Re: averaging vs. accumulation for noise reduction - is there a difference?

Posted by Julio Vazquez on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/averaging-vs-accumulation-for-noise-reduction-is-there-a-difference-tp6483751p6484796.html

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

This is what I noticed empirically on our Zeiss LSM 510, where averaging tends to give somewhat better noise reduction than increasing dwell time. Under "normal" imaging conditions, we typically use a dwell time of 1.6-3.2 microseconds. Increasing the dwell time to greater than  3.2 microseconds tends to result in more bleaching and somewhat reduced signal. Typically, we use 1.6 microseconds dwell time, and 2-4 averages, depending on the sample.
--
Julio Vazquez
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Seattle, WA

http://www.fhcrc.org/


On Jun 16, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Moninger, Thomas wrote:

> Stan,
>
> I've been told by Carl Z. engineers that in general averaging (I usually use line, not frame) tends to yield better S/N then does increasing dwell time. As Lloyd commented this may be model specific. I have not done any analysis to confirm this however....
>
> Tom