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

Dear Dr. Monosov--

Thanks for your sharing your experiences--always nice to know when
something good is coming down the road!

I have one question:

Edward Monosov, Ph.D. wrote:

> Testing protocol:
> We imaged samples with the GaAsP detector obtaining  good quality images
> at 1024x1024 format with a Kalman of 3, and then sequentially applied
> the same parameters of laser intensity, iris, gain and filters to the
> Multi-Alkali PMT.

Could mis-alignment have contributed to your results?  It sounds as if
you might've had a conventional PMT as (say) PMT1 and the GaAsP PMT as
(say) PMT2.  Is there any chance that the microscope was in better
alignment for the GaAsP PMT than for the conventional PMT?

Or were both sets of images collected with the two PMTs in the same
slot?  --I.e. was a set of images collected using the conventional PMT
in (say) PMT1, after which a GaAsP PMT was substituted for it and a
second set of images collected?

Thanks and best regards--

Martin Wessendorf

--
Martin Wessendorf, Ph.D.                   office: (612) 626-0145
Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: (612) 624-2991
University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: (612) 624-8118
6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: (612) 626-5009
Minneapolis, MN  55455                E-mail: [log in to unmask]