Re: Deconvolution of 3D SIM data

Posted by Mark Cannell on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Deconvolution-of-3D-SIM-data-tp6251420p6274284.html

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

I'm afraid the idea is MUCH older than 2008. I recall reading a paper  
from the (?) 1960's that discussed the idea that  the diffraction  
limit was not a real limit at all. I believe they were using bacteria  
as an example of where knowledge of the object imparts more  
information to overcome the 'limit'

Cheers Mark


On 15/04/2011, at 2:16 AM, Andreas Bruckbauer wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> I think this is the conclusion of a paper by Sripad Ram (PNAS 103,  
> 2006, 4457), but i think in this case you have to know the number of  
> objects you are looking at.
>
> best wishes
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Wessendorf <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 4:41
> Subject: Re: Deconvolution of 3D SIM data
>
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> On 4/13/2011 5:28 PM, Guy Cox wrote:
>
>> Abbe considered rays diffracted by two points on the sample.  The  
>> points
>> will be resolved if their diffracted rays can enter the objective.  
>> This
>> can only apply to  a specimen illuminated from an external source.  
>> In
>> fluorescence each point emits light and this is totally incoherent  
>> with
>> respect to light from another point.   There is no diffraction at the
>> sample so Abbe's calculation cannot be applied.  Rayleigh's  
>> criterion,
>> based on how the optics turn the image of a point into a disk (the  
>> Airy
>> disk) does apply.
>
> This is (for me!) a very intuitive explanation, but it suggests that  
> with fluorescence, arbitrarily small resolution can be attained  
> given sufficiently high s/n.  That sounds something like what you  
> said in your earlier posting, except for the phrase "arbitrarily  
> small".
>
> Is that correct?  If not, what is the absolute limit of resolution  
> in fluorescence?
>
> Martin
>
> -- Martin Wessendorf, Ph.D.                   office: [phone]
> Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: [phone]
> University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: [phone]
> 6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: [phone]
> Minneapolis, MN  55455                    e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>