Posted by
David Baddeley on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/averaging-vs-accumulation-for-noise-reduction-is-there-a-difference-tp6483751p6484837.html
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy*****
One of the possible explanations for favoring averaging over dwell times is that
scanning fast and averaging lets the triplet relax between scans, thus reducing
the rate of photobleaching (see the T-REX papers from S. Hells group for
example). I also seem to remember there being some (percieved - although not
strictly quantified) benefit from doing frame averaging rather than line
averaging on an old Leica TCS-NT.
cheers,
David
----- Original Message ----
From: Julio Vazquez <
[hidden email]>
To:
[hidden email]
Sent: Fri, 17 June, 2011 9:20:36 AM
Subject: Re: averaging vs. accumulation for noise reduction - is there a
difference?
*****
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