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

Hi Randy,

I am not sure if EM-CCD will solve the problem, as it is quite noisy at very
low light levels. I tested back-thinned EM-CCD versus back-thinned EB-CCD
(both Hamamatsu), the EB-CCD was performing much better at 66 msec
exposures. However, TIRFM and wide-filed with fast filter wheels could be
better choice than Spinning Disc. Fast (30 msec) filter wheels are needed
for Live cellls in order to avoid pixel shift when monitoring two fluors
simultaneously (FRET, etc.)

Vitaly

Vitaly P. Boyko
Senior Research Fellow
HIV Drug Resistance Program,
National Cancer Institute,
Frederick, MD 21702
301-846-6575


----- Original Message -----
From: "James Pawley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Spinning Disk Confocals


> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
>>Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>>
>>We have experience with spinning disk, mostly unfavorable.  The two
>>we bought are never used.  The price, simplicity, and wavelength
>>flexibility is initially very attractive but in the end, they just
>>don't have enough sensitivity.  I can perhaps answer more detailed
>>questions regarding spinning disk confocal if it helps...
>>  Cheers!
>>Randy Stroetz. Mayo
>
>
> Hi Randy,
>
> Don't give up yet.
>
> Unless you have tried your disk-scanner with a GOOD EM-CCD camera.
>
> Such a camera should solve the "sensitivity" problem.
>
> At the UBC course this year we had at least 4 disk scanners and those
> with EM-CCDs made a lot of friends looking at live cells.
>
> Jim Pawley
> --
> Jim Pawley (Summer address) c/o Postmaster, Egmont, BC, Canada,
> V0N-1N0 604-883-2095, [log in to unmask]
>