CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

September 2009

CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@LISTS.UMN.EDU
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 004F1A5285257656_="
Sender:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
RE Validating deconvolution
From:
[log in to unmask]
Date:
Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:24:11 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (787 bytes) , text/html (1824 bytes) 
Compare raw and deconvolved  fluorescent beads (150-200nm)  in X-Y and 
mostly Z directions,

Louis





sundar <[log in to unmask]>@LISTS.UMN.EDU 
Envoyé par : Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
2009-09-21 10:08
Veuillez répondre à
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>


A
[log in to unmask]
cc

Objet
Validating deconvolution








Hello all,

I'm using a deconvolution software to deconvolve a 3D stack. Does anyone
know of any way in which I can measure the improvement over the original
dataset? Are there any standard techniques for the same?

Thanks,
Sundar
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://n2.nabble.com/Validating-deconvolution-tp3685530p3685530.html
Sent from the Confocal Microscopy List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2