Hello all,
I'm using a deconvolution software to deconvolve a 3D stack. Does anyone know of any way in which I can measure the improvement over the original dataset? Are there any standard techniques for the same? Thanks, Sundar |
Compare raw and deconvolved fluorescent beads (150-200nm) in X-Y and mostly Z directions, Louis
Hello all, I'm using a deconvolution software to deconvolve a 3D stack. Does anyone know of any way in which I can measure the improvement over the original dataset? Are there any standard techniques for the same? Thanks, Sundar -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Validating-deconvolution-tp3685530p3685530.html Sent from the Confocal Microscopy List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
In reply to this post by sundar
Hi Sundar
I am unsure if there is a standard way to compare your "before" and "after" deconvolution image stacks, but one way that I've seen in the literature is to analyze identical line profiles in both image sets (either in the xy lateral dimensions or along the z-direction) and present the profiles on the same graph. If your deconvolution has worked, features of interest along your line profiles should be sharper in the deconvolved line. ImageJ has several standard functions and plugins that could be used to do this. John Oreopoulos On 21-Sep-09, at 10:08 AM, sundar wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm using a deconvolution software to deconvolve a 3D stack. Does > anyone > know of any way in which I can measure the improvement over the > original > dataset? Are there any standard techniques for the same? > > Thanks, > Sundar > -- > View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Validating- > deconvolution-tp3685530p3685530.html > Sent from the Confocal Microscopy List mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. |
In reply to this post by sundar
Sundar,
unfortunately, over human visual comparison there is no standard technique. Adding to Louis suggestion, try to use larger fluorescent beads (1-5µm depending on your objective) that are only stained on the surface. This way you can see better how well aberrations had been dealt with. Regards Lutz ----- Original Message ----- From: "sundar" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 10:08 AM Subject: Validating deconvolution > Hello all, > > I'm using a deconvolution software to deconvolve a 3D stack. Does anyone > know of any way in which I can measure the improvement over the original > dataset? Are there any standard techniques for the same? > > Thanks, > Sundar > -- > View this message in context: > Sent from the Confocal Microscopy List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
In reply to this post by sundar
Hi Sundar,
> I'm using a deconvolution software to deconvolve a 3D stack. Does > anyone know of any way in which I can measure the improvement over > the original dataset? Are there any standard techniques for the same? There are various kinds of 'improvement' deconvolution can bring you. If you are interested in improving half intensity width (HIW) of particles, best follow Louis' suggestion to measure HIW in lateral and axial of beads. You will almost certainly learn interesting things about your microscope. If on the other hand you are working with widefield images and blur is hampering your analysis, you might be only interested in reducing the blur. Question is then how much reduction you need. A test object could be a larger bead, but beads can have a high internal refractive index, upsetting things. Lastly, you might be working with noisy but well sampled data and trying to measure object shapes. Then I would suggest to construct synthetic objects and simulate the whole imaging, Poisson noise, deconvolution and measurement chain, and see what the effect is on the error in the measurement you plan to do. Some links you might find useful: A quantitative comparison of two restoration methods as applied to confocal microscopy. van Kempen GMP, van der Voort HTM and van Vliet LJ http://www.svi.nl/g/?7028 A comparison of image restoration approaches applied to three-dimensional confocal and wide-field fluorescence microscopy. P. J. Verveer, M. J. Gemkow and T. M. Jovin. http://www.svi.nl/g/?71a3 I hope this helps! Cheers, jose. |
In reply to this post by sundar
sure, deconvolve a low NA objective lens data set and acquire a high
resolution confocal Z-series. At 10:08 AM 9/21/2009, you wrote: >Hello all, > >I'm using a deconvolution software to deconvolve a 3D stack. Does anyone >know of any way in which I can measure the improvement over the original >dataset? Are there any standard techniques for the same? > >Thanks, >Sundar >-- >View this message in context: >http://n2.nabble.com/Validating-deconvolution-tp3685530p3685530.html |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |