http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Johannes-Amon-posted-new-Zeiss-white-paper-on-airyscanning-at-tp7582420p7582426.html
It is interesting to see this idea go commercial. We computed
We found that (Fig. 5 of above paper) if the detector array is close
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy> Post images on
http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Zdenek,
>
> I think you're right. When I read this white paper again closely, it actually sounds more like what was recently branded "re-scan confocal microscopy":
>
> De Luca, G. M. R., Breedijk, R. M. P., Brandt, R. A. J., Zeelenberg, C. H. C., de Jong, B. E., Timmermans, W., et al. (2013). Re-scan confocal microscopy: Scanning twice for better resolution.Biomed. Opt. Express, 4, 2644-2656.
>
> A lot of the same references are in this article, and this also cites Enderlein and York.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John Oreopoulos
>
>
> On 2014-07-25, at 4:09 AM, Zdenek Svindrych wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>> Post images on
http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
>> *****
>>
>>
>> Very interesting.
>>
>> It's most likely based on the Image Scanning Microscopy (ref 4 of the white
>> paper; it's a physics journal, so the style is a bit different), it allows
>> up to 2x resolution improvement (as all the other linear structured
>> illumination methods), but with the Enderlain's image processing you
>> actually sacrifice axial resolution if you want high SNR (corresponds to
>> bigger pinhole). Unfortunately they don't provide much details in the white
>> paper about the new image processing approach that gives also axial
>> superresolution...
>>
>> Moreover, I think this approach is not quite compatible with other benefits
>> of modern confocals, such as spectral detection or lifetime imaging.
>>
>> Looking forward to seeing further advances in this direction.
>>
>> Zdenek Svindrych, Charles univ., Czech Rep.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Původní zpráva ----------
>> Od: John Oreopoulos <
[hidden email]>
>> Komu:
[hidden email]
>> Datum: 25. 7. 2014 4:30:32
>> Předmět: Re: Johannes Amon posted new Zeiss white paper on airyscanning at .
>> .
>>
>> "*****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>> Post images on
http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
>> *****
>>
>> The white paper states:
>>
>> "An acentric, shifted pinhole detector produces an image of about the same
>> resolution as a pinhole detector which is aligned to the optical axis,
>> although smaller in amplitude and shifted by half the displacement. This
>> insight has been the motivation for constructing an area detector for a
>> confocal microscope. Such a detector should cover more than 1 AU and contain
>> multiple sub-Airy detector elements. Detection efficiency will be
>> significantly increased by reassigning the detected photons from the shifted
>> detector elements to the central detection position and summing up the back
>> shifted signal from all detector elements. [2] No light is rejected by a
>> closed pinhole but instead collected by the off-axis detector elements.
>> Therefore an increased signal level arises from the reassignment of photons
>> to a smaller spatial region."
>>
>> It sure does sound a lot like Jim Pawley's array detector pinhole idea to
>> me, which is outlined in quite clearly chapter 2 of the Handbook of
>> Biological Confocal Microscopy (3d Edition):
>>
>>
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-45524-2_2>>
>> See Figure 2.15 in particular. There isn't much detail in the white paper to
>> know what the differences are however, and there is no citation of Pawley's
>> work on this. Here's the relevent passage from the chapter:
>>
>> "In addition to high QE, Si photon detectors have a variety of other
>> practical advantages. As the sensitive element in such a detector is
>> typically very small (5–30 mm on a side), selective use of only a few
>> elements in a small, planar, 2D array could permit it to operate in the CLSM
>> as a combination pinhole and detector. Figure 2.15 is a sketch of what such
>> a detector might look like. After each pixel interval of the microscope, the
>> charge pattern in the 5 x 5 sensor array at the top would be transferred to
>> the read register and then the signal in all 25 pixels would be read out
>> sequentially at about 35MHz. These 25 values could then be “decoded” in a
>> number of possible ways, the most straightforward of which would be to
>> provide three separate signals corresponding to the summed signals from the
>> brown, orange, and red areas of the sensor array. In this way, it would be
>> possible to collect signal simultaneously at three different pinhole sizes.
>> With such a detector, pinhole alignment could be done elec- tronically
>> simply by searching for the detector element producing the most signal from
>> a planar specimen and misalignment could be detected on the fly by
>> comparing, for example, summed output from the 5 pixels on the left with the
>> 5 on the right (Pawley, 1996)."
>>
>> The other reference from 1996 has even more details about this idea:
>>
>> CCDiode: an optimal detector for laser confocal microscopes
>>
http://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.237490>>
>> John Oreopoulos
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2014-07-24, at 8:57 PM, George McNamara wrote:
>>
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>>> Post images on
http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
>>> *****
>>>
>>> Johannes Amon posted the URL to download a new Zeiss white paper on
>> airyscanning
>>>
>>>
http://www.zeiss.com/airyscan <<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%">https://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%
>> 3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ezeiss%2Ecom%2Fairyscan&urlhash=fM6m&_t=tracking_anet>
>>>
>>> Johannes post is at
>>>
>>>
https://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID>> =5898093815864004612&gid=837267
>>>
>>> and he welcomes comments.
>>>
>>>
>>> Airyscanning: A Novel Approach to Confocal Imaging
>>>
>>> Johannes Amon <<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=86600201&goback=%2">https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=86600201&goback=%2
>> Egde_837267_member_5898093815864004612>Online Communications and Marketing
>>>
>>> It is with great pleasure that I am able to share with you a new White
>> Paper by ZEISS. Airyscanning is a new detection concept that uses an array
>> detector to oversample each Airy disk in order to gain sensitivity,
>> resolution and speed. I'm curious to hear what you think of it! Download the
>> free White Paper here:
http://www.zeiss.com/airyscan <
https://www.linkedin.
>> com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ezeiss%2Ecom%2Fairyscan&urlhash=fM6m&_t=
>> tracking_anet>
>>>
>>>
>>> Vladimir Zhukarev and I have already commented at the linkedin group. My
>> comments are:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Zeiss cites some but not all of the literature of using a (small) area
>> array to collect light that would usually be blocked by the pinhole. I'm
>> thinking that Jim Pawley had this, but could be 'off by one' (Tony Wilson,
>> Guy Cox, etc?).
>>>
>>> Too bad Zeiss and the other microscope companies have pathetically slow
>> spatial deconvolution AND on confocal microscopes deconvolution is a
>> separate post-processing step the user has to undertake manually (I managed
>> Leica confocals since 2000 and Zeiss LSM710 since 2009 ... just trained this
>> week on a Leica SP8 confocal, LAS AF 3.x, haven't seen all the features, but
>> deconvolution looks like still a separate manual step).
>>>
>>> Further, to get the maximum benefit from a confocal microscope, when
>> acquiring multiple channels, should BOTH spatially deconvolve AND spectrally
>> unmix. See the Hoppe et al 2008 Biphys J paper,
>>>
>>>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339754>>>
>>> their 3DFSR was tested with FRET specimens but the (claimed) 10x improved
>> SNR should apply to any specimens.
>>>
>>> I also note that the Zeiss (claimed) 1.7x improvement could be massively
>> improved by acquiring 300 images (per plane) and doing 3B microscopy or SOFI
>> - for 3B see
>>>
>>>
http://www.coxphysics.com/3b/>>>
>>> for introduction to 3B (and yes, could work in 3D). 3B is also very slow.
>> Parallel processing is speeding up 3B, see
>>>
http://www.optnano.com/content/2/1/7/abstract>>>
>>> For an entry point to SOFI see
>>>
>>>
http://www.optnano.com/content/2/1/2/abstract>>>
>>> As I've noted on the Confocal Listserv
>>>
>>>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1407&L=CONFOCALMICROSCOPY&P=5920>>>
>>> I am psyched what parallel processing is doing (ex. NVidia TITAN Z GPU
>> card, Intel Phi 7120 card, lots of Phi's, as at
https://www.tacc.utexas.edu/>> stampede/ ) and will get even better with 2015 Knights Landing CPU's (and
>> NVidia, IBM, HP if its "The Machine" meets their goals, etc).
>>>
>>> George
>>>
>>>
>>> www.linkedin.com/in/georgemcnamara/
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> George McNamara, Ph.D.
>>> Single Cells Analyst
>>> L.J.N. Cooper Lab
>>> University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
>>> Houston, TX 77054
>>> Tattletales
http://works.bepress.com/gmcnamara/42"