Posted by
Kurt Thorn on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Data-Storage-tp7585019p7585020.html
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopyPost images on
http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****
Hi Claire -
There's one error in your calculation:
On 4/11/2016 8:27 AM, Claire Brown, Dr. 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.
> *****
>
> I'm working on some numbers for cyberinfrastructure for Compute Canada. I am not currently doing single point localization microscopy but we plan to get into it.
>
> I just wonder is there a consensus in the field if the raw images for each point localization have to be retained for 7 years or are people just keeping the localization data? When I do these calculations I get the following so it seems impossible with existing infrastructure to retain the raw data.
>
> 2000 x 2000 pixel camera and 16-bit images = 2000x2000x16 = 64 MB per image
16 bit = 2 byte, so this is 8 MB per image. Also, we typically do
superresolution imaging on much smaller ROIs, often only 256 x 256
pixels (on a Nikon N-STORM). Are you sure your users are going to want /
need such large fields of view? 256 x 256 x 2 is 131 KB
>
> 10,000 frames for single molecule imaging and two colour super resolution
> 10,000x2x64 = 1.28 TB
10000 x 2 x 8 = 160 GB; 10000 x 2 x 131 KB = 2.6 GB
>
> 4 conditions, 10 images per condition, experiment done in triplicate
> 1.28 TBx4x10x3 = 154 TB per experiment
160 GB x 4 x 10 x 3 = 19 TB; 2.6 GB x 4 x 10 x 3 = 312 GB
So if you keep the size of the areas of interest down, the data sizes
are not too bad.
I also think a case could be made for not keeping the raw data; Illumina
sequencers are basically a microscope in a box and they do not keep the
raw image data anymore. I believe they keep some reduced representation
of it, but I am not sure of the details.
Kurt
>
> So I'm guessing people are not keeping the raw data or I made a mistake in my calculations.
>
> Looking forward to some feedback!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Claire
>
--
Kurt Thorn
Associate Professor
Director, Nikon Imaging Center
http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/