http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/General-question-Software-vs-hardware-tp7589316p7589338.html
"screwdriver vs. wrench". A laser scanning confocal microscope is not
different tools for different tasks. This is one of the key points I try
SEM, AFM, FIB-SEM, etc., etc, for a reason. They all excel at tasks that
cultured neuron. In this case, a compound microscope with deconvolution
DAPI in a whole-mount sample. Deconvolutions will quickly fall apart on
right next to the sun). This means that the amount of information you have
about the sample plane itself becomes nearly non-existent. Conversely,
Also, one quick point about deconvolutions. Unless you measured the PSF in
sample. Rather, you are whittling away information you wish to discard
(i.e. it is a lossy process, much like JPEG compression). Along these
information should be removed. Thus, just because the image looks better
> *****
> 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.
> *****
>
> Hi Alison,
>
> The signal to noise question strikes me as the key question WRT decon.
> Most software packages default to a setting that seems unrealistic for
> confocal imaging (ie SNR=20), and this leads to a lot of patterning
> artifacts in deconvolved images. At such high SNR any pixel of data is
> treated as 'real', so background noise gets processed into weird moire-type
> patterns. This also happens when the algorithm doesn't quite converge and
> you let it run for too many iterations (the default iteration #s tend to be
> set high as well). It's critical then to tell the software (when possible)
> that your SNR is low, so it gets much more aggressive about detecting and
> removing random noise (at the expense of losing details in the 1-3 pixel
> range). I would recommend folks take care if using any package that
> doesn't let you correct the SNR.
>
> Honestly, when SNR is set properly I find that noisy images benefit a lot
> more from decon than high-quality cover candidate-type pics. In addition
> to sharpening and Z blur removal the noise and background removal becomes
> more dramatic (and beneficial for quantitation) the more background and
> noise there is. This comes up a lot when live imaging when we use resonant
> scanning for speed and low photodamage, but have higher noise as a
> trade-off. I'd say that as long as you can image at 1.5x-2x Nyquist
> resolution (and the extra time/expense is worth it), even super-noisy
> images will benefit quite a bit.
>
> I understand that we're crossing fingers for the day when everyone has
> GPU-enabled decon running seamlessly during acquisition. For that to work
> the algorighms need to automatically (accurately) estimate SNR. That
> doesn't seem like an insurmountable challenge, but I haven't seen it yet.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> TF
>
> Timothy Feinstein, Ph.D.
> Research Scientist
> Department of Developmental Biology
> University of Pittsburgh
>
>
>
>
> On 3/18/19, 11:07 AM, "Confocal Microscopy List on behalf of Alison
> North" <
[hidden email] on behalf of
>
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> So this is a very timely discussion because I have been discussing
> with
> my staff whether there are data sets that should NOT be deconvolved,
> and
> if so, how does one decide that? I too attended Jim Pawley's
> wonderful
> course (he was certainly a huge character as well as an incredibly
> fantastic microscopist, and he will certainly be remembered by all!),
> so
> I have generally worked under the assumption that one should
> deconvolve
> all confocal data. But I am also very aware of the potential for
> artifacts if a data set isn't "good enough" for deconvolution.
> Obviously the ideal situation is to acquire an optimal data set -
> well-prepared sample, bright staining, Nyquist sampling etc. etc., and
> a
> high S:N ratio - and by sticking to these rules, our deconvolved
> DeltaVision images or confocal images of fixed samples have always
> looked great. But nowadays we are faced with different scenarios,
> particularly when you are attempting to do very rapid imaging of live,
> weakly expressing cells, while attempting to minimize phototoxicity.
> In
> that case you can end up with pretty lousy S:N ratios, because
> maintaining cell viability or imaging fast enough is more critical.
> For example, I have a lovely new iSIM in my lab, for which the initial
> resolution increase is achieved by the hardware, but the second step
> in
> resolution increase is via deconvolution. The whole point of this
> instrument is for rapid, super-resolution imaging - so we can't simply
> increase exposure times to improve S:N, turning up the laser power
> will
> obviously kill the cells, and we can't increase the pixel size or
> we'll
> lose the resolution. And I assume a lot of the new types of
> super-resolution instrument out there must leave you facing the same
> issue, since live cell imaging invariably forces you to compromise
> somewhere within the imaging triangle (or hexagon, or whatever we've
> got
> up to now!).
>
> Therefore my question is, are there papers out there which have
> compared
> deconvolution algorithms and looked at the potential for artifacts on
> really low S:N images, which we could use to advise our researchers on
> what is the minimum you can get away with before you really shouldn't
> be
> deconvolving the data set at all? Also, are there papers showing the
> effect of undersampling in the z-axis on the resulting deconvolved
> images (as is often the case on our spinning disk system)? I haven't
> managed to find any yet (though I confess I've been too busy with
> other
> stuff to spend too many hours searching!), so if anybody could point
> me
> to some good references I'd be most grateful. I have spoken with
> several renowned microscopists about whether deconvolution is always a
> good idea under such circumstances, and the gut reaction appears to be
> no, but I could do with some hard and fast validation for teaching
> purposes.
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Alison
>
>
>
> On 3/18/2019 9:56 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> >
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__lists.umn.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FA0-3Dconfocalmicroscopy%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3DvfjahhKueherhfphxmr-Smw_FhB4QUlg-FsBATM1kl0%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288894390&sdata=7V6L2MVDHIM%2BwC0pAgCi3pgsBuFzbd0XQQWFWD%2BTJfY%3D&reserved=0=> > Post images on
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.imgur.com%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3DedOjY0NZEIhVq-zWzgNHHDaTrutHrPj1Rl6rcwE_B4M%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288894390&sdata=1c1u00xUm3GBfY%2BbuasN%2FzjLdqR5THU38W7oITOW9k0%3D&reserved=0=> and include the link in your posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Avi, I really agree with your point. I feel that people to
> deconvolve any time spatial information is critical, whether they're using
> widefield, CLSM, spinning disc, or light sheet. It's true that
> deconvolving adds time and data volume and especially cost, but in trade
> you get an image that is substantially sharper, with reduced noise and
> background, and more quantitatively accurate*.
> >
> > Regarding whether to just go with a point scanning confocal, I don't
> see it as a simple question of better or worse**. A nuclear-cytoplasmic
> translocation assay with monolayer cells works just as well on a widefield,
> and (in my experience!) many types of biosensor assay work better with a
> properly set up widefield. The 16-bit depth of widefield images is nice
> for quantitation, and modern sCMOS cameras have by far the best acquisition
> speeds. I don't know whether widefields still have a more linear
> relationship between sample brightness and detected signal, but the last
> time I checked that was still true.
> >
> > (*) Deconvolution is quantitatively useful as long as people make
> sure to tell the software to preserve the original intensity values. One
> of my complaints about Hyvolution was that you could not do that, so I just
> used the Huygens package that came with it. I don't know whether Lightning
> gives you that option...if not then caveat emptor.
> >
> > (**) My advice mostly applies to turnkey stuff that any lab can
> implement, not exotic techniques available to folks with specialists or
> engineers on hand.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> > T
> > Timothy Feinstein, Ph.D. esearch Scientist
> > Department of Developmental Biology
> > University of Pittsburgh
> >
> >
> > On 3/18/19, 5:07 AM, "Confocal Microscopy List on behalf of Avi
> Jacob" <
[hidden email] on behalf of
[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'll point out, that you can, of course, deconvolve confocal
> images too.
> > So, while you can indeed get near confocal quality with
> well-acquired wf
> > data after deconvolution, you can also get near SR quality when
> > deconvolving a well-acquired stack from a confocal. And then
> you can also
> > deconvolve a SR stack and get... well you get the idea! It's
> like an arms
> > race.
> > I have the Hyvolution and had access for a couple of weeks to
> the Lighting,
> > and now confocal images look blurry to me.
> > Avi
> >
> > --
> > Avi Jacob, Ph.D.
> > Kanbar Light Microscopy Unit
> > The Mina & Everard Goodman Faculty of Life Sciences
> > Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 529002, Israel
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:04 PM George McNamara <
>
[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > *****
> > > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go
> to:
> > >
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flists.umn.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FA0-253Dconfocalmicroscopy-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257Ce2895884dda94858a22408d6ab8114ff-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-257C0-257C636884968257860747-26amp-3Bsdata-3DefIAtI3pbBSoyhJucB0DkDu4RXkFkgBZfGrO4PiXrfc-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3D9Uk5ZZzc8LP7V7Oj2aFSRbVluY0mpE-7XPLYdsyviMk%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288894390&sdata=Jv2%2FvAnr1srE%2BjcBXMWe2mVTvO9rowobKYY65DWIRTo%3D&reserved=0=> > > Post images on
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.imgur.com-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257Ce2895884dda94858a22408d6ab8114ff-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-257C0-257C636884968257860747-26amp-3Bsdata-3DMNM8i3iDaQuMA9LF766-252FyvCyp94jmie4IaC5qIEWclA-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3DGy99yAWcbr6KHUA0kYKb4K-wOHL4iNGJsDecMfZ8X-M%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288894390&sdata=2N%2BmlW5RE%2BAFuG%2FuM68FeI9LOfI1m2PlNu23S9eIQts%3D&reserved=0=> and include the link in your posting.
> > > *****
> > >
> > > Hi Mika,
> > >
> > > White et al 1987 (
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fjcb.rupress.org-252Fcontent-252F105-252F1-252F41.long-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257Ce2895884dda94858a22408d6ab8114ff-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-257C0-257C636884968257860747-26amp-3Bsdata-3Da6oZCfeD7Gt4nYMS89PcklnveCdDLLkksafp3tCyld0-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3D67LyqPF2rBiBDSWJVZeG7TpJz1o4MRDf8ZyLysbeKx4%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288894390&sdata=R3V0RHiTDpGkJUJyI8Q7SDJZjKdk3uDMgmBEPLrzcUw%3D&reserved=0=> ) made a
> > > compelling case for point scanning confocal microscopes:
> collect just
> > > the in focus light with instant gratification. The case has
> not changed,
> > > the hardware (especially data deluge side) has gotten a lot
> better. I
> > > note that both widefield detectors and PMT/APD/hybrid
> detectors/others
> > > have gotten a lot better in the 32 years from 1987! As have
> the optics
> > > and automation.
> > >
> > > Paul Goodwin 2014 (
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov-252Fpubmed-252F24974028-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257Ce2895884dda94858a22408d6ab8114ff-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-257C0-257C636884968257860747-26amp-3Bsdata-3DGDve8BuxhLDAdBPKywRQoMTYV-252BqSk9aMcz2WrZCHPU8-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3DPZ10eaR5B-jwZmf5y920Z41iJYUJcji_VsufABIeX84%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288894390&sdata=dIZN7CiQOTIt24N0mwi0QgDFkcFcVScVNxaoDuS24HM%3D&reserved=0=> ) made
> > > a nice case for quantitative deconvolution microscopy (and on
> very high
> > > quality specimens, ~10% improvement in resolution compared to
> simple
> > > widefield), but historically slow.
> > >
> > > Now, with 'instant gratification' spatial deconvolution,
> thanks to the
> > > GPU revolution (NVidia RTX Titan~16 Teraflops [S.P.], 24 Gb
> ram, $2500
> > > ... not including the deconvolution software module price),
> widefield,
> > > spinning disk (and slightly exotic variants like iSIM, DMD
> based, etc,
> > > see also new THUNDER Imagers [see p.p.s.]), multiphoton (I'm
> excited
> > > about the price point of recent fiber lasers, which could
> become much
> > > better price if achieve 'economy of scale'), and of course,
> point
> > > scanning confocal microscopes.
> > >
> > > Spatial deconvolution (especially if someone $uccessfully
> implements
> > > joint spatial deconvolution and spectral unmixing, multiple
> cameras -
> > > for 4 cameras see Babcock 2018, mentions aiming for 8
> cameras) helps
> > > with Expansion Microscopy and/or DNA-PAINT, to go
> super-resolution ...
> > > really single molecule counting (and DNA-PAINT eliminates the
> classic
> > > issue of PALM/STORM/FPALM of not counting every molecule).
> Sure,
> > > DNA-PAINT (like STORM etc) have the issue of a whole lotta
> images
> > > acquired. Data deluge: who cares? Jerome & Price's 10th
> commandment of
> > > confocal imaging is: "10. Storage Media Is Essentially Free
> and Infinite".
> > >
> > > More significantly, DNA-PAINT and related methods (single
> molecule RNA
> > > FISH, scRNAseq -> MERFISH = Moffitt 2018 as example, etc)
> also enable
> > > multiplex -- with single molecule counting -- to whatever
> plex is needed
> > > to answer the 'biological question(s)' being posed.
> > >
> > > All that said, the installed base of research grade point
> scanning
> > > confocal microscopes is large (5000+) and efficient at
> acquiring high
> > > quality images, to the point that user's sample preparation
> (and
> > > avoidance of purchasing stuff from 'Santa Crap' and similar
> companies)
> > > is much more limiting than the microscopes.
> > >
> > > George
> > >
> > > p.s. a couple of references not included in above:
> > >
> > > W. Gray (Jay) Jerome, Robert L. Price 2018... Basic Confocal
> Microscopy
> > > second edition
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Flink.springer.com-252Fbook-252F10.1007-25252F978-2D3-2D319-2D97454-2D5-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257Ce2895884dda94858a22408d6ab8114ff-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-257C0-257C636884968257860747-26amp-3Bsdata-3D-252FMQlH4t81Pk9tNTHR8fsn1tQc0JAc2nc-252BnO2gdk60Us-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3D1JXaiNNf-bzSdjywfRJ8gowB9Yq0uGNulQMlGeSMxkE%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288894390&sdata=3ua69ygadJRYIJltAT7qPoJzNd%2B16PWCCeNLQF13WIg%3D&reserved=0=> > >
> > > Expansion ... X10 protocol ... Truckenbrodt 2019 Nat Protoc,
> > >
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.nature.com-252Farticles-252Fs41596-2D018-2D0117-2D3-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257Ce2895884dda94858a22408d6ab8114ff-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-257C0-257C636884968257860747-26amp-3Bsdata-3DCF-252Fp9frimbrxZiMDwLWZjzuyoyQbCuKp4EcvaL3Wmmw-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3DYeXbqWFX0mMxO3nVRt59pt6RJYlwIPBMZRePQbiF1yU%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288894390&sdata=TEBfgj6Gg%2Bt02BMyFZCLb8%2Feb5nOyAJmnftouvPd1qY%3D&reserved=0=> > >
> > > DNA-PAINT acronym soup review ... Nieves 2018 Genes,
> > >
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.mdpi.com-252F2073-2D4425-252F9-252F12-252F621-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257Ce2895884dda94858a22408d6ab8114ff-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-257C0-257C636884968257860747-26amp-3Bsdata-3Diwx3Z1Pgr4a2SObO9F47jEtqlfsYQFk2R4gu0Qv1uJM-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3DtJY5yunlGClYXKHrXuCDe5KU8D-qhc1ZS26_KuNdXpE%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288904398&sdata=RUgIPB%2Fi0n6i28lOhKZAGSrlyirYALd0l75r5qhZCMk%3D&reserved=0=> > >
> > > Babcock 2018 (4 --> 8 cameras, single molecule localization
> microscopy
> > > with $1550 CMOS cameras) ...
> > >
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.nature.com-252Farticles-252Fs41598-2D018-2D19981-2Dz-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257Ce2895884dda94858a22408d6ab8114ff-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-257C0-257C636884968257860747-26amp-3Bsdata-3DwN-252FHP30wNUE0-252BJWeFJIJFsBk32ZhD4DfKi9gc3ZTz2c-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3DTIL4NaeETsqkjycmtWw_CnoEWvrpY1Tkr_SAmz-QkRM%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288904398&sdata=D26AicKRsRoIaCGZdaxaF5OKXfGuo8yS0zvSVgmoBwY%3D&reserved=0=> > >
> > > Moffitt et al 2018 ...
> > >
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fscience.sciencemag.org-252Fcontent-252F362-252F6416-252Feaau5324.long-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257Ce2895884dda94858a22408d6ab8114ff-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-257C0-257C636884968257870756-26amp-3Bsdata-3DFR98V6ldS9Q38wI59kly9U8pCzp92Vzc1J6T8ydCU9w-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3D55vzrzqpm3n5Z7logfovDr0N73h1gF7gldtYUSkZ6c0%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288904398&sdata=CQMKMRjzbJVLgZjtpCzzZSwaNvCbt72baFvqppyebSI%3D&reserved=0=> and
> > > commentary
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fscience.sciencemag.org-252Fcontent-252F362-252F6416-252F749-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257Ce2895884dda94858a22408d6ab8114ff-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-257C0-257C636884968257870756-26amp-3Bsdata-3Do0B379uuh-252FrB6gS9n6lG-252BjAZeztiYHZVmICwX4ghKh8-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3DXeBps6CWTMM197evmy1n1uC5qOcvU8mAN95bEPmieiQ%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288904398&sdata=um%2F%2FPNffQLOyrTsQcJymSuR2XwRcVnNMwMgQ6qYy19A%3D&reserved=0=> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > > Some resolution numbers:
> > >
> > > 1.4 NA objective lens ... 500 nm wavelength .. dxy = 0.61 *
> wqavelength
> > > / NA (I routinely drop the 0.61 from 0.61)
> > >
> > > 0.6 * 500 / 1.4 = 214 nm
> > >
> > > widefiel deconvolution (re: Goodwin 2014) ~10% better ... 193
> nm (if
> > > pixel size matched or interpolate optimally).
> > >
> > > point scanning confocal -- Zeiss has a nice PDF, "Zeiss 2008
> Principles
> > > - Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy" (see fig 10) on confocal
> > > resolution wrt 1 and smaller pinhole size, source of the
> values below,
> > >
> > > 1 Airy unit: 0.51 * 500 / 1.4 = 182 nm.
> > >
> > > 0.5 Airy unit ... 0.44 * 500 / 1.4 = 157 nm ... ~0.25 photons
> throughput
> > > (which doesn't matter if target is photostable).
> > >
> > > 0.2 Airy unit ... you can ask your Zeiss rep about AiryScan
> (and
> > > FastAiryScan).
> > >
> > > 0.1 Airy unit ... 0.37 * 500 / 1.4 = 132 nm ... ~0.10 photons
> throughput.
> > >
> > > Most modern point scanning confocal microscopes have a 405 nm
> laser, so
> > > if using BV421 (and ignoring potential photobleaching for a
> moment),
> > >
> > > 1 Airy unit: 0.51 * 421 / 1.4 = 153 nm.
> > >
> > > or in reflection mode, i.e. nanodiamond or nanogold,
> > >
> > > 1 Airy unit: 0.51 * 405 / 1.4 = 147 nm ... and reflection
> implies no
> > > photobleaching, so infinite number of photons (though also no
> blinking,
> > > so not usually eligible for precision localization) ...
> > >
> > > 0.1 Airy unit: 0.37 * 405 / 1.4 = 107 nm
> > >
> > > and not going completely exotic with NA (i.e. 1.65), if
> perfectly
> > > refractive index match with a fairly conventional 1.49 NA
> lens, and
> > > inreflectance:
> > >
> > > 0.1 Airy unit: 0.37 * 405 / 1.49 = 100.57 nm
> > >
> > > I think I'd rather invest a DNA-PAINT friendly rig than deal
> with 157 to
> > > 101 nm.
> > >
> > > DNA-PAINT makes resolution irrelevant, if you use it (and
> don't run out
> > > of disk space or time or money), since precision localization
> is
> > > resolution divided by square root of number of photons, ex.
> 250 nm XY
> > > resolution / sqrt(1,000,000) = 0.25 nm, and could increase
> number of
> > > photons per target further, but why bother?
> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > > point scanning confocal microscopes are also great platforms
> for
> > > F-Techniques, such as FastFLIM (aka rapidFLIM, etc, much
> faster than
> > > classic TCSPC slow FLIM), FCS, FCCS, see Liu 2008,
> > >
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov-252Fpubmed-252F18387308-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257Ce2895884dda94858a22408d6ab8114ff-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-257C0-257C636884968257870756-26amp-3Bsdata-3DZQTosrSoPFpCa8Y3IdEa9Xz-252B4RHC8JO4gBppHmzkazo-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3DmeRUIZdF3FLQZGyok4cxyc4AP4yq2lXX41Vt8q9WMmw%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288904398&sdata=XTEH306i5ez7vKq2cHKCVQlSphNiFIdnqIXmwnOmyNw%3D&reserved=0=> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > > p.p.s. Disclosures I am ...
> > >
> > > 1. currently hosting a Leica THUNDER Imager tour event (ends
> Monday
> > > 3/18/2019 afternoon) ... see pdf download page,
> > >
> > > THUNDER Technology Note
> > > THUNDER Imagers: How Do They Really Work?
> > >
> > >
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.leica-2Dmicrosystems.com-252Fscience-2Dlab-252Fthunder-2Dtechnology-2Dnote-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257Ce2895884dda94858a22408d6ab8114ff-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-257C0-257C636884968257870756-26amp-3Bsdata-3DauRUORuEKAir87-252Bbw7RHyTR9IxxrLYl1g3bFBiRTXBM-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3DLmFGYl_Icu6b9AAIYnHkoiH26bRZ688ODEc9I6k8yco%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288904398&sdata=5ZGLmCZt85tKxH1CJYM%2Bvul5S4qXw9%2FOnyWG80m2QxM%3D&reserved=0=> > >
> > > 2. hosting Nikon confocal demos in May 2019.
> > >
> > > 3. aiming to co-host with ISS a FastFLIM (one day)
> mini-symposium this
> > > summer.
> > >
> > > 4. an unpaid advisor for Gary Brooker for FINCH/CINCH, re:
> > >
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov-252Fpubmed-252F28261321-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257Ce2895884dda94858a22408d6ab8114ff-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-257C0-257C636884968257870756-26amp-3Bsdata-3DuVw0kiW1baZV0RJv-252Bk1ObKznhw51pemnCMehjHkUa2g-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3DKC1HMkiDzpE2DLsuj1I2nHvopwFVMMc0GVecDV-fWkM%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288904398&sdata=QC0LyEp9hbSKOgpV%2Fi%2B%2FABGDX4az02fRVdMZ4Ovufps%3D&reserved=0=> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/17/2019 10:43 AM, Mika Ruonala wrote:
> > > > *****
> > > > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv,
> go to:
> > > >
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flists.umn.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FA0-253Dconfocalmicroscopy-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257Ce2895884dda94858a22408d6ab8114ff-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-257C0-257C636884968257870756-26amp-3Bsdata-3DdHOCjeBda4sSZPf-252FB2-252B5Sv3Q8Qzcs708p4we8vHf-252FIg-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3DqZ-tdRwhHG172zv4uHPeAJMNeIIHNxozhQudV-hF2kE%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288904398&sdata=BnCAxorVJgPSFw70Kr%2B401vq4hMlZhvzdkivum9XGNE%3D&reserved=0=> > > > Post images on
>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.imgur.com-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Ctnf8-2540PITT.EDU-257Ce2895884dda94858a22408d6ab8114ff-257C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d-257C1-257C0-257C636884968257870756-26amp-3Bsdata-3DcnhzoWOP4RwDR622fn447aQVxW8ZBI3D0utze67RiGg-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DJeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg%26r%3DRBx0-WJrAO5vwSOLNmFbqYvikvIZS5ns3-USwvMOuLo%26m%3DjqVgS0XjNSmttSUahDdaDaAsBeK67RlyWHCj8N7ZMJw%26s%3DYzF36y8eV4SG3E0LJEDu-9AMm3Nh05dwp_XKhB6BUyU%26e&data=02%7C01%7Ctnf8%40PITT.EDU%7Cdc51ccda0c794046d93408d6abb362a8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C636885184288914407&sdata=ec0HIKuOMVqlLU7knyQ1JdS1B6c1BMCIb%2FYsHIFdYbM%3D&reserved=0=> and include the link in your
> > > posting.
> > > > *****
> > > >
> > > > Hi.
> > > > There are software solutions that are able to create image
> data from
> > > wide-field and even microscope systems with seemingly similar
> quality to
> > > that obtained from confocal systems.
> > > >
> > > > The comparison of acquisition vs. software is essentially a
> comparison
> > > of image acquisition vs. image processing. While a software
> solution is way
> > > cheaper than a hardware solution if it is able to produce
> image data with
> > > equal quality why would anyone choose to invest to a confocal
> anymore?
> > > >
> > > > I’m looking forward to a vidid discussion!
> > > >
> > > >> m
> > >
> >
> >
> --
> Alison J. North, Ph.D.,
> Research Associate Professor and
> Senior Director of the Bio-Imaging Resource Center,
> The Rockefeller University,
> 1230 York Avenue,
> New York,
> NY 10065.
> Tel: office ++ 212 327 7488
> Tel: lab ++ 212 327 7486
> Fax: ++ 212 327 7489
>
>
>
Benjamin E. Smith, Ph. D.