video vs. CCD cameras

[O'Malley, Donald]

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Hi Folks,

Not strictly a confocal question, but I am wondering if
researchers are still purchasing traditional "video"
cameras (i.e. Vidicon / Newvicon electronic imaging
devices).  My impression is that CCDs can now do
everything the old-style video camera could do, and
offer important advantages (such as quantum efficiency,
linearity and dynamic range).  But I am just wondering
if there are any imaging niches where the tube style
cameras are surviving?    I would expect that many of
these instruments are still in use-- they provided many
great movies of living cells and organelles over the years!
But are researchers still buying them?

thanks for any comments,
Don

p.s.  And I still owe the list a bibliography...which will
   hopefully emerge from the chaos of my life!

Donald M. O'Malley
Associate Professor
Dept. Biology
Northeastern University

[Nowell, Cameron]

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Hi Donald,
          I can see no need for anyone to purchase a older style video
camera instead of a new CCD. The new CCDs have the features you
mentioned, plus increased resolution and if you have the right camera an
ability to capture data at high frame rates (to do full motion video).
Though I can not think of many instances where you would need to capture
anythign in real time. All the "movies" we do here are captured anywhere
from 1 frame every minute to 1 frame every hour.


That being said we still have a couple of scopes with older style video
cameras on them (though I am pretty sure they are CCD based as well)
that we use for demonstating disections on.


Cheers

Cam


Cameron Nowell B.Sc (Hons)

Microscopy Imaging and Research Core Facility Peter MacCallum Cancer
Centre
7 St Andrews Place
East Melbourne, Victoria 3002

Phone: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]



-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Donald M. O'Malley
Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2007 7:02 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: video vs. CCD cameras

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Hi Folks,

Not strictly a confocal question, but I am wondering if researchers are
still purchasing traditional "video"
cameras (i.e. Vidicon / Newvicon electronic imaging devices).  My
impression is that CCDs can now do everything the old-style video camera
could do, and offer important advantages (such as quantum efficiency,
linearity and dynamic range).  But I am just wondering if there are any
imaging niches where the tube style
cameras are surviving?    I would expect that many of
these instruments are still in use-- they provided many great movies of
living cells and organelles over the years!
But are researchers still buying them?

thanks for any comments,
Don

p.s.  And I still owe the list a bibliography...which will
   hopefully emerge from the chaos of my life!

Donald M. O'Malley
Associate Professor
Dept. Biology
Northeastern University

This email (including any attachments) may contain
confidential and/or legally privileged information and is
intended only to be read or used by the addressee.  If you
are not the intended addressee, any use, distribution,
disclosure or copying of this email is strictly
prohibited.
Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this email
(including any attachments) are not waived or lost by
reason of its mistaken delivery to you.
If you have received this email in error, please delete it
and notify us immediately by telephone or email.  Peter
MacCallum Cancer Centre provides no guarantee that this
transmission is free of virus or that it has not been
intercepted or altered and will not be liable for any delay
in its receipt.

[Kevin Braeckmans]

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

> Though I can not think of many instances where you would need to
> capture
> anythign in real time. All the "movies" we do here are captured
> anywhere
> from 1 frame every minute to 1 frame every hour.

I think that people who are studying (intracellular) molecular dynamics will
kindly disagree in this respect ;-)

Why else are EMCCD camera's becoming so popular now? Some of them can go up
to about 500 fps.

Kind regards,

Kevin


Kevin Braeckmans, Ph.D.
Lab. General Biochemistry and Physical Pharmacy
Ghent University
Harelbekestraat 72
9000 Ghent
Belgium
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Namens Nowell, Cameron
> Verzonden: dinsdag 2 oktober 2007 23:14
> Aan: [hidden email]
> Onderwerp: Re: video vs. CCD cameras
>
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> Hi Donald,
>           I can see no need for anyone to purchase a older style video
> camera instead of a new CCD. The new CCDs have the features you
> mentioned, plus increased resolution and if you have the right camera
> an
> ability to capture data at high frame rates (to do full motion video).
> Though I can not think of many instances where you would need to
> capture
> anythign in real time. All the "movies" we do here are captured
> anywhere
> from 1 frame every minute to 1 frame every hour.
>
>
> That being said we still have a couple of scopes with older style video
> cameras on them (though I am pretty sure they are CCD based as well)
> that we use for demonstating disections on.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Cam
>
>
> Cameron Nowell B.Sc (Hons)
>
> Microscopy Imaging and Research Core Facility Peter MacCallum Cancer
> Centre
> 7 St Andrews Place
> East Melbourne, Victoria 3002
>
> Phone: [phone]
> Mobile: [phone]
> Fax: [phone]
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On
> Behalf Of Donald M. O'Malley
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2007 7:02 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: video vs. CCD cameras
>
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Not strictly a confocal question, but I am wondering if researchers are
> still purchasing traditional "video"
> cameras (i.e. Vidicon / Newvicon electronic imaging devices).  My
> impression is that CCDs can now do everything the old-style video
> camera
> could do, and offer important advantages (such as quantum efficiency,
> linearity and dynamic range).  But I am just wondering if there are any
> imaging niches where the tube style
> cameras are surviving?    I would expect that many of
> these instruments are still in use-- they provided many great movies of
> living cells and organelles over the years!
> But are researchers still buying them?
>
> thanks for any comments,
> Don
>
> p.s.  And I still owe the list a bibliography...which will
>    hopefully emerge from the chaos of my life!
>
> Donald M. O'Malley
> Associate Professor
> Dept. Biology
> Northeastern University
>
> This email (including any attachments) may contain
> confidential and/or legally privileged information and is
> intended only to be read or used by the addressee.  If you
> are not the intended addressee, any use, distribution,
> disclosure or copying of this email is strictly
> prohibited.
> Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this email
> (including any attachments) are not waived or lost by
> reason of its mistaken delivery to you.
> If you have received this email in error, please delete it
> and notify us immediately by telephone or email.  Peter
> MacCallum Cancer Centre provides no guarantee that this
> transmission is free of virus or that it has not been
> intercepted or altered and will not be liable for any delay
> in its receipt.

[Patrick Van Oostveldt]

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Dear,

We agree with Kevin, our first impression with confocal was that the  
observed structures where quite immobile, but looking with a EMCCD we  
stated they were shaking as mad.
So you cant conclude that the object stand still if you dont look at  
it in high speed.Nyquist criteria are needed for XY imaging but also  
for time sequences.

Bye

Patrick Van Oostveldt


Quoting Kevin Braeckmans <[hidden email]>:

> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
>> Though I can not think of many instances where you would need to
>> capture
>> anythign in real time. All the "movies" we do here are captured
>> anywhere
>> from 1 frame every minute to 1 frame every hour.
>
> I think that people who are studying (intracellular) molecular dynamics will
> kindly disagree in this respect ;-)
>
> Why else are EMCCD camera's becoming so popular now? Some of them can go up
> to about 500 fps.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Kevin
>
>
> Kevin Braeckmans, Ph.D.
> Lab. General Biochemistry and Physical Pharmacy
> Ghent University
> Harelbekestraat 72
> 9000 Ghent
> Belgium
> Tel: [phone]
> Fax: [phone]
>
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Namens Nowell, Cameron
>> Verzonden: dinsdag 2 oktober 2007 23:14
>> Aan: [hidden email]
>> Onderwerp: Re: video vs. CCD cameras
>>
>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>>
>> Hi Donald,
>>           I can see no need for anyone to purchase a older style video
>> camera instead of a new CCD. The new CCDs have the features you
>> mentioned, plus increased resolution and if you have the right camera
>> an
>> ability to capture data at high frame rates (to do full motion video).
>> Though I can not think of many instances where you would need to
>> capture
>> anythign in real time. All the "movies" we do here are captured
>> anywhere
>> from 1 frame every minute to 1 frame every hour.
>>
>>
>> That being said we still have a couple of scopes with older style video
>> cameras on them (though I am pretty sure they are CCD based as well)
>> that we use for demonstating disections on.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Cam
>>
>>
>> Cameron Nowell B.Sc (Hons)
>>
>> Microscopy Imaging and Research Core Facility Peter MacCallum Cancer
>> Centre
>> 7 St Andrews Place
>> East Melbourne, Victoria 3002
>>
>> Phone: [phone]
>> Mobile: [phone]
>> Fax: [phone]
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> On
>> Behalf Of Donald M. O'Malley
>> Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2007 7:02 AM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: video vs. CCD cameras
>>
>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> Not strictly a confocal question, but I am wondering if researchers are
>> still purchasing traditional "video"
>> cameras (i.e. Vidicon / Newvicon electronic imaging devices).  My
>> impression is that CCDs can now do everything the old-style video
>> camera
>> could do, and offer important advantages (such as quantum efficiency,
>> linearity and dynamic range).  But I am just wondering if there are any
>> imaging niches where the tube style
>> cameras are surviving?    I would expect that many of
>> these instruments are still in use-- they provided many great movies of
>> living cells and organelles over the years!
>> But are researchers still buying them?
>>
>> thanks for any comments,
>> Don
>>
>> p.s.  And I still owe the list a bibliography...which will
>>    hopefully emerge from the chaos of my life!
>>
>> Donald M. O'Malley
>> Associate Professor
>> Dept. Biology
>> Northeastern University
>>
>> This email (including any attachments) may contain
>> confidential and/or legally privileged information and is
>> intended only to be read or used by the addressee.  If you
>> are not the intended addressee, any use, distribution,
>> disclosure or copying of this email is strictly
>> prohibited.
>> Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this email
>> (including any attachments) are not waived or lost by
>> reason of its mistaken delivery to you.
>> If you have received this email in error, please delete it
>> and notify us immediately by telephone or email.  Peter
>> MacCallum Cancer Centre provides no guarantee that this
>> transmission is free of virus or that it has not been
>> intercepted or altered and will not be liable for any delay
>> in its receipt.
>

--
Dep. Moleculaire Biotechnologie
Coupure links 653
B 9000 GENT

tel [phone]
fax [phone]