Posted by
Straatman, Kees (Dr.) on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Deconvolution-of-Confocal-Images-was-Airy-Units-tp6946310p6947423.html
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy*****
Dear Peter,
John Oreopoulos made it already clear that deconvolution and clsm are not mutually exclusive. I would like to add that each microscope system has a PSF, including the clsm. As deconvolution tries to restore this, you can see why you can do deconvolution on a confocal data set.
Best wishes
Kees
-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Peter Werner
Sent: 30 October 2011 20:09
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Deconvolution of Confocal Images? (was: Airy Units)
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy*****
An interesting point was made here by Jim Pawley:
> I agree that sampling a bit higher than Nyquist never hurts,
> especially if you deconvolve (as you always should), but I think
> that it is a mistake to think that one can "separate" out the noise
> by decon. I think that noise is pretty fundamental.
I had always heard that if you're doing confocal microscopy, at least
point-scanning confocal with a pinhole size of 1AU or smaller, that
deconvolution was superfluous, because you shouldn't be getting out of
focus light. So what is gained by deconvolution when one is sampling
voxel by voxel?
Peter G. Werner
Merritt College Microscopy Program