http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/data-storage-requirements-for-NIH-records-original-videos-or-just-tracks-tp7579647p7579657.html
Apologies for not addressing the original question! The best compromise may be to anticipate likely future concerns and store data appropriately. For example, save one complete image series to show that the tracking algorithm does an acceptable job by whatever standards, then store the first and last image from each subsequent movie to show that it started and finished within acceptable parameters (focus, magnification, type of object chosen for tracking, brightness, signal to noise etc etc).
Dept. of Pharmacology & Chemical Biology
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy> *****
>
> I guess you always can argue this case both ways. One example you could mention in your favor ist that many microscopes (their users) use frame averaging to reduce noise. So in a sense you throw away the original data in that case and only a smoothed version is stored.
>
> If the truth is that you can't possibly store the original videos the only alternative would be to not perform this kind of research, right? The situation may be different in a couple of years, assuming that storage will continue to become cheaper over time.
>
> At the end of the day you will have to convince whoever is (potentially) auditing you. So you might want to get a statement from them for you case to be on the safe side.
>
> my 2 cents
>
> Steffen
>
>>
>> 06.02.2013 8:32, O'Brien III, E. Timothy ?????:
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>>> *****
>>>
>>> Dear Microscopists-
>>>
>>> Our group has begun using a parallel microscope system to study the movement
>> of fluorescent beads on cells, or in biofilms, mucus, other biological fluids.
>> We then track the bead movements and generate MSD (mean squared displacement)
>> curves for each bead. Each 1 minute video at 60 FPS takes up about a gigabyte
>> of data storage. Meanwhile the tracks (position/ time) might take several kB
>> for each bead. We can take 12 videos simultaneously, so potentially we are
>> generating 12 gB/minute, a terabyte every hour and 25 minutes!
>>>
>>> We believe that taking an image at the beginning of tracking, and keeping the
>> tracking records would be sufficient for us to troubleshoot our data, since we
>> can't possibly store the original videos. This would let us know where the
>> beads were at the beginning of the video (on the nucleus? On the glass?)
>> Signatures of "lost beads" or "stuck beads" are easily identified in control
>> experiments.
>>>
>>> We are also considering other intermediate data reduction-potentially saving
>> parts of the videos throughout the timecourse. But this is going to be
>> difficult to implement, and keep track of. Moreover, the reduction is not
>> nearly as high as taking one frame and keeping the tracking results.
>>>
>>> What is the community's understanding of the requirements for storing
>> "original" data? Do we need to keep full videos and spend all our budget on
>> hard drives, or will just the position/time data and an index frame be enough?
>>>
>>> What other solutions does your group use?
>>>
>>> Thanks very much!
>>>
>>> Tim O'Brien
>>> Computer Integrated Systems for Microscopy and Manipulation
>>> UNC Chapel Hill, North Carolina
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat
> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
> Walter-Brendel-Zentrum für experimentelle Medizin (WBex)
> Head of light microscopy
>
> Mail room:
> Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377 München
>
> Building location:
> Marchioninistr. 27, München-Großhadern