CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

July 2008

CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@LISTS.UMN.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML 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:
Shalin Mehta <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:24:26 +0800
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (985 bytes) , text/html (1293 bytes)
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Dear list,

 During a demonstration today, I came to know that FV1000 doesn't allow
imaging more than two channels during bidirectional scan. I don't appreciate
why? and couldn't get clear explanation.
Thinking more about it, to me it seems that bidirectional scanning is not
bad inherently. One should be able to know pixel locations and measure
signal as accurately as in unidirectional scanning with flyback.

What is the instrument limitation that leads to noisy and 'streaky' data
during bi-directional scanning?

thanks
shalin

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shalin Mehta
mobile: +65-90694182
blog: shalin.wordpress.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bioimaging Lab, Block-E3A, #7-10
Div of Bioengineering, NUS Singapore 117574
website: http://www.bioeng.nus.edu.sg/optbioimaging/colin/index.html

Liver Cancer Functional Genomics Lab, #6-05
National Cancer Centre, Singapore 169610
http://www.nccs.com.sg/researcher/02_04d.htm


ATOM RSS1 RSS2