESDEN
> Germany
>
> [phone] (German Mobile)
> +49  (0)351 210 2627 (Work phone at MPI-CBG)
> +49  (0)351 210 1078 (Fax MPI-CBG LMF)
>
> http://www.bioimagexd.net                BioImageXD
> http://pacific.mpi-cbg.de                Fiji (is just ImageJ - batteries included)
> http://www.chalkie.org.uk
> [hidden email]
> ( [hidden email] )

[John Oreopoulos]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

I asked this same question about the mounting medium a few months ago. Here is the response I got from Molecular Probes:

***********************
John:
 
The mounting medium is Saint Gobain Optical Cement.  According to my notes, this has a refractive index of 1.52 when cured.
 
The spectra for the TetraSpeck green dye are the same as our standard yellow/green FluoSpheres: http://www.invitrogen.com/site/us/en/home/support/Product-Technical-Resources/Product-Spectra.8811h2o.html
 
The spectra for the Tetraspeck dark red  dye are the same as our standard dark red FluoSpheres: http://www.invitrogen.com/site/us/en/home/support/Product-Technical-Resources/Product-Spectra.8807h2o.html
 
The blue and orange dyes are different from the standard FluoSpheres dyes so I don't have data for those at present.  I'll work on getting it but may take a few weeks.
 
Best Regards,
 
iain
***********************


John Oreopoulos
Research Assistant
Spectral Applied Research
Richmond Hill, Ontario
Canada
www.spectral.ca


On 2011-04-18, at 1:49 PM, Dan White wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hi Mike and Pete
>
> On Apr 15, 2011, at 7:02 AM, CONFOCALMICROSCOPY automatic digest system wrote:
>
>>
>> Date:    Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:27:38 +0200
>> From:    Peter Gabriel Pitrone <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide: Vendor Update
>>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> *****
>>
>> Dear Mike,
>>
>> This is great news! Thanks for listening to your costumers wishes.
>
> Halleluja!
>
>>
>> I still am of the opinion that each bead size should be on it's own
>> slide. The "one slide fits all" method (with 6 positions in a straight
>> line) needs to be discarded, because it is impossible to even reach the
>> last two positions.
>
> yes, and the beads need to be in the middle of the slide to be visible on an OMX
> or other system / stage with restricted stage travel.
>
> Also.. what exactly is the refractive index of the mounting medium,
> and what exactly is it anyway?
>
> Can we get 50 nm diameter bead slides for super resolution structured illumination microscope systems like the omx?
>
> 100 or 170 nm are not small enough....
>
> cheers
>
> Dan
>
>>
>> Thanks again!
>>
>> and best regards,
>>
>> Pete
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 16:01 -0500, Mike Ignatius wrote:
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>> *****
>>>
>>> Dear Listserve members,
>>>
>>> We are pleased to announce that we were able to improve the mounted
>>> tetraspec beads products described in this colorful email string from over a
>>> year ago (with some comments extending back to 2005).    
>>>
>>> Tertraspec beads are now mounted on the #1.5 coverslips, not the slides.  
>>>
>>> It took some doing - overspray from the mask used to find the bead focal
>>> plane was our biggest unanticipated issue that delayed this so much.  Many
>>> apologies to anyone out there that remained on backorder.  But the product,
>>> T14792 and other bead mounted slides, like our intensity and size bead series,
>>> F36909, are now on the coverslip.  
>>>
>>> Frankly they look terrific - wish I could post an image.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> Mike Ignatius
>>> Molecular Probes/LifeTechnologies
>>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:31:10 -0400, Ignatius, Mike
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Listservors,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you all very much for your contributions to this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> We have always used #1.5 coverslips(which range from 160 to 190
>>> microns).  All biological objectives (except those with correction collars) are
>>> designed for these. Going to #1 coverslips would only narrow things by 30
>>> microns at best and defeat the optical correction factor.
>>>>
>>>> We continue to encourage do-it-yourselfers (DYI) slides as others have
>>> mentioned, and include protocols to do this.  We are very generous in the
>>> quantities of beads shipped - you can make dozens to hundreds of slides from
>>> one vial. However we developed the multiple bead slides as a cost savings to
>>> the customer needing more than one bead type.  Buying 10 bead preps is 2-5x
>>> what one of the prepared slides will cost.  
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, the prepared slides are a quite a challenges to make in
>>> quantity.  We have strict QC standards - our scrap rate and thus costs are
>>> high.  We haven't implemented a QC step with oil objectives because of the
>>> damage to the slide that would entail.  As mentioned in an earlier post we are
>>> addressing this going forward (first up mounting on coverslips).  
>>>>
>>>> We will refund anyone that is unable to see their beads on our slides of
>>> course.  Just call our Tech Support for a credit or replacement, at 800-955-
>>> 6288, then selection 2, then selection 4 to request this.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Mike Ignatius
>>>>
>>>> Molecular Probes/Lifetechnologies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Confocal Microscopy List
>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Peter Pitrone
>>>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 6:03 AM
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide
>>>>
>>>> They sell these "test slides" for hundreds of dollars, yet they don't take the
>>> time to make them right?!?! They should be made with correct coverslips
>>> chosen for their thickness, deposited on them and then mounted on the glass
>>> slide... I see that there is a disconnect some where, how much does it cost
>>> them to produce these slides? 10 bucks maybe...
>>>>
>>>> Pete
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Guy Cox wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, no, it IS the problem!  As Mike Ignatius explained, MP put the beads on
>>> the slide, not the coverslip, then add mountant and then the coverslip.  If you
>>> are using a #1.5 coverslip you need to put the beads directly on the
>>> coverslip.  With the beads on the slide the extra thickness of the mountant
>>> needs to be corrected for by using a thinner coverslip - #1 or #0 - which
>>> must be found by trial and error.  (But since I guess they are using very
>>> reproducible conditions they only need to do the test once).  At least it seems
>>> they have realized they have a problem.  
>>>>>
>>>>>                                     Guy
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Confocal Microscopy List
>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of MICROSCOPIA
>>> CONFOCAL y CCD
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:15 PM
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks a lot for your answers.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course I put the slide upside down when using
>>>>>> inverted microscope and I asked for Molecular
>>>>>> probes about coverslip and they answered me:
>>>>>> "The coverslip thickness for the FocalCheck
>>>>>> prepared slides is 0.13-0.16 mm" It´s no ideal
>>>>>> but I think that this is not the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> M. Teresa
>>>>>
>>>>> SERVICIO de MICROSCOPIA CONFOCAL y CCD
>>>>> Mª Teresa Seisdedos Domínguez
>>>>> Oscar Hidalgo Blanco
>>>>> Amadeo Cazaña Soto
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> Centro Investigaciones Biológicas (CIB) CSIC
>>>>> C/Ramiro de Maeztu, 9
>>>>> 28040 Madrid
>>>>> Phone: + 34-91 8373112 ext.4401
>>>>> Fax: + 34-91 536 04 32  
>>
>> --
>> Peter Gabriel Pitrone
>> Microscope Specialist
>> Max Planck Institute
>> for Molecular Cell
>> Biology and Genetics
>> Pfotenhauerstr. 108
>> 01307 Dresden
>> Germany
>
> Dr. Daniel James White BSc. (Hons.) PhD
> Senior Microscopist / Image Processing and Analysis
> Light Microscopy Facility
> Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics
> Pfotenhauerstrasse 108
> 01307 DRESDEN
> Germany
>
> [phone] (German Mobile)
> +49  (0)351 210 2627 (Work phone at MPI-CBG)
> +49  (0)351 210 1078 (Fax MPI-CBG LMF)
>
> http://www.bioimagexd.net                BioImageXD
> http://pacific.mpi-cbg.de                Fiji (is just ImageJ - batteries included)
> http://www.chalkie.org.uk
> [hidden email]
> ( [hidden email] )

[Ignatius, Mike-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Molecular Proboes has many, sub-res beads as well, just not by the name tetraspec.  If you search our web site for fluospheres you will see 20nm, 40, 80's and more in a variety of colors.  Too lengthy to list here.  Please contact me if you need more specific information.

Also, any of our quantum dots work as very bright sub res standards.  They are around 20nm, depending on color.

As to mounting on the center of a slide- we do provide detailed instructions for making these from our stock material. While we recommend glycerol for an easy mountant, things like optical cement do markedly improve the optics and stability. At this time, we can't likely resource a further redevelopment of this product.

Many thanks and good imaging to all,

Mike Ignatius, PhD

Molecular Probes/Life Technologies
Eugene, Oregon

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Julio Vazquez
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 11:33 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide: Vendor Update

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Polysciences sells polystyrene nanobeads starting at 40 nm and  
increasing in size in 10 and/or 25 nm increments. These would give  
you complete freedom with respect to  bead size, label, mounting  
medium, coverslip type and thickness, and location on the slide.
--
Julio Vazquez
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Seattle, WA

On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Dan White wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hi Mike and Pete
>
> On Apr 15, 2011, at 7:02 AM, CONFOCALMICROSCOPY automatic digest  
> system wrote:
>
>>
>> Date:    Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:27:38 +0200
>> From:    Peter Gabriel Pitrone <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide: Vendor Update
>>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> *****
>>
>> Dear Mike,
>>
>> This is great news! Thanks for listening to your costumers wishes.
>
> Halleluja!
>
>>
>> I still am of the opinion that each bead size should be on it's own
>> slide. The "one slide fits all" method (with 6 positions in a  
>> straight
>> line) needs to be discarded, because it is impossible to even  
>> reach the
>> last two positions.
>
> yes, and the beads need to be in the middle of the slide to be  
> visible on an OMX
> or other system / stage with restricted stage travel.
>
> Also.. what exactly is the refractive index of the mounting medium,
> and what exactly is it anyway?
>
> Can we get 50 nm diameter bead slides for super resolution  
> structured illumination microscope systems like the omx?
>
> 100 or 170 nm are not small enough....
>
> cheers
>
> Dan
>
>>
>> Thanks again!
>>
>> and best regards,
>>
>> Pete
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 16:01 -0500, Mike Ignatius wrote:
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>> *****
>>>
>>> Dear Listserve members,
>>>
>>> We are pleased to announce that we were able to improve the mounted
>>> tetraspec beads products described in this colorful email string  
>>> from over a
>>> year ago (with some comments extending back to 2005).
>>>
>>> Tertraspec beads are now mounted on the #1.5 coverslips, not the  
>>> slides.
>>>
>>> It took some doing - overspray from the mask used to find the  
>>> bead focal
>>> plane was our biggest unanticipated issue that delayed this so  
>>> much.  Many
>>> apologies to anyone out there that remained on backorder.  But  
>>> the product,
>>> T14792 and other bead mounted slides, like our intensity and size  
>>> bead series,
>>> F36909, are now on the coverslip.
>>>
>>> Frankly they look terrific - wish I could post an image.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> Mike Ignatius
>>> Molecular Probes/LifeTechnologies
>>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:31:10 -0400, Ignatius, Mike
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Listservors,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you all very much for your contributions to this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> We have always used #1.5 coverslips(which range from 160 to 190
>>> microns).  All biological objectives (except those with  
>>> correction collars) are
>>> designed for these. Going to #1 coverslips would only narrow  
>>> things by 30
>>> microns at best and defeat the optical correction factor.
>>>>
>>>> We continue to encourage do-it-yourselfers (DYI) slides as  
>>>> others have
>>> mentioned, and include protocols to do this.  We are very  
>>> generous in the
>>> quantities of beads shipped - you can make dozens to hundreds of  
>>> slides from
>>> one vial. However we developed the multiple bead slides as a cost  
>>> savings to
>>> the customer needing more than one bead type.  Buying 10 bead  
>>> preps is 2-5x
>>> what one of the prepared slides will cost.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, the prepared slides are a quite a challenges to  
>>>> make in
>>> quantity.  We have strict QC standards - our scrap rate and thus  
>>> costs are
>>> high.  We haven't implemented a QC step with oil objectives  
>>> because of the
>>> damage to the slide that would entail.  As mentioned in an  
>>> earlier post we are
>>> addressing this going forward (first up mounting on coverslips).
>>>>
>>>> We will refund anyone that is unable to see their beads on our  
>>>> slides of
>>> course.  Just call our Tech Support for a credit or replacement,  
>>> at 800-955-
>>> 6288, then selection 2, then selection 4 to request this.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Mike Ignatius
>>>>
>>>> Molecular Probes/Lifetechnologies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Confocal Microscopy List
>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Peter Pitrone
>>>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 6:03 AM
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide
>>>>
>>>> They sell these "test slides" for hundreds of dollars, yet they  
>>>> don't take the
>>> time to make them right?!?! They should be made with correct  
>>> coverslips
>>> chosen for their thickness, deposited on them and then mounted on  
>>> the glass
>>> slide... I see that there is a disconnect some where, how much  
>>> does it cost
>>> them to produce these slides? 10 bucks maybe...
>>>>
>>>> Pete
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Guy Cox wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, no, it IS the problem!  As Mike Ignatius explained, MP put  
>>>>> the beads on
>>> the slide, not the coverslip, then add mountant and then the  
>>> coverslip.  If you
>>> are using a #1.5 coverslip you need to put the beads directly on the
>>> coverslip.  With the beads on the slide the extra thickness of  
>>> the mountant
>>> needs to be corrected for by using a thinner coverslip - #1 or #0  
>>> - which
>>> must be found by trial and error.  (But since I guess they are  
>>> using very
>>> reproducible conditions they only need to do the test once).  At  
>>> least it seems
>>> they have realized they have a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>                                      Guy
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Confocal Microscopy List
>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of MICROSCOPIA
>>> CONFOCAL y CCD
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:15 PM
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks a lot for your answers.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course I put the slide upside down when using
>>>>>> inverted microscope and I asked for Molecular
>>>>>> probes about coverslip and they answered me:
>>>>>> "The coverslip thickness for the FocalCheck
>>>>>> prepared slides is 0.13-0.16 mm" It´s no ideal
>>>>>> but I think that this is not the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> M. Teresa
>>>>>
>>>>> SERVICIO de MICROSCOPIA CONFOCAL y CCD
>>>>> Mª Teresa Seisdedos Domínguez
>>>>> Oscar Hidalgo Blanco
>>>>> Amadeo Cazaña Soto
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> Centro Investigaciones Biológicas (CIB) CSIC
>>>>> C/Ramiro de Maeztu, 9
>>>>> 28040 Madrid
>>>>> Phone: + 34-91 8373112 ext.4401
>>>>> Fax: + 34-91 536 04 32
>>
>> --
>> Peter Gabriel Pitrone
>> Microscope Specialist
>> Max Planck Institute
>> for Molecular Cell
>> Biology and Genetics
>> Pfotenhauerstr. 108
>> 01307 Dresden
>> Germany
>
> Dr. Daniel James White BSc. (Hons.) PhD
> Senior Microscopist / Image Processing and Analysis
> Light Microscopy Facility
> Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics
> Pfotenhauerstrasse 108
> 01307 DRESDEN
> Germany
>
> [phone] (German Mobile)
> +49  (0)351 210 2627 (Work phone at MPI-CBG)
> +49  (0)351 210 1078 (Fax MPI-CBG LMF)
>
> http://www.bioimagexd.net                BioImageXD
> http://pacific.mpi-cbg.de                Fiji (is just ImageJ - batteries included)
> http://www.chalkie.org.uk
> [hidden email]
> ( [hidden email] )

[Tim Feinstein-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hello all,

Thorlabs had an interesting display of confocal systems last week, at Experimental Biology in DC, that ranged from a multiphoton system to a resonant-only confocal that they informally quoted at <$70k, including lasers (!).  The general theme seems to be stripped-down systems that do one thing well; e.g. they are still considering whether or how to integrate a FRAP function into their resonant device.  I also wonder whether they have a suitable support network in place to handle maintenance and upgrade issues.  As well, buying a new system with new software can make one feel like an unpaid beta tester.  We might include their resonant scanner in a search for a live-cell dedicated scope, against spinning disc and swept field systems from PE, Andor and Nikon (the Ti base is a must), but I am on the fence about that.  

If anyone has experience with them, please feel free to contact me on line or off.  

Thanks,


Tim

Timothy Feinstein, PhD
Postdoctoral Fellow
Laboratory for GPCR Biology
Dept. of Pharmacology & Chemical Biology
University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine
BST W1301, 200 Lothrop St.
Pittsburgh, PA  15261

[leoncio vergara]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Have you had a chance to arrange for an extended demo of the system? The company could bring you a system so you can test it with your samples for a few days... also, are you clear about the advantages and disadvantages of a resonant scanner versus spinning disk and swept field systems?
A company with a smaller microscopy operation probably would not have the service coverage of the traditional big microscope companies but you will have a lot more personal contact with the development team.... and, yes, I don't know anything about their systems but it sounds you will be a bit of a beta tester... which may be part of the fun.

Leoncio A. Vergara MD
Assistant Director
Center for Biomedical Engineering
Assistant Professor
Microbiology and Immunology
University of Texas Medical Branch
409-750-2153 (cell)

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tim Feinstein
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:37 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Thorlabs confocals

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hello all,

Thorlabs had an interesting display of confocal systems last week, at Experimental Biology in DC, that ranged from a multiphoton system to a resonant-only confocal that they informally quoted at <$70k, including lasers (!).  The general theme seems to be stripped-down systems that do one thing well; e.g. they are still considering whether or how to integrate a FRAP function into their resonant device.  I also wonder whether they have a suitable support network in place to handle maintenance and upgrade issues.  As well, buying a new system with new software can make one feel like an unpaid beta tester.  We might include their resonant scanner in a search for a live-cell dedicated scope, against spinning disc and swept field systems from PE, Andor and Nikon (the Ti base is a must), but I am on the fence about that.  

If anyone has experience with them, please feel free to contact me on line or off.  

Thanks,


Tim

Timothy Feinstein, PhD
Postdoctoral Fellow
Laboratory for GPCR Biology
Dept. of Pharmacology & Chemical Biology
University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine
BST W1301, 200 Lothrop St.
Pittsburgh, PA  15261

[Craig Brideau]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

I have their Octavius laser stuck on a mostly conventional Nikon A1R.  Peter
Fendel, the fellow who actually designed the thing came out and personally
installed it, then came for a repeat visit to help tweak it up and train me
on the use of the laser.  Whenever I've had any questions or even the
slightest issue with the laser he has been extremely responsive.  Our
preliminary results with the laser are also very exciting... hope to have
some nice images to brag about soon.

Craig



On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Vergara, Leoncio A. <[hidden email]>wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Have you had a chance to arrange for an extended demo of the system? The
> company could bring you a system so you can test it with your samples for a
> few days... also, are you clear about the advantages and disadvantages of a
> resonant scanner versus spinning disk and swept field systems?
> A company with a smaller microscopy operation probably would not have the
> service coverage of the traditional big microscope companies but you will
> have a lot more personal contact with the development team.... and, yes, I
> don't know anything about their systems but it sounds you will be a bit of a
> beta tester... which may be part of the fun.
>
> Leoncio A. Vergara MD
> Assistant Director
> Center for Biomedical Engineering
> Assistant Professor
> Microbiology and Immunology
> University of Texas Medical Branch
> 409-750-2153 (cell)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of Tim Feinstein
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:37 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Thorlabs confocals
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hello all,
>
> Thorlabs had an interesting display of confocal systems last week, at
> Experimental Biology in DC, that ranged from a multiphoton system to a
> resonant-only confocal that they informally quoted at <$70k, including
> lasers (!).  The general theme seems to be stripped-down systems that do one
> thing well; e.g. they are still considering whether or how to integrate a
> FRAP function into their resonant device.  I also wonder whether they have a
> suitable support network in place to handle maintenance and upgrade issues.
>  As well, buying a new system with new software can make one feel like an
> unpaid beta tester.  We might include their resonant scanner in a search for
> a live-cell dedicated scope, against spinning disc and swept field systems
> from PE, Andor and Nikon (the Ti base is a must), but I am on the fence
> about that.
>
> If anyone has experience with them, please feel free to contact me on line
> or off.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Tim
>
> Timothy Feinstein, PhD
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> Laboratory for GPCR Biology
> Dept. of Pharmacology & Chemical Biology
> University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine
> BST W1301, 200 Lothrop St.
> Pittsburgh, PA  15261
>

[Armstrong, Brian]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Craig, could you expound on why you chose this laser rather than a Coherent or Spectra Physics Ti:Sa laser (for example)?

I see that the laser specs are; pulses are short (<6fs) and fast (1GHz) and less expensive (~$50k [I assume USD]).

What will you use this laser for?
(if you don't mind sharing)

Thanks,

Brian D Armstrong PhD
Assistant Research Professor
Light Microscopy Core
Beckman Research Institute
City of Hope
Dept of Neuroscience
1450 E Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872

http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imaging/Pages/default.aspx

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Brideau
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:05 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Thorlabs confocals

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

I have their Octavius laser stuck on a mostly conventional Nikon A1R.  Peter
Fendel, the fellow who actually designed the thing came out and personally
installed it, then came for a repeat visit to help tweak it up and train me
on the use of the laser.  Whenever I've had any questions or even the
slightest issue with the laser he has been extremely responsive.  Our
preliminary results with the laser are also very exciting... hope to have
some nice images to brag about soon.

Craig



On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Vergara, Leoncio A. <[hidden email]>wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Have you had a chance to arrange for an extended demo of the system? The
> company could bring you a system so you can test it with your samples for a
> few days... also, are you clear about the advantages and disadvantages of a
> resonant scanner versus spinning disk and swept field systems?
> A company with a smaller microscopy operation probably would not have the
> service coverage of the traditional big microscope companies but you will
> have a lot more personal contact with the development team.... and, yes, I
> don't know anything about their systems but it sounds you will be a bit of a
> beta tester... which may be part of the fun.
>
> Leoncio A. Vergara MD
> Assistant Director
> Center for Biomedical Engineering
> Assistant Professor
> Microbiology and Immunology
> University of Texas Medical Branch
> 409-750-2153 (cell)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of Tim Feinstein
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:37 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Thorlabs confocals
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hello all,
>
> Thorlabs had an interesting display of confocal systems last week, at
> Experimental Biology in DC, that ranged from a multiphoton system to a
> resonant-only confocal that they informally quoted at <$70k, including
> lasers (!).  The general theme seems to be stripped-down systems that do one
> thing well; e.g. they are still considering whether or how to integrate a
> FRAP function into their resonant device.  I also wonder whether they have a
> suitable support network in place to handle maintenance and upgrade issues.
>  As well, buying a new system with new software can make one feel like an
> unpaid beta tester.  We might include their resonant scanner in a search for
> a live-cell dedicated scope, against spinning disc and swept field systems
> from PE, Andor and Nikon (the Ti base is a must), but I am on the fence
> about that.
>
> If anyone has experience with them, please feel free to contact me on line
> or off.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Tim
>
> Timothy Feinstein, PhD
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> Laboratory for GPCR Biology
> Dept. of Pharmacology & Chemical Biology
> University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine
> BST W1301, 200 Lothrop St.
> Pittsburgh, PA  15261
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:  
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender.

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

[Craig Brideau]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Actually we have the 85MHz repetition rate of the Octavius rather than the
1GHz version.  We figured the individual pulse energy at 1 GHz was too weak.
 85 MHz strikes a good balance for peak energy, and also allows for time for
any fluorophores to relax back to the ground state between pulses.  I've
never actually tried the 1 GHz version though so your milage may vary.
 There are good arguments on both sides of the "fast rep-rate and low peak
energy" vs "high peak energy and time to relax" sides of the table.
As to why we picked this rather than a MaiTai or Chameleon, we wanted to
excite multiple dyes simultaneously.  The Octavius is so broad it tends to
excite everything all at once.  From our preliminary mucking around we found
it will excite DAPI, Alexa 488, ROX, and a bunch of other dyes fairly well,
simultaneously.  I'm currently working to improve the optics and do some
dispersion compensation to increase our peak energy.  I'll let the list know
how it goes...
$50k buys you the Ti:Saph, but you still need your own pump laser I think.
 We have a Verdi V8 driving ours, although the V5 also works I've been told.
It's not completely hands off, but I find it only needs minor adjustments on
roughly a weekly basis to keep it running in top form.  The key thing is
that its output spectrum is stable and repeatable.  An added bonus is it has
a very tall and narrow spike at 650 nm, so it has its own built-in
alignment/guide beam!  We filter this out of the input beam so we can image
red dyes but it sure helps with getting the beam into the microscope
initially.  I actually have a narrow band pass filter that only lets the 650
spike out so I can align without the full power of the laser flying around
the room.

Craig


On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Armstrong, Brian <[hidden email]>wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Craig, could you expound on why you chose this laser rather than a Coherent
> or Spectra Physics Ti:Sa laser (for example)?
>
> I see that the laser specs are; pulses are short (<6fs) and fast (1GHz) and
> less expensive (~$50k [I assume USD]).
>
> What will you use this laser for?
> (if you don't mind sharing)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian D Armstrong PhD
> Assistant Research Professor
> Light Microscopy Core
> Beckman Research Institute
> City of Hope
> Dept of Neuroscience
> 1450 E Duarte Rd
> Duarte, CA 91010
> 626-256-4673 x62872
>
>
> http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imaging/Pages/default.aspx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of Craig Brideau
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:05 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Thorlabs confocals
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> I have their Octavius laser stuck on a mostly conventional Nikon A1R.
>  Peter
> Fendel, the fellow who actually designed the thing came out and personally
> installed it, then came for a repeat visit to help tweak it up and train me
> on the use of the laser.  Whenever I've had any questions or even the
> slightest issue with the laser he has been extremely responsive.  Our
> preliminary results with the laser are also very exciting... hope to have
> some nice images to brag about soon.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Vergara, Leoncio A. <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > *****
> >
> > Have you had a chance to arrange for an extended demo of the system? The
> > company could bring you a system so you can test it with your samples for
> a
> > few days... also, are you clear about the advantages and disadvantages of
> a
> > resonant scanner versus spinning disk and swept field systems?
> > A company with a smaller microscopy operation probably would not have the
> > service coverage of the traditional big microscope companies but you will
> > have a lot more personal contact with the development team.... and, yes,
> I
> > don't know anything about their systems but it sounds you will be a bit
> of a
> > beta tester... which may be part of the fun.
> >
> > Leoncio A. Vergara MD
> > Assistant Director
> > Center for Biomedical Engineering
> > Assistant Professor
> > Microbiology and Immunology
> > University of Texas Medical Branch
> > 409-750-2153 (cell)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > On Behalf Of Tim Feinstein
> > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:37 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: Thorlabs confocals
> >
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > *****
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Thorlabs had an interesting display of confocal systems last week, at
> > Experimental Biology in DC, that ranged from a multiphoton system to a
> > resonant-only confocal that they informally quoted at <$70k, including
> > lasers (!).  The general theme seems to be stripped-down systems that do
> one
> > thing well; e.g. they are still considering whether or how to integrate a
> > FRAP function into their resonant device.  I also wonder whether they
> have a
> > suitable support network in place to handle maintenance and upgrade
> issues.
> >  As well, buying a new system with new software can make one feel like an
> > unpaid beta tester.  We might include their resonant scanner in a search
> for
> > a live-cell dedicated scope, against spinning disc and swept field
> systems
> > from PE, Andor and Nikon (the Ti base is a must), but I am on the fence
> > about that.
> >
> > If anyone has experience with them, please feel free to contact me on
> line
> > or off.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > Timothy Feinstein, PhD
> > Postdoctoral Fellow
> > Laboratory for GPCR Biology
> > Dept. of Pharmacology & Chemical Biology
> > University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine
> > BST W1301, 200 Lothrop St.
> > Pittsburgh, PA  15261
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or
> entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain
> information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure
> under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data,
> financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without
> encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to
> view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information
> without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended
> recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message
> to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the
> communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in
> error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and
> deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to
> the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via
> e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not
> wish to receive further e-mail from the sender.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

[Armstrong, Brian]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Thank you for the feedback. It certainly gives me/us something to think about.

Cheers,

Brian D Armstrong PhD
Assistant Research Professor
Light Microscopy Core
Beckman Research Institute
City of Hope
Dept of Neuroscience
1450 E Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872

http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imaging/Pages/default.aspx


-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Brideau
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:28 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Thorlabs confocals

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Actually we have the 85MHz repetition rate of the Octavius rather than the
1GHz version.  We figured the individual pulse energy at 1 GHz was too weak.
 85 MHz strikes a good balance for peak energy, and also allows for time for
any fluorophores to relax back to the ground state between pulses.  I've
never actually tried the 1 GHz version though so your milage may vary.
 There are good arguments on both sides of the "fast rep-rate and low peak
energy" vs "high peak energy and time to relax" sides of the table.
As to why we picked this rather than a MaiTai or Chameleon, we wanted to
excite multiple dyes simultaneously.  The Octavius is so broad it tends to
excite everything all at once.  From our preliminary mucking around we found
it will excite DAPI, Alexa 488, ROX, and a bunch of other dyes fairly well,
simultaneously.  I'm currently working to improve the optics and do some
dispersion compensation to increase our peak energy.  I'll let the list know
how it goes...
$50k buys you the Ti:Saph, but you still need your own pump laser I think.
 We have a Verdi V8 driving ours, although the V5 also works I've been told.
It's not completely hands off, but I find it only needs minor adjustments on
roughly a weekly basis to keep it running in top form.  The key thing is
that its output spectrum is stable and repeatable.  An added bonus is it has
a very tall and narrow spike at 650 nm, so it has its own built-in
alignment/guide beam!  We filter this out of the input beam so we can image
red dyes but it sure helps with getting the beam into the microscope
initially.  I actually have a narrow band pass filter that only lets the 650
spike out so I can align without the full power of the laser flying around
the room.

Craig


On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Armstrong, Brian <[hidden email]>wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Craig, could you expound on why you chose this laser rather than a Coherent
> or Spectra Physics Ti:Sa laser (for example)?
>
> I see that the laser specs are; pulses are short (<6fs) and fast (1GHz) and
> less expensive (~$50k [I assume USD]).
>
> What will you use this laser for?
> (if you don't mind sharing)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian D Armstrong PhD
> Assistant Research Professor
> Light Microscopy Core
> Beckman Research Institute
> City of Hope
> Dept of Neuroscience
> 1450 E Duarte Rd
> Duarte, CA 91010
> 626-256-4673 x62872
>
>
> http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imaging/Pages/default.aspx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of Craig Brideau
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:05 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Thorlabs confocals
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> I have their Octavius laser stuck on a mostly conventional Nikon A1R.
>  Peter
> Fendel, the fellow who actually designed the thing came out and personally
> installed it, then came for a repeat visit to help tweak it up and train me
> on the use of the laser.  Whenever I've had any questions or even the
> slightest issue with the laser he has been extremely responsive.  Our
> preliminary results with the laser are also very exciting... hope to have
> some nice images to brag about soon.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Vergara, Leoncio A. <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > *****
> >
> > Have you had a chance to arrange for an extended demo of the system? The
> > company could bring you a system so you can test it with your samples for
> a
> > few days... also, are you clear about the advantages and disadvantages of
> a
> > resonant scanner versus spinning disk and swept field systems?
> > A company with a smaller microscopy operation probably would not have the
> > service coverage of the traditional big microscope companies but you will
> > have a lot more personal contact with the development team.... and, yes,
> I
> > don't know anything about their systems but it sounds you will be a bit
> of a
> > beta tester... which may be part of the fun.
> >
> > Leoncio A. Vergara MD
> > Assistant Director
> > Center for Biomedical Engineering
> > Assistant Professor
> > Microbiology and Immunology
> > University of Texas Medical Branch
> > 409-750-2153 (cell)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > On Behalf Of Tim Feinstein
> > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:37 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: Thorlabs confocals
> >
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > *****
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Thorlabs had an interesting display of confocal systems last week, at
> > Experimental Biology in DC, that ranged from a multiphoton system to a
> > resonant-only confocal that they informally quoted at <$70k, including
> > lasers (!).  The general theme seems to be stripped-down systems that do
> one
> > thing well; e.g. they are still considering whether or how to integrate a
> > FRAP function into their resonant device.  I also wonder whether they
> have a
> > suitable support network in place to handle maintenance and upgrade
> issues.
> >  As well, buying a new system with new software can make one feel like an
> > unpaid beta tester.  We might include their resonant scanner in a search
> for
> > a live-cell dedicated scope, against spinning disc and swept field
> systems
> > from PE, Andor and Nikon (the Ti base is a must), but I am on the fence
> > about that.
> >
> > If anyone has experience with them, please feel free to contact me on
> line
> > or off.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > Timothy Feinstein, PhD
> > Postdoctoral Fellow
> > Laboratory for GPCR Biology
> > Dept. of Pharmacology & Chemical Biology
> > University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine
> > BST W1301, 200 Lothrop St.
> > Pittsburgh, PA  15261
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or
> entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain
> information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure
> under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data,
> financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without
> encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to
> view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information
> without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended
> recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message
> to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the
> communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in
> error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and
> deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to
> the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via
> e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not
> wish to receive further e-mail from the sender.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

[Armstrong, Brian]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hello Julio, do you have a slide scanner in your core?

Do you think a slide scanner is a good match for a research microscopy core facility?
I would appreciate your opinion.

Cheers,


Brian Armstrong PhD
Light Microscopy Core
Beckman Research Institute
1450 East Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872
http://www.cityofhope.org/SharedResources/LightMicroscopy/LightMicroHome.htm
 
 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:  
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender.

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

[Cameron Nowell]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Brian,

Pretty sure you didn't mean your question to go to the whole list but
thought i would chip in anyway. Hope you don't mind.

A slide scanner is an amazingly powerful tool when coupled with high
powered image analysis. We have access to an Aperio scanner for scanning
standard histology slides and we also have a fluorescence scope set up
to be able to scan four slides (multiple areas of each) at once in up to
seven channels if required.

Both systems give phenomenal images and provide a great deal of
information when crunched through MetaMorph (or a similar program). We
have done classification of macrophage populations in whole mouse lung,
counted stem cells in the whole mouse colon, counted neruons through
whoel brain slices to name just a few.

I am currently in the early stages of putting a proposal together for
the purchase of a more high throughput fluorescent scanner. One that can
take ~100 slides in a loader and do all its magic without having to
change out the slides every couple of hours from our current setup.

The one thing to be aware of in this whole process is that the image
files are huge!!!!! We are talking a gigabyte or more per slide
depending o the scan area and the objective used.

Feel free to contact me off list for anything, or ask question here so
everyone can foloow along.

Once again sorry for hijacking your email

Cheers

Cam



Cameron J. Nowell
Microscopy Manager
Centre for Advanced Microscopy
Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research
PO Box 2008
Royal Melbourne Hospital
Victoria, 3050
AUSTRALIA
Office: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Facility Website







-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Armstrong, Brian
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2011 2:28 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Slide Scanner

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hello Julio, do you have a slide scanner in your core?

Do you think a slide scanner is a good match for a research microscopy
core facility?
I would appreciate your opinion.

Cheers,


Brian Armstrong PhD
Light Microscopy Core
Beckman Research Institute
1450 East Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872
http://www.cityofhope.org/SharedResources/LightMicroscopy/LightMicroHome
.htm
 
 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:  
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual
or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain
information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data,
financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without
encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to
view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the
information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are
not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination,
distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If
you received the communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any
accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you
do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply
to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive
further e-mail from the sender.

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


This communication is intended only for the named recipient and may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or subject to copyright; the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd does not waive any rights if you have received this communication in error.
The views expressed in this communication are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd.

[Armstrong, Brian]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Cam, thanks for the reply.
So I guess the Google-Earth-like software of Aperio is nice for viewing images, but what about analysis by Metamorph, or other? How do you analyze a 1GB image?

To whom will you aim the proposal for your new scanner?
Do you think you could fund it through a grant, or is this internal?
What do you expect to the system to cost?

I hear differing opinions about Aperio, support, leasing, analysis is weak and geared towards pathology, etc..
I think that the Leica SCN400 sounds nice, and Definiens seems powerful, but both are expensive.

What system do you favor?

Sorry about all the questions. Thanks for offering your opinion.

Brian D Armstrong PhD
Assistant Research Professor
Light Microscopy Core
Beckman Research Institute
City of Hope
Dept of Neuroscience
1450 E Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872

http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imaging/Pages/default.aspx

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Cameron Nowell
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:29 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Slide Scanner

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Brian,

Pretty sure you didn't mean your question to go to the whole list but
thought i would chip in anyway. Hope you don't mind.

A slide scanner is an amazingly powerful tool when coupled with high
powered image analysis. We have access to an Aperio scanner for scanning
standard histology slides and we also have a fluorescence scope set up
to be able to scan four slides (multiple areas of each) at once in up to
seven channels if required.

Both systems give phenomenal images and provide a great deal of
information when crunched through MetaMorph (or a similar program). We
have done classification of macrophage populations in whole mouse lung,
counted stem cells in the whole mouse colon, counted neruons through
whoel brain slices to name just a few.

I am currently in the early stages of putting a proposal together for
the purchase of a more high throughput fluorescent scanner. One that can
take ~100 slides in a loader and do all its magic without having to
change out the slides every couple of hours from our current setup.

The one thing to be aware of in this whole process is that the image
files are huge!!!!! We are talking a gigabyte or more per slide
depending o the scan area and the objective used.

Feel free to contact me off list for anything, or ask question here so
everyone can foloow along.

Once again sorry for hijacking your email

Cheers

Cam



Cameron J. Nowell
Microscopy Manager
Centre for Advanced Microscopy
Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research
PO Box 2008
Royal Melbourne Hospital
Victoria, 3050
AUSTRALIA
Office: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Facility Website







-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Armstrong, Brian
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2011 2:28 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Slide Scanner

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hello Julio, do you have a slide scanner in your core?

Do you think a slide scanner is a good match for a research microscopy
core facility?
I would appreciate your opinion.

Cheers,


Brian Armstrong PhD
Light Microscopy Core
Beckman Research Institute
1450 East Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872
http://www.cityofhope.org/SharedResources/LightMicroscopy/LightMicroHome
.htm
 
 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:  
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual
or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain
information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data,
financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without
encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to
view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the
information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are
not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination,
distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If
you received the communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any
accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you
do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply
to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive
further e-mail from the sender.

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


This communication is intended only for the named recipient and may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or subject to copyright; the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd does not waive any rights if you have received this communication in error.
The views expressed in this communication are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd.

[Cameron Nowell]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Brian,

We use the aperio only to scan large batches of slides. The viewer
software is only used to extract the area of interest for further
analysis. I have not used the aperio analysis software (though people i
have spoken to say it is alright but very pathology specific). All our
analysis is performed in MetaMorph as it is more than powerful enough
for what we want, and i am very familiar with the scripting interface to
write any sort of custom analsis we may want.

At the moment you need to extract a tiff image out using the aperio
viewer for metamorph or anything else to be able to use it. I have heard
rumours of MetaMoprh supporting the aperio file format (svi) soon.

1GB (or bigger) are not too much f a problem on a computer with enough
grunt. MetaMorphs only limitation is that the image cannot be any bigger
than 32,000 x 32,000 pixels.

The current plan for funding a new scanner is to hit up internal funding
sources we have access to (and potentially fill in gaps with small
grants etc.)

The systems i have tested so far are sitting around the $200-300,000
mark

I am currently leaning towards the MetaSystems VSlide as it can do both
bright field and fluorescence, can have up to 880 slide loader, can do
imaging with immersion objectives and can handle very large files thanks
to an Imaris backbone. It also has very advanced tissue recognition and
filtering.


Cheers

Cam




-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Armstrong, Brian
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2011 9:34 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Slide Scanner

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Cam, thanks for the reply.
So I guess the Google-Earth-like software of Aperio is nice for viewing
images, but what about analysis by Metamorph, or other? How do you
analyze a 1GB image?

To whom will you aim the proposal for your new scanner?
Do you think you could fund it through a grant, or is this internal?
What do you expect to the system to cost?

I hear differing opinions about Aperio, support, leasing, analysis is
weak and geared towards pathology, etc..
I think that the Leica SCN400 sounds nice, and Definiens seems powerful,
but both are expensive.

What system do you favor?

Sorry about all the questions. Thanks for offering your opinion.

Brian D Armstrong PhD
Assistant Research Professor
Light Microscopy Core
Beckman Research Institute
City of Hope
Dept of Neuroscience
1450 E Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872

http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imag
ing/Pages/default.aspx

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Cameron Nowell
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:29 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Slide Scanner

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Brian,

Pretty sure you didn't mean your question to go to the whole list but
thought i would chip in anyway. Hope you don't mind.

A slide scanner is an amazingly powerful tool when coupled with high
powered image analysis. We have access to an Aperio scanner for scanning
standard histology slides and we also have a fluorescence scope set up
to be able to scan four slides (multiple areas of each) at once in up to
seven channels if required.

Both systems give phenomenal images and provide a great deal of
information when crunched through MetaMorph (or a similar program). We
have done classification of macrophage populations in whole mouse lung,
counted stem cells in the whole mouse colon, counted neruons through
whoel brain slices to name just a few.

I am currently in the early stages of putting a proposal together for
the purchase of a more high throughput fluorescent scanner. One that can
take ~100 slides in a loader and do all its magic without having to
change out the slides every couple of hours from our current setup.

The one thing to be aware of in this whole process is that the image
files are huge!!!!! We are talking a gigabyte or more per slide
depending o the scan area and the objective used.

Feel free to contact me off list for anything, or ask question here so
everyone can foloow along.

Once again sorry for hijacking your email

Cheers

Cam



Cameron J. Nowell
Microscopy Manager
Centre for Advanced Microscopy
Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research
PO Box 2008
Royal Melbourne Hospital
Victoria, 3050
AUSTRALIA
Office: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Facility Website







-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Armstrong, Brian
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2011 2:28 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Slide Scanner

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hello Julio, do you have a slide scanner in your core?

Do you think a slide scanner is a good match for a research microscopy
core facility?
I would appreciate your opinion.

Cheers,


Brian Armstrong PhD
Light Microscopy Core
Beckman Research Institute
1450 East Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872
http://www.cityofhope.org/SharedResources/LightMicroscopy/LightMicroHome
.htm
 
 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:  
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual
or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain
information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data,
financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without
encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to
view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the
information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are
not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination,
distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If
you received the communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any
accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you
do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply
to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive
further e-mail from the sender.

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


This communication is intended only for the named recipient and may
contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or subject
to copyright; the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd does not
waive any rights if you have received this communication in error.
The views expressed in this communication are those of the sender and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer
Research Ltd.


This communication is intended only for the named recipient and may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or subject to copyright; the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd does not waive any rights if you have received this communication in error.
The views expressed in this communication are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd.

[Jacqueline Ross]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi All,

We are also currently evaluating slide-scanning systems. If anyone has personal experience with either the Olympus dotSlide or VS120 or the MetaSystems VSlide (as mentioned by Cam below), I would appreciate hearing from you.

In particular, I want to hear how well they handle fluorescence imaging.

I'm happy for you to contact me off-list with any comments.

Kind regards,

Jacqui

Jacqueline Ross

Biomedical Imaging Microscopist
Biomedical Imaging Research Unit
School of Medical Sciences
Faculty of Medical & Health Sciences
The University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND

Tel: [phone] Ext 87438
Fax: [phone]

http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/sms/biru/


-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Cameron Nowell
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2011 4:39 p.m.
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Slide Scanner

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Brian,

We use the aperio only to scan large batches of slides. The viewer
software is only used to extract the area of interest for further
analysis. I have not used the aperio analysis software (though people i
have spoken to say it is alright but very pathology specific). All our
analysis is performed in MetaMorph as it is more than powerful enough
for what we want, and i am very familiar with the scripting interface to
write any sort of custom analsis we may want.

At the moment you need to extract a tiff image out using the aperio
viewer for metamorph or anything else to be able to use it. I have heard
rumours of MetaMoprh supporting the aperio file format (svi) soon.

1GB (or bigger) are not too much f a problem on a computer with enough
grunt. MetaMorphs only limitation is that the image cannot be any bigger
than 32,000 x 32,000 pixels.

The current plan for funding a new scanner is to hit up internal funding
sources we have access to (and potentially fill in gaps with small
grants etc.)

The systems i have tested so far are sitting around the $200-300,000
mark

I am currently leaning towards the MetaSystems VSlide as it can do both
bright field and fluorescence, can have up to 880 slide loader, can do
imaging with immersion objectives and can handle very large files thanks
to an Imaris backbone. It also has very advanced tissue recognition and
filtering.


Cheers

Cam




-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Armstrong, Brian
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2011 9:34 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Slide Scanner

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Cam, thanks for the reply.
So I guess the Google-Earth-like software of Aperio is nice for viewing
images, but what about analysis by Metamorph, or other? How do you
analyze a 1GB image?

To whom will you aim the proposal for your new scanner?
Do you think you could fund it through a grant, or is this internal?
What do you expect to the system to cost?

I hear differing opinions about Aperio, support, leasing, analysis is
weak and geared towards pathology, etc..
I think that the Leica SCN400 sounds nice, and Definiens seems powerful,
but both are expensive.

What system do you favor?

Sorry about all the questions. Thanks for offering your opinion.

Brian D Armstrong PhD
Assistant Research Professor
Light Microscopy Core
Beckman Research Institute
City of Hope
Dept of Neuroscience
1450 E Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872

http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imag
ing/Pages/default.aspx

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Cameron Nowell
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:29 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Slide Scanner

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Brian,

Pretty sure you didn't mean your question to go to the whole list but
thought i would chip in anyway. Hope you don't mind.

A slide scanner is an amazingly powerful tool when coupled with high
powered image analysis. We have access to an Aperio scanner for scanning
standard histology slides and we also have a fluorescence scope set up
to be able to scan four slides (multiple areas of each) at once in up to
seven channels if required.

Both systems give phenomenal images and provide a great deal of
information when crunched through MetaMorph (or a similar program). We
have done classification of macrophage populations in whole mouse lung,
counted stem cells in the whole mouse colon, counted neruons through
whoel brain slices to name just a few.

I am currently in the early stages of putting a proposal together for
the purchase of a more high throughput fluorescent scanner. One that can
take ~100 slides in a loader and do all its magic without having to
change out the slides every couple of hours from our current setup.

The one thing to be aware of in this whole process is that the image
files are huge!!!!! We are talking a gigabyte or more per slide
depending o the scan area and the objective used.

Feel free to contact me off list for anything, or ask question here so
everyone can foloow along.

Once again sorry for hijacking your email

Cheers

Cam



Cameron J. Nowell
Microscopy Manager
Centre for Advanced Microscopy
Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research
PO Box 2008
Royal Melbourne Hospital
Victoria, 3050
AUSTRALIA
Office: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Facility Website







-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Armstrong, Brian
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2011 2:28 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Slide Scanner

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hello Julio, do you have a slide scanner in your core?

Do you think a slide scanner is a good match for a research microscopy
core facility?
I would appreciate your opinion.

Cheers,


Brian Armstrong PhD
Light Microscopy Core
Beckman Research Institute
1450 East Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872
http://www.cityofhope.org/SharedResources/LightMicroscopy/LightMicroHome
.htm
 
 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:  
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual
or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain
information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data,
financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without
encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to
view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the
information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are
not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination,
distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If
you received the communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any
accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you
do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply
to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive
further e-mail from the sender.

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


This communication is intended only for the named recipient and may
contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or subject
to copyright; the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd does not
waive any rights if you have received this communication in error.
The views expressed in this communication are those of the sender and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer
Research Ltd.


This communication is intended only for the named recipient and may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or subject to copyright; the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd does not waive any rights if you have received this communication in error.
The views expressed in this communication are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd.

[Lingle, Wilma L., Ph.D.]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

I am interested in these issues too, so please respond to the whole
group.

Thanks,
Wilma
Wilma Lingle, PhD
Director, TACMA Shared Resource
Co-Director BAP Shared Resource
Mayo Clinic Cancer Center
Center for Individualized Medicine
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, MN  55905
507 538 1287
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Jacqui Ross
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 1:21 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Slide Scanner

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi All,

We are also currently evaluating slide-scanning systems. If anyone has
personal experience with either the Olympus dotSlide or VS120 or the
MetaSystems VSlide (as mentioned by Cam below), I would appreciate
hearing from you.

In particular, I want to hear how well they handle fluorescence imaging.

I'm happy for you to contact me off-list with any comments.

Kind regards,

Jacqui

Jacqueline Ross

Biomedical Imaging Microscopist
Biomedical Imaging Research Unit
School of Medical Sciences
Faculty of Medical & Health Sciences
The University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND

Tel: [phone] Ext 87438
Fax: [phone]

http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/sms/biru/


-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Cameron Nowell
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2011 4:39 p.m.
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Slide Scanner

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Brian,

We use the aperio only to scan large batches of slides. The viewer
software is only used to extract the area of interest for further
analysis. I have not used the aperio analysis software (though people i
have spoken to say it is alright but very pathology specific). All our
analysis is performed in MetaMorph as it is more than powerful enough
for what we want, and i am very familiar with the scripting interface to
write any sort of custom analsis we may want.

At the moment you need to extract a tiff image out using the aperio
viewer for metamorph or anything else to be able to use it. I have heard
rumours of MetaMoprh supporting the aperio file format (svi) soon.

1GB (or bigger) are not too much f a problem on a computer with enough
grunt. MetaMorphs only limitation is that the image cannot be any bigger
than 32,000 x 32,000 pixels.

The current plan for funding a new scanner is to hit up internal funding
sources we have access to (and potentially fill in gaps with small
grants etc.)

The systems i have tested so far are sitting around the $200-300,000
mark

I am currently leaning towards the MetaSystems VSlide as it can do both
bright field and fluorescence, can have up to 880 slide loader, can do
imaging with immersion objectives and can handle very large files thanks
to an Imaris backbone. It also has very advanced tissue recognition and
filtering.


Cheers

Cam




-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Armstrong, Brian
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2011 9:34 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Slide Scanner

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Cam, thanks for the reply.
So I guess the Google-Earth-like software of Aperio is nice for viewing
images, but what about analysis by Metamorph, or other? How do you
analyze a 1GB image?

To whom will you aim the proposal for your new scanner?
Do you think you could fund it through a grant, or is this internal?
What do you expect to the system to cost?

I hear differing opinions about Aperio, support, leasing, analysis is
weak and geared towards pathology, etc..
I think that the Leica SCN400 sounds nice, and Definiens seems powerful,
but both are expensive.

What system do you favor?

Sorry about all the questions. Thanks for offering your opinion.

Brian D Armstrong PhD
Assistant Research Professor
Light Microscopy Core
Beckman Research Institute
City of Hope
Dept of Neuroscience
1450 E Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872

http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imag
ing/Pages/default.aspx

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Cameron Nowell
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:29 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Slide Scanner

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Brian,

Pretty sure you didn't mean your question to go to the whole list but
thought i would chip in anyway. Hope you don't mind.

A slide scanner is an amazingly powerful tool when coupled with high
powered image analysis. We have access to an Aperio scanner for scanning
standard histology slides and we also have a fluorescence scope set up
to be able to scan four slides (multiple areas of each) at once in up to
seven channels if required.

Both systems give phenomenal images and provide a great deal of
information when crunched through MetaMorph (or a similar program). We
have done classification of macrophage populations in whole mouse lung,
counted stem cells in the whole mouse colon, counted neruons through
whoel brain slices to name just a few.

I am currently in the early stages of putting a proposal together for
the purchase of a more high throughput fluorescent scanner. One that can
take ~100 slides in a loader and do all its magic without having to
change out the slides every couple of hours from our current setup.

The one thing to be aware of in this whole process is that the image
files are huge!!!!! We are talking a gigabyte or more per slide
depending o the scan area and the objective used.

Feel free to contact me off list for anything, or ask question here so
everyone can foloow along.

Once again sorry for hijacking your email

Cheers

Cam



Cameron J. Nowell
Microscopy Manager
Centre for Advanced Microscopy
Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research
PO Box 2008
Royal Melbourne Hospital
Victoria, 3050
AUSTRALIA
Office: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Facility Website







-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Armstrong, Brian
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2011 2:28 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Slide Scanner

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hello Julio, do you have a slide scanner in your core?

Do you think a slide scanner is a good match for a research microscopy
core facility?
I would appreciate your opinion.

Cheers,


Brian Armstrong PhD
Light Microscopy Core
Beckman Research Institute
1450 East Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872
http://www.cityofhope.org/SharedResources/LightMicroscopy/LightMicroHome
.htm
 
 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:  
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual
or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain
information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data,
financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without
encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to
view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the
information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are
not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination,
distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If
you received the communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any
accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you
do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply
to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive
further e-mail from the sender.

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


This communication is intended only for the named recipient and may
contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or subject
to copyright; the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd does not
waive any rights if you have received this communication in error.
The views expressed in this communication are those of the sender and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer
Research Ltd.


This communication is intended only for the named recipient and may
contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or subject
to copyright; the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd does not
waive any rights if you have received this communication in error.
The views expressed in this communication are those of the sender and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer
Research Ltd.

[Christian Götze]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Commercial Interest! Sorry for posting it to the group but it could be
of interest for some of you...

Hi Brian,

Am 18.05.2011 01:33, schrieb Armstrong, Brian:
> How do you analyze a 1GB image?
you're right, it's a bit tricky to analyze such large images because a
large part of the good old analysis metaphors and concepts are either
quite slow or don't work at all. Additionally, the software must be able
to handle the large images quite fast...

Our arivis Browser software is able to handle and analyze even very
large data sets as whole slides (about 40GB uncompressed) without the
need of picking ROIs manually. Have a look on a sample application on
our website (http://www.arivis.com/en/solution-analysis-of-protein-spots)

As far as I know you are trying our Vision 4D software. The arivis
Browser contains all the visualization functions of Vision 4D plus a
number of analysis modules.

Hope that helps a bit,
Christian

--
Christian Götze

arivis - Multiple Image Tools GmbH
Kröpeliner Straße 54, D-18055 Rostock

Tel : [phone]
Fax : [phone]
Mail: [hidden email]
Web : http://www.arivis.com

Amtsgericht Rostock HRB 9732
Geschäftsführung: Raik Madla, Christian Goetze