Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 1 Feb 1995 17:51:37 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In response to Paul Goodwin's question about resolution:
Any definition of resolution (Full-width Half-Maximum, Rayleigh's Criterion
1/e diameter, etc) is purely arbitrary. I see no reason that any would
be, in general, poorly suited for electronic imaging. Certain definitions
sometimes do fit a particular problem, though, and for calculations of
background rejection and signal-to-noise in confocal microscopy, we used
the 1/e^2 contour to define a focal volume. This volume corresponds to
90% of the light generated by a point source, so was convenient for our
purposes (se articles by Sandison et al. in Applied Optics, vols. 35 & 37,
and in the 3-D Confocal Microscopy book edited by Stevens, Mills & Trogadis).
For your comparison between deconvolution and confocal, 1/2 widths seem
as good as any other definition, but what you really need to compare is
not resolution but information content (signal-to-noise).
Unfortunately, this is not a trivial problem. . .
Dave Piston
Vanderbilt University
|
|
|