CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

March 2007

CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@LISTS.UMN.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Marc Green <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:20:37 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

List,

I am having some difficulty understanding exactly how "offset" as used by
OpenLab talking to a Hamamatsu ORCA is being applied.
My initial understanding of how this sort of function was applied was that a
fixed amount of current coming off the chip would be deducted from every
measurement, "setting black to a given value".
In OpenLab it is expressed as a percentage, but a percentage of what? The
range of intensities in a given captured frame? Or a percentage of all 12
bits the camera can produce?  In a few quick snapshots with transmitted
light I have failed to convince myself that it is working in a linear
fashion.

This has all come up because a user imaging YFP has reported that a 5%
offset (as opposed to 0) is making all the difference in detecting signal
over background, eliminating the need for histogram stretches.
I am concerned that a blanket hardware offset at collection (as opposed to a
calibrated pixel by pixel table) may be skewing (perverting?) the data when
we are working in the bottom end of the camera sensitivity.

Thanks for your thoughts,
Marc

------------------
Marc D Green
[log in to unmask]
Pombe.net

ATOM RSS1 RSS2