http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Light-reading-on-optical-nanoscopy-tp7578894p7578915.html
Maybe you've become Americanized, Mark. An English doughnut is spherical, with jam in the middle. Translating this into a psf is an exercise I leave to others!
More seriously, I agree that you can't call structured illumination widefield. The super-resolution depends on restricting the field of view, as in confocal, Toraldo filters, etc.
Maybe this is a communication/language problem but I don't think the plotted image of the pinhole is a 'doughnut'. A doughnut is a ring, and is similar to an annulus, but pinholes are just holes... Without a confocal pinhole in a STED system the illumination pattern does not control out of focus light well, the depletion zone has a complex extended 3D structure of limited extent (it does not look much like a doughnut IMHO). Also, I think the near field probe response function does not look like a STED excitation field either.
On a connected issue, the structured light approach is different as it is not a scanning point detector, but whether this can be called wide field super resolution is not clear to me as a part of the field is suppressed in a time dependent way. I'd be interested on expert opinions on this question of definition…
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy> *****
>
> Dear Guy,
> Regarding the first demonstration of STED, I think you can read
> this paper, in which far-field STED demonstrated 106nm resolution in 1999:
> Thomas A. Klar and Stefan W. Hell, Subdiffraction resolution in
> far-field fluorescence microscopy PTICS LETTERS / Vol. 24, No. 14 / 954-956, 1999
> In fact, the concept of STED can also be regarded as an extension
> of
> confocal: in confocal we set the pinhole at detector, which
> effectively being imaged onto the focal spot, only also diffraction
> limited. If the image of the pinhole is plotted, it will be precisely
> a doughnut! As STED can brings a much "harder" doughnut, this
> achieves not just 1.4x resolution enhancing, but to theoretically
> infinity thanks to the saturation depletion.
> It is very hard to do this optical modulation. On the contrary,
> near-field optics can easily achieve the same narrow doughnut, by just
> limiting the tip size.
> This discussion will be in the upcoming CRC book I am editing.
> (Thank you for your nice comments on the book evaluation!) Peng
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Guy Cox <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>> *****
>>
>> Apart from Mark's suggestions, Synge proposed near-field microscopy
>> in
>> 1928 (Philosophical Magazine 6, 356). It was first demonstrated in
>> visible light in 1984 (D.W. Pohl, W. Denk, and M. Lanz (1984).
>> "Optical
>> stethoscopy: Image recording with resolution λ/20". Appl. Phys. Lett.
>> 44
>> (7): 651.) though it had been achieved in the microwave region as
>> early as 1972. This is all way before the concept of STED had even
>> been proposed
>> (1994) let alone demonstrated (2002).
>>
>> It's not fair to say that only 'unlimited' methods are true
>> super-resolution. Both 4-pi (proposed by Cremer & Cremer in 1971)
>> and linear structured illumination are generally regarded (and
>> marketed) as super-resolution. Linear structured illumination was
>> demonstrated two years before STED (Gustafsson, M.G.L. 2000
>> Surpassing the lateral resolution limit by a factor of two using
>> structured illumination microscopy. Journal of Microscopy 198 (2) ,
>> pp. 82-87). I5 microscopy, another technique offering substantial
>> but not unlimited super-resolution, was achieved even earlier
>> (Gustafsson, Agard & Sedat, Journal of Microscopy, 195, 10-16, 1999).
>>
>> Guy
>>
>> Optical Imaging Techniques in Cell Biology
>> by Guy Cox 2nd edition, 2012 CRC Press
>>
http://www.guycox.com/optical.htm
>> ______________________________________________
>> Associate Professor Guy Cox, MA, DPhil(Oxon) Aust. Centre for
>> Microscopy & Microanalysis, 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 Peng Xi
>> Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2012 4:59 PM
>> To:
[hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: Light reading on optical nanoscopy
>>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>> *****
>>
>> Dear Mark,
>> I am not sure what you mean by "well before". Super-resolution is
>> a term that usually refers to techniques that provides theoretically
>> 'infinitely small' resolution, or down to single molecule size.
>> That's why although confocal is already better (1.4x better) in
>> resolution, it is generally not treated as super-resolution. And so
>> to multiphoton microscopy.
>> If you have a better candidate on inventing super-resolution,
>> please let me and everybody know. I am sure that people are keen to know this.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Peng Xi
>> Ph. D. Associate Professor
>> Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering Peking
>> University, Beijing, China
>> Tel: +86 10-6276 7155
>> Email:
[hidden email]
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Mark Cannell
>> <
[hidden email]>wrote:
>>
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>>> *****
>>>
>>> Hmm, A very myopic blog on a subject with a rich past. It was
>> appreciated
>>> that the Abbe 'limit' was not a limit well before Stephan Hell's work.
>>> Suggest you might like to research the subject matter a bit deeper?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> PS I hope others don't start advertising their 'blogs' on this
>>> list, we ban commercial 'blogs', perhaps this should be extend?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23/08/2012, at 1:32 AM, Peng Xi <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> *****
>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>>>> *****
>>>>
>>>> Dear List,
>>>> I am blogging on optical nanoscopy, in a very casual mode.
>>>>
>>>
>>
http://xipeng.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/how-optical-super-resolution-i>> s-achieved-1/
>>>> It is originally written in Chinese, after I gave a related
>>>> plenary talk in May 2012. Last talk, in the noon time. And the
>>>> audiences were
>>> from
>>>> all sorts of disciplines, from fresh graduate students to renowned
>>>> professors. Therefore, I decided to make the talk interesting, and
>>>> easy
>>> to
>>>> follow by everyone. It turns out to be very successful -- much
>>>> better
>>> than
>>>> equations and diagrams. So, I decide to broadcast it by blogging. :)
>>>> Hope you like it.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Peng Xi
>>>> Ph. D. Associate Professor
>>>> Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering Peking
>>>> University, Beijing, China
>>>> Tel: +86 10-6276 7155
>>>> Email:
[hidden email]
>>>
>>> Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>> School of Physiology& Pharmacology
>>> Medical Sciences Building
>>> University of Bristol
>>> Bristol
>>> BS8 1TD UK
>>>
>>>
[hidden email]
>>>
>>
Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ