Posted by
mmodel on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Question-about-deconvolution-tp7579203p7579219.html
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy*****
I believe that the word "resolution" with its low-nm estimates is always applied to STORM, PALM, etc - the ability to tell objects apart.
-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Guy Cox
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 8:16 AM
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: Question about deconvolution
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy*****
NO! NO! NO!
You do NOT have nanometre RESOLUTION in the axial (vertical, Z) dimension. You have nanometre measurement precision in the axial dimension. You also have nanometre measurement precision in the lateral (XY) dimensions - that is the basis of PALM, STORM etc. Neither property is resolution (the ability to separate two objects).
Guy
-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of MODEL, MICHAEL
Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2012 11:05 PM
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: Question about deconvolution
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy*****
If resolution improvement in transmission microscopy were possible, it might be very useful to apply it to interferometry. There you have a nanometer resolution in the vertical dimension, but it all is undermined by diffraction-limited lateral resolution (the situation is the same in "transmission through dye" for cell profile measurements). And since it is not confocal or fluorescence, noise probably would not be that much of an issue. I have talked to a few companies that make interferometric microscopes, it seems that they haven't though much about it.
Mike