I totally agree with you, Joachim.

As we deal with so many restrictions the validity of our models may be
impaired by the numerous assumptions that are being made. Therefore a fair
test should be applied. This is only possible with known objects as the
deviation to that object can be measured in a direct way.

Despite this remark and to complement Andres' work, I like to show some
results that had been made under standard working conditions and show the
results of a wide field data set using different algorithms in comparison to
the same data set made in a confocal setup. The link (~600KByte images) is
http://www.golden.net/~lschafer .

Cheers
Lutz

______________________________________
Lutz Schaefer
Advanced Imaging Methodology Consultation
16-715 Doon Village Rd.
Kitchener, Ontario
N2P 2A2, Canada
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone, FAX: (519)-894-8870
______________________________________



-----Original Message-----
From: Joachim Walter <[log in to unmask]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.confocal
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: Deconvolution software


>Jeff and others,
>
>
>> I would rather see real beads.
>>
>
>Sorry, but I don't agree on this point. Using simulated data has the
>advantage that you know exactly what is your input to the algorithm,
>thus enables you to judge how the algorithm treats different kinds of
>aberrations. E.g. you create an "ideal" object and can apply all kinds
>of PSFs (also spacially varying ones), noise, lamp/laser jitter, ...
>separately by software. If you take "real" data, you always get the same
>set of aberrations that the microscope(s) you use create(s).
>I think the data Andres shows is a step in the right direction. Still I
>have two comments:
>