stage motorization
Locked
|
Dear List,
We're planning to set up an inverted confocal microscope for live cell imaging. I'd appreciate any opinions on using manual vs x-y motorized stage. Is the motorized stage more stabile during long-term experiments? Does it facilitate/is it necessary for any experiments besides multi-point time-lapse imaging?
Thanks for your comments!
Charles |
|
|
A motorized stage will not necessarily be more stable than a
non-motorized stage. It mainly depends on the bearing system. The motor just replaces your finger turning a shaft in most cases, so it all really boils down to the mechanics of how the shaft is geared and the bearing system the stage is resting on. That said, a motorized stage with active correction built in, like 'Perfect Focus' will 'lock on' to a given position and actively maintain it. More generally speaking, if your room is fairly temperature stable, your microscope is vibration free, and your ventilation system is not turbulent, you should get decent stability from most good quality stages, either manual or motorized. At the end of the day though, it will all revolve around your specific case; how much movement can you tolerate within what timeframe? You will need to verify that the specs of the stage match your requirements. Even then, you will probably need to test it out to be sure. Craig On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Charles Stevens <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Dear List, > > We're planning to set up an inverted confocal microscope for live cell > imaging. I'd appreciate any opinions on using manual vs x-y motorized stage. > Is the motorized stage more stabile during long-term experiments? Does it > facilitate/is it necessary for any experiments besides multi-point > time-lapse imaging? > Thanks for your comments! > > Charles > > |
|
|
The Nikon Perfect Focus controls Z (focus) stability of the objective and does not affect the X or Y stability. It works independently of the stage so you can have it with a motorized, manual or fixed stage.
In time-lapse imaging using Perfect Focus I frequently see nicely in-focus cells drifting together to the side as the room temperature changes. It is the stage moving. Paul Herzmark Specialist [hidden email] Department of Molecular and Cell Biology 479 Life Science Addition University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-3200 (510) 643-9603 (510) 643-9500 fax On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Craig Brideau <[hidden email]> wrote: A motorized stage will not necessarily be more stable than a |
|
|
In reply to this post by Charles Stevens
Hi Charles,
A motorised stage can also be used to create montage/tile scans of larger areas. This can give some pretty impressive resultsbut can take a long time to capture (e.g 4x4 fields of view with 30 slices is 16 normal Z series captures). Cheers Cam Cameron J. Nowell Microscpy Manager Central Resource for Advanced Microscopy Ludwig Insttue for Cancer Research PO Box 2008 Royal Melbourne Hospital Victoria, 3050 AUSTRALIA Office: +61 3 9341 3155 Mobile: +61422882700 Fax: +61 3 9341 3104 http://www.ludwig.edu.au/branch/research/platform/microscopy.htm ________________________________ From: Confocal Microscopy List on behalf of Charles Stevens Sent: Tue 26/01/2010 3:56 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: stage motorization Dear List, We're planning to set up an inverted confocal microscope for live cell imaging. I'd appreciate any opinions on using manual vs x-y motorized stage. Is the motorized stage more stabile during long-term experiments? Does it facilitate/is it necessary for any experiments besides multi-point time-lapse imaging? Thanks for your comments! Charles |
|
|
I don't think there is any reason for a motorized stage to be more stable than a regular one... if you are not considering multipoint or tiling, maybe you could do without one....
________________________________________ From: Confocal Microscopy List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Cameron Nowell [[hidden email]] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 3:40 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: stage motorization Hi Charles, A motorised stage can also be used to create montage/tile scans of larger areas. This can give some pretty impressive resultsbut can take a long time to capture (e.g 4x4 fields of view with 30 slices is 16 normal Z series captures). Cheers Cam Cameron J. Nowell Microscpy Manager Central Resource for Advanced Microscopy Ludwig Insttue for Cancer Research PO Box 2008 Royal Melbourne Hospital Victoria, 3050 AUSTRALIA Office: +61 3 9341 3155 Mobile: +61422882700 Fax: +61 3 9341 3104 http://www.ludwig.edu.au/branch/research/platform/microscopy.htm ________________________________ From: Confocal Microscopy List on behalf of Charles Stevens Sent: Tue 26/01/2010 3:56 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: stage motorization Dear List, We're planning to set up an inverted confocal microscope for live cell imaging. I'd appreciate any opinions on using manual vs x-y motorized stage. Is the motorized stage more stabile during long-term experiments? Does it facilitate/is it necessary for any experiments besides multi-point time-lapse imaging? Thanks for your comments! Charles |
|
|
In reply to this post by Craig Brideau
I agree with all the previous comments, but from our point of view:
Personally I'd always buy a motorized stage, whether time-lapse is involved or not - although this does assume it's on a more expensive fully motorized microscope [filter wheels/focus]. Back in the days when I bought my own microscopes they always came with one. In recent places I have worked at, the confocals have arrived before my time, and a manual stage has always been fitting and XY drift during long time-lapse [say 78 hours] is an issue. It's not such that the time lapse can't be done but it is irritating. I say drift, but normally it's more a small jump or two that's clearly not cell movement [no doubt tension stored in the screw rack somewhere releasing itself or 'vibration/thermal expansion']. We have a manual XY stage now on our otherwise motorized time-lapse Zeiss 510 Meta confocal and really miss the ability to go back to the same location [say take one live cell photo every day at the same place], or to time-lapse multiple wells, perhaps with different fluorochrome labels [and get the reduced stage drift]. If a motorized stage had been specified in the original quote we would got it for 'free' [if a confocal costs a £220,000 or £230,000 it's not going to make much difference to whether the purchase goes ahead, but trying to raise £20,000 after the confocal arrived will be a very different matter. Ensure you have all the right time-lapse/3D/FRET/FRAP modules you require factored into the quote as well [they are £5k each afterwards], and the required phase contrast objectives for time lapse [air Ph 20x at least, DIC isn't really good enough for transmission cell motility time-lapse - we don't have a standard fluorescence/brightfield microscope time-lapse system]. With multiple wells you might want to add a non-immersion air hi-power objective as the oil won't easily move across. A motorized stage will also allow a complete automated raster scan image of a fixed slide [ideally via say Zeiss Axiovision and a separate CCD camera - both ideal for transmission time-lapse], something else we really miss not being to do. Likewise we could have automated metaphase finding, scoring and relocation with our cytogenetics FISH workstation, but that has a manual stage as well adding hours to our weekly routines [not 'confocal' I know, but that missing motorized stage is still a pain]. We have just bought a large Zeiss XL3 incubator, TempControl & CO2 system that protects the manual stage/objectives from drift somewhat during time-lapse, but are now, as most users are asking for one, trying to raise yet another £20k for the Zeiss motorized stage and associated control module [plus another £5k for the FRET module], and it's probably going to take a long while for the stage funding to appear. The Zeiss motorized XY stage software module also allows us to have a variable time-lapse: say 10 mins at one time interval and then the next 6 hours at a longer one [which our present 'physiology' module can't do]. Shame we never got it all with the microscope in the first place [and then it probably would have attracted a large discount]. Good luck with the purchase anyway Keith --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Keith J. Morris, Molecular Cytogenetics and Microscopy Core, Laboratory 00/069 and 00/070, The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7BN, United Kingdom. Telephone: +44 (0)1865 287568 Email: [hidden email] Web-pages: http://www.well.ox.ac.uk/molecular-cytogenetics-and-microscopy -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Brideau Sent: 25 January 2010 19:08 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: stage motorization A motorized stage will not necessarily be more stable than a non-motorized stage. It mainly depends on the bearing system. The motor just replaces your finger turning a shaft in most cases, so it all really boils down to the mechanics of how the shaft is geared and the bearing system the stage is resting on. That said, a motorized stage with active correction built in, like 'Perfect Focus' will 'lock on' to a given position and actively maintain it. More generally speaking, if your room is fairly temperature stable, your microscope is vibration free, and your ventilation system is not turbulent, you should get decent stability from most good quality stages, either manual or motorized. At the end of the day though, it will all revolve around your specific case; how much movement can you tolerate within what timeframe? You will need to verify that the specs of the stage match your requirements. Even then, you will probably need to test it out to be sure. Craig On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Charles Stevens <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Dear List, > > We're planning to set up an inverted confocal microscope for live cell > imaging. I'd appreciate any opinions on using manual vs x-y motorized stage. > Is the motorized stage more stabile during long-term experiments? Does it > facilitate/is it necessary for any experiments besides multi-point > time-lapse imaging? > Thanks for your comments! > > Charles > > |
|
|
Keith,
This is intriguing. I suppose most of us started our careers having to make the best out of whatever was in the lab, and then got to the stage where we could specify our own equipment. How did you find yourself going in the reverse direction? Guy Optical Imaging Techniques in Cell Biology by Guy Cox CRC Press / Taylor & Francis http://www.guycox.com/optical.htm ______________________________________________ Associate Professor Guy Cox, MA, DPhil(Oxon) Electron Microscope Unit, Madsen Building F09, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Phone +61 2 9351 3176 Fax +61 2 9351 7682 Mobile 0413 281 861 ______________________________________________ http://www.guycox.net -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Keith Morris Sent: Tuesday, 26 January 2010 9:27 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: stage motorization I agree with all the previous comments, but from our point of view: Personally I'd always buy a motorized stage, whether time-lapse is involved or not - although this does assume it's on a more expensive fully motorized microscope [filter wheels/focus]. Back in the days when I bought my own microscopes they always came with one. In recent places I have worked at, the confocals have arrived before my time, and a manual stage has always been fitting and XY drift during long time-lapse [say 78 hours] is an issue. It's not such that the time lapse can't be done but it is irritating. I say drift, but normally it's more a small jump or two that's clearly not cell movement [no doubt tension stored in the screw rack somewhere releasing itself or 'vibration/thermal expansion']. We have a manual XY stage now on our otherwise motorized time-lapse Zeiss 510 Meta confocal and really miss the ability to go back to the same location [say take one live cell photo every day at the same place], or to time-lapse multiple wells, perhaps with different fluorochrome labels [and get the reduced stage drift]. If a motorized stage had been specified in the original quote we would got it for 'free' [if a confocal costs a £220,000 or £230,000 it's not going to make much difference to whether the purchase goes ahead, but trying to raise £20,000 after the confocal arrived will be a very different matter. Ensure you have all the right time-lapse/3D/FRET/FRAP modules you require factored into the quote as well [they are £5k each afterwards], and the required phase contrast objectives for time lapse [air Ph 20x at least, DIC isn't really good enough for transmission cell motility time-lapse - we don't have a standard fluorescence/brightfield microscope time-lapse system]. With multiple wells you might want to add a non-immersion air hi-power objective as the oil won't easily move across. A motorized stage will also allow a complete automated raster scan image of a fixed slide [ideally via say Zeiss Axiovision and a separate CCD camera - both ideal for transmission time-lapse], something else we really miss not being to do. Likewise we could have automated metaphase finding, scoring and relocation with our cytogenetics FISH workstation, but that has a manual stage as well adding hours to our weekly routines [not 'confocal' I know, but that missing motorized stage is still a pain]. We have just bought a large Zeiss XL3 incubator, TempControl & CO2 system that protects the manual stage/objectives from drift somewhat during time-lapse, but are now, as most users are asking for one, trying to raise yet another £20k for the Zeiss motorized stage and associated control module [plus another £5k for the FRET module], and it's probably going to take a long while for the stage funding to appear. The Zeiss motorized XY stage software module also allows us to have a variable time-lapse: say 10 mins at one time interval and then the next 6 hours at a longer one [which our present 'physiology' module can't do]. Shame we never got it all with the microscope in the first place [and then it probably would have attracted a large discount]. Good luck with the purchase anyway Keith --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Keith J. Morris, Molecular Cytogenetics and Microscopy Core, Laboratory 00/069 and 00/070, The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7BN, United Kingdom. Telephone: +44 (0)1865 287568 Email: [hidden email] Web-pages: http://www.well.ox.ac.uk/molecular-cytogenetics-and-microscopy -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Brideau Sent: 25 January 2010 19:08 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: stage motorization A motorized stage will not necessarily be more stable than a non-motorized stage. It mainly depends on the bearing system. The motor just replaces your finger turning a shaft in most cases, so it all really boils down to the mechanics of how the shaft is geared and the bearing system the stage is resting on. That said, a motorized stage with active correction built in, like 'Perfect Focus' will 'lock on' to a given position and actively maintain it. More generally speaking, if your room is fairly temperature stable, your microscope is vibration free, and your ventilation system is not turbulent, you should get decent stability from most good quality stages, either manual or motorized. At the end of the day though, it will all revolve around your specific case; how much movement can you tolerate within what timeframe? You will need to verify that the specs of the stage match your requirements. Even then, you will probably need to test it out to be sure. Craig On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Charles Stevens <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Dear List, > > We're planning to set up an inverted confocal microscope for live cell > imaging. I'd appreciate any opinions on using manual vs x-y motorized stage. > Is the motorized stage more stabile during long-term experiments? Does it > facilitate/is it necessary for any experiments besides multi-point > time-lapse imaging? > Thanks for your comments! > > Charles > > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.730 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2645 - Release Date: 01/26/10 06:36:00 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Keith Morris
I think you are absolutely right.... despite the stability issues, having a motorized stage in your system really add to the capabilities and the possibility to do multi-locations is a real advantage.
One has to remember however that for multi-location work you absolutely need a good fast autofocus system, this adds to the cost if budget is concern, but a the stage alone would not be enough... even if the company tells you that their microscopes are extremely stable.... . ________________________________________ From: Confocal Microscopy List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Keith Morris [[hidden email]] Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 4:26 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: stage motorization I agree with all the previous comments, but from our point of view: Personally I'd always buy a motorized stage, whether time-lapse is involved or not - although this does assume it's on a more expensive fully motorized microscope [filter wheels/focus]. Back in the days when I bought my own microscopes they always came with one. In recent places I have worked at, the confocals have arrived before my time, and a manual stage has always been fitting and XY drift during long time-lapse [say 78 hours] is an issue. It's not such that the time lapse can't be done but it is irritating. I say drift, but normally it's more a small jump or two that's clearly not cell movement [no doubt tension stored in the screw rack somewhere releasing itself or 'vibration/thermal expansion']. We have a manual XY stage now on our otherwise motorized time-lapse Zeiss 510 Meta confocal and really miss the ability to go back to the same location [say take one live cell photo every day at the same place], or to time-lapse multiple wells, perhaps with different fluorochrome labels [and get the reduced stage drift]. If a motorized stage had been specified in the original quote we would got it for 'free' [if a confocal costs a £220,000 or £230,000 it's not going to make much difference to whether the purchase goes ahead, but trying to raise £20,000 after the confocal arrived will be a very different matter. Ensure you have all the right time-lapse/3D/FRET/FRAP modules you require factored into the quote as well [they are £5k each afterwards], and the required phase contrast objectives for time lapse [air Ph 20x at least, DIC isn't really good enough for transmission cell motility time-lapse - we don't have a standard fluorescence/brightfield microscope time-lapse system]. With multiple wells you might want to add a non-immersion air hi-power objective as the oil won't easily move across. A motorized stage will also allow a complete automated raster scan image of a fixed slide [ideally via say Zeiss Axiovision and a separate CCD camera - both ideal for transmission time-lapse], something else we really miss not being to do. Likewise we could have automated metaphase finding, scoring and relocation with our cytogenetics FISH workstation, but that has a manual stage as well adding hours to our weekly routines [not 'confocal' I know, but that missing motorized stage is still a pain]. We have just bought a large Zeiss XL3 incubator, TempControl & CO2 system that protects the manual stage/objectives from drift somewhat during time-lapse, but are now, as most users are asking for one, trying to raise yet another £20k for the Zeiss motorized stage and associated control module [plus another £5k for the FRET module], and it's probably going to take a long while for the stage funding to appear. The Zeiss motorized XY stage software module also allows us to have a variable time-lapse: say 10 mins at one time interval and then the next 6 hours at a longer one [which our present 'physiology' module can't do]. Shame we never got it all with the microscope in the first place [and then it probably would have attracted a large discount]. Good luck with the purchase anyway Keith --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Keith J. Morris, Molecular Cytogenetics and Microscopy Core, Laboratory 00/069 and 00/070, The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7BN, United Kingdom. Telephone: +44 (0)1865 287568 Email: [hidden email] Web-pages: http://www.well.ox.ac.uk/molecular-cytogenetics-and-microscopy -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Brideau Sent: 25 January 2010 19:08 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: stage motorization A motorized stage will not necessarily be more stable than a non-motorized stage. It mainly depends on the bearing system. The motor just replaces your finger turning a shaft in most cases, so it all really boils down to the mechanics of how the shaft is geared and the bearing system the stage is resting on. That said, a motorized stage with active correction built in, like 'Perfect Focus' will 'lock on' to a given position and actively maintain it. More generally speaking, if your room is fairly temperature stable, your microscope is vibration free, and your ventilation system is not turbulent, you should get decent stability from most good quality stages, either manual or motorized. At the end of the day though, it will all revolve around your specific case; how much movement can you tolerate within what timeframe? You will need to verify that the specs of the stage match your requirements. Even then, you will probably need to test it out to be sure. Craig On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Charles Stevens <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Dear List, > > We're planning to set up an inverted confocal microscope for live cell > imaging. I'd appreciate any opinions on using manual vs x-y motorized stage. > Is the motorized stage more stabile during long-term experiments? Does it > facilitate/is it necessary for any experiments besides multi-point > time-lapse imaging? > Thanks for your comments! > > Charles > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Guy Cox
Regarding Guy's question:
I too started in the lab with nothing but the notebook and pencil I was born with [to be later replaced with a black biro for independent GLP auditing by the LRQA]. After my post-doc at MRC Harwell, I moved 600 yards to the Atomic Energy Authorities [UKAEA] Harwell Laboratory [funded directly by the UK Dept of Energy and Dept of Health, and also with large commercial contracts] - in its Heyday this UKAEA Harwell site alone had 12 nuclear reactors [bit like the Woomera site in Oz and Los Alamos in the US]. And with great wealth came great microscopes, and subsequently great financial cuts [or 'privitisation' as Thatcher called it back then]. I also worked at the Harwell site for so long [15 years] that I actually had input into the microscope purchases and they arrived before I had to leave for another post. In these modern times, the nomadic life of the scientist combined with the time it now takes to raise the cash tends to mean the microscopes are often already here when I arrive, or the new ones arrive after I've left. Keith --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Keith J. Morris, Molecular Cytogenetics and Microscopy Core, Laboratory 00/069 and 00/070, The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7BN, United Kingdom. Telephone: +44 (0)1865 287568 Email: [hidden email] Web-pages: http://www.well.ox.ac.uk/molecular-cytogenetics-and-microscopy -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Guy Cox Sent: 26 January 2010 10:35 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: stage motorization Keith, This is intriguing. I suppose most of us started our careers having to make the best out of whatever was in the lab, and then got to the stage where we could specify our own equipment. How did you find yourself going in the reverse direction? Guy Optical Imaging Techniques in Cell Biology by Guy Cox CRC Press / Taylor & Francis http://www.guycox.com/optical.htm ______________________________________________ Associate Professor Guy Cox, MA, DPhil(Oxon) Electron Microscope Unit, Madsen Building F09, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Phone +61 2 9351 3176 Fax +61 2 9351 7682 Mobile 0413 281 861 ______________________________________________ http://www.guycox.net -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Keith Morris Sent: Tuesday, 26 January 2010 9:27 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: stage motorization I agree with all the previous comments, but from our point of view: Personally I'd always buy a motorized stage, whether time-lapse is involved or not - although this does assume it's on a more expensive fully motorized microscope [filter wheels/focus]. Back in the days when I bought my own microscopes they always came with one. In recent places I have worked at, the confocals have arrived before my time, and a manual stage has always been fitting and XY drift during long time-lapse [say 78 hours] is an issue. It's not such that the time lapse can't be done but it is irritating. I say drift, but normally it's more a small jump or two that's clearly not cell movement [no doubt tension stored in the screw rack somewhere releasing itself or 'vibration/thermal expansion']. We have a manual XY stage now on our otherwise motorized time-lapse Zeiss 510 Meta confocal and really miss the ability to go back to the same location [say take one live cell photo every day at the same place], or to time-lapse multiple wells, perhaps with different fluorochrome labels [and get the reduced stage drift]. If a motorized stage had been specified in the original quote we would got it for 'free' [if a confocal costs a £220,000 or £230,000 it's not going to make much difference to whether the purchase goes ahead, but trying to raise £20,000 after the confocal arrived will be a very different matter. Ensure you have all the right time-lapse/3D/FRET/FRAP modules you require factored into the quote as well [they are £5k each afterwards], and the required phase contrast objectives for time lapse [air Ph 20x at least, DIC isn't really good enough for transmission cell motility time-lapse - we don't have a standard fluorescence/brightfield microscope time-lapse system]. With multiple wells you might want to add a non-immersion air hi-power objective as the oil won't easily move across. A motorized stage will also allow a complete automated raster scan image of a fixed slide [ideally via say Zeiss Axiovision and a separate CCD camera - both ideal for transmission time-lapse], something else we really miss not being to do. Likewise we could have automated metaphase finding, scoring and relocation with our cytogenetics FISH workstation, but that has a manual stage as well adding hours to our weekly routines [not 'confocal' I know, but that missing motorized stage is still a pain]. We have just bought a large Zeiss XL3 incubator, TempControl & CO2 system that protects the manual stage/objectives from drift somewhat during time-lapse, but are now, as most users are asking for one, trying to raise yet another £20k for the Zeiss motorized stage and associated control module [plus another £5k for the FRET module], and it's probably going to take a long while for the stage funding to appear. The Zeiss motorized XY stage software module also allows us to have a variable time-lapse: say 10 mins at one time interval and then the next 6 hours at a longer one [which our present 'physiology' module can't do]. Shame we never got it all with the microscope in the first place [and then it probably would have attracted a large discount]. Good luck with the purchase anyway Keith --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Keith J. Morris, Molecular Cytogenetics and Microscopy Core, Laboratory 00/069 and 00/070, The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7BN, United Kingdom. Telephone: +44 (0)1865 287568 Email: [hidden email] Web-pages: http://www.well.ox.ac.uk/molecular-cytogenetics-and-microscopy -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Brideau Sent: 25 January 2010 19:08 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: stage motorization A motorized stage will not necessarily be more stable than a non-motorized stage. It mainly depends on the bearing system. The motor just replaces your finger turning a shaft in most cases, so it all really boils down to the mechanics of how the shaft is geared and the bearing system the stage is resting on. That said, a motorized stage with active correction built in, like 'Perfect Focus' will 'lock on' to a given position and actively maintain it. More generally speaking, if your room is fairly temperature stable, your microscope is vibration free, and your ventilation system is not turbulent, you should get decent stability from most good quality stages, either manual or motorized. At the end of the day though, it will all revolve around your specific case; how much movement can you tolerate within what timeframe? You will need to verify that the specs of the stage match your requirements. Even then, you will probably need to test it out to be sure. Craig On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Charles Stevens <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Dear List, > > We're planning to set up an inverted confocal microscope for live cell > imaging. I'd appreciate any opinions on using manual vs x-y motorized stage. > Is the motorized stage more stabile during long-term experiments? Does it > facilitate/is it necessary for any experiments besides multi-point > time-lapse imaging? > Thanks for your comments! > > Charles > > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.730 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2645 - Release Date: 01/26/10 06:36:00 |
«
Return to Confocal Microscopy List
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |