Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 21 May 2008 10:20:20 -0400 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Wellll. I was going to ask a question, but, ah, maybe I'll just go to the
M&M listserver instead.
John
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Zoltan Cseresnyes
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SNR
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Sarah,
If I may be so bold as to point out that the lack of response to your post
may reflect that you perhaps overwhelmed the forum with your endless supply
of questions. We all like to rely on help from the numerous and very
generous experts on this wonderful forum, but we also do try to solve our
problems first, and only address the forum if we ran out of ideas. Just my
2c, of course.
Best,
Zoltan
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Sarah Kefayati <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Hello all,
I need to calculate signal to background as I am going through the depth.I
am using a Tetraspeck beads injected to the arabdiopsis leaf to test this.So
far I have done that with this way:I have cropped the beads in the different
depth and I have use the simple standard deviation to show that I am loosing
my signal as I am going through the depth.But I don't think that is a good
scale of SNR.There is an article
http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/rapidpdf/biophysj.106.102459v1
They have calculated exactly what I am looking for with the same approch of
injecting beads to the OHBS and calculating the SNR in each depth.But the
method that they have calculated SNR is not clear for me.I appreciate if you
could check the paper and give me any idea that you get.I tried to contact
the author,no luck!
Thanks
Sarah
--
--
Zoltan Cseresnyes
Facility manager, Imaging Suite
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
|
|
|