Confocal Microscopy List - Re: Nyquist theorem and DAQ sampling rate, pixel rate, laser rep. rate, and detector/amp bandwidth

Re: Nyquist theorem and DAQ sampling rate, pixel rate, laser rep. rate, and detector/amp bandwidth

Posted by Lu Yan on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Nyquist-theorem-and-DAQ-sampling-rate-pixel-rate-laser-rep-rate-and-detector-amp-bandwidth-tp7585926p7585930.html

***** 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. *****

Andreas,

Thanks much for your answering. Now I get that detector area matters, but what did you mean by non-descanned detectors? Are they not all descanned in multiphoton microscopy like confocal does?

Thanks,

From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Andreas Bruckbauer
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 4:51 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Nyquist theorem and DAQ sampling rate, pixel rate, laser rep. rate, and detector/amp bandwidth

***** 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. *****

Lu,

Your question:

Why single photon counting modules (APD or PMT based) is not as popular as analog PMTs in multiphoton fluorescence microscopy?

The answer is the size (area) of the detector, you want large area detectors to collect all the scattered light, at least when you use two-photon excitation to image deep into tissue with non-descanned detectors.

Best wishes

Andreas

From: [hidden email]
Sent: ‎26/‎10/‎2016 20:57
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Nyquist theorem and DAQ sampling rate, pixel rate, laser rep. rate, and detector/amp bandwidth

Hi listers,

I was reading a multiphoton fluorescence imaging paper earlier today, and found in the method section that the authors used 15 us pixel clock (I assume this is the dwell time, thus the pixel rate is 1/15us=~667 kHz?), a 1 MHz pulsed laser, AO (to drive scanning) sampling rate ~1MHz, but a 20 kHz PMT amp. I got a little confused, so my questions are:

1) Is it generally true that the AO sampling rate has to be at least twice of signal frequency (National Instruments suggested >10X of signal rate), which in this case is limited by the amp rate, i.e. 20kHz? In this paper particularly, they are massively oversampling which is OK I guess.

2) The pixel rate cannot exceed the half of the signal rate (amp bandwidth) to catch all spatial varying signal from the sample. What is considered as appropriate pixel rate given the amp bandwidth? Here, the amp bandwidth is only 20 kHz, but the pixel rate is calculated to be 667 kHz.. Can I assume either they have a typo somewhere, or they compromised the measurement by effectively applying a low pass filter to the images, or I am just being completely idiotic.

3) In general , why single photon counting modules (APD or PMT based) is not as popular as analog PMTs in multiphoton fluorescence microscopy? Do they not have less constrains for example bandwidth than analog ones?

I look forward to hearing from you guys. This really bugged me quite a few hours.

Thanks in advance,
Lu