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

 
While I agree with all the comments etc concerning ImageJ, at the risk
of being flamed I would differ on a couple points.

As popular and well supported as ImageJ may be in the public domain it
doesn't come with a dedicated sales and support team.  This is what you
are getting when you buy a commercial product, the dedicated backup.
Yeah you pay for it but then its there on the end of the phone when you
need it.  In a multi-user environment that can be critical as it reduces
the need of someone on staff to be the "expert" support person serving
everyone's needs.

Training is also a key issue.  If you have a small group you can keep
rolling on ImageJ updates and new features if everyone is brought into
using it.  But in Andrea's case I suspect she needs this support,
particularly if staff is turning over and needs are changing.  Many of
us have better things to do with our time than training everyone on
using the software we have.  Unless of course that is your job.

Again I'm not knocking ImageJ.  It will always be the first place for
the newest analysis routines and tools as nothing out there commercially
has the kind of programming support ImageJ has.  However for many folks
the need for something they can use and get support for is greater
otherwise a lot of companies would be out of business.

Ian Clements
Invitrogen Corp

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of CALM Head
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Image analysis software

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

I doubt very much that most commercial imaging software packages e.g.
Imaris, Volocity or Metamorph (we use in our imaging facilities beside
ImageJ) are more sophisticated than ImageJ if you want to use them for
image
analysis and quantitation. The only thing the commercial softwares are
better at is the visual output. So if you are rather interested in
swirling
around images in 3D and make surfaces of surface-rendered objects nice
and
shiny, then you have to go the expensive way. So it all depends what you
want to achieve.

Cheers

Rolly