At 06:24 PM 28/4/98 +0100, Udo Friedrich wrote:
>Thanks to everyone for the comments.
>
>I imply from the statements obtained that a 63x lens satisfies
>most applications because its high NA brings us very high
>resolution. Beside the physical resolution the magnification seems to
>be important to enable a given detector to record all resolvable
>details. Would Mark Auty's 100/1.4 thus resolve better than a
>63/1.4? Would (image) pixelation of a given bacterial cell
>obtained by the x100 lens thus appear less grainy if both
>images were zoomed to the same size?
>
>Udo Friedrich

Perhaps Udo's question regards using "software zoom". ie. collecting an
image saving it, and then increasing the magnification using software
tools. In which case the "pixelation" would "appear less grainy" using the
100X objective.
However this is not what everyone is suggesting. Using "software zoom"
after the image has been saved is not a great option. The zoom everyone has
been talking about is decreasing the area that the confocal scans or "live
zoom". Using a ~ 60X, high NA lens, and then using a "live zoom" of 2 (ie.
2x) will result in 120X magnification at the highest possible resolution.
With point scanning microscopy there is really no point in using a 100X
objective. I hope this clears the misunderstanding.

   Stephen H. Cody,                        __    /
   Department of Physiology,             _/  \__/ \
   University of Melbourne,             /          \
   Parkville, Victoria 3052,           /  Australia \
   Australia.                          \   ____     /
   Ph:  +61 3 9344 5816                 \_/    \_*_/
   Fax: +61 3 9344 5818                         __
   [log in to unmask]             \/