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

> Though I can not think of many instances where you would need to
> capture
> anythign in real time. All the "movies" we do here are captured
> anywhere
> from 1 frame every minute to 1 frame every hour.

I think that people who are studying (intracellular) molecular dynamics will
kindly disagree in this respect ;-)

Why else are EMCCD camera's becoming so popular now? Some of them can go up
to about 500 fps.

Kind regards,

Kevin


Kevin Braeckmans, Ph.D.
Lab. General Biochemistry and Physical Pharmacy
Ghent University
Harelbekestraat 72
9000 Ghent
Belgium
Tel: +32 (0)9 264.80.78
Fax: +32 (0)9 264.81.89

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Namens Nowell, Cameron
> Verzonden: dinsdag 2 oktober 2007 23:14
> Aan: [log in to unmask]
> Onderwerp: Re: video vs. CCD cameras
> 
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
> 
> Hi Donald,
>           I can see no need for anyone to purchase a older style video
> camera instead of a new CCD. The new CCDs have the features you
> mentioned, plus increased resolution and if you have the right camera
> an
> ability to capture data at high frame rates (to do full motion video).
> Though I can not think of many instances where you would need to
> capture
> anythign in real time. All the "movies" we do here are captured
> anywhere
> from 1 frame every minute to 1 frame every hour.
> 
> 
> That being said we still have a couple of scopes with older style video
> cameras on them (though I am pretty sure they are CCD based as well)
> that we use for demonstating disections on.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Cam
> 
> 
> Cameron Nowell B.Sc (Hons)
> 
> Microscopy Imaging and Research Core Facility Peter MacCallum Cancer
> Centre
> 7 St Andrews Place
> East Melbourne, Victoria 3002
> 
> Phone: +61396561243
> Mobile: +61422882700
> Fax: +61396561411
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On
> Behalf Of Donald M. O'Malley
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2007 7:02 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: video vs. CCD cameras
> 
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> Not strictly a confocal question, but I am wondering if researchers are
> still purchasing traditional "video"
> cameras (i.e. Vidicon / Newvicon electronic imaging devices).  My
> impression is that CCDs can now do everything the old-style video
> camera
> could do, and offer important advantages (such as quantum efficiency,
> linearity and dynamic range).  But I am just wondering if there are any
> imaging niches where the tube style
> cameras are surviving?    I would expect that many of
> these instruments are still in use-- they provided many great movies of
> living cells and organelles over the years!
> But are researchers still buying them?
> 
> thanks for any comments,
> Don
> 
> p.s.  And I still owe the list a bibliography...which will
>    hopefully emerge from the chaos of my life!
> 
> Donald M. O'Malley
> Associate Professor
> Dept. Biology
> Northeastern University
> 
> This email (including any attachments) may contain
> confidential and/or legally privileged information and is
> intended only to be read or used by the addressee.  If you
> are not the intended addressee, any use, distribution,
> disclosure or copying of this email is strictly
> prohibited.
> Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this email
> (including any attachments) are not waived or lost by
> reason of its mistaken delivery to you.
> If you have received this email in error, please delete it
> and notify us immediately by telephone or email.  Peter
> MacCallum Cancer Centre provides no guarantee that this
> transmission is free of virus or that it has not been
> intercepted or altered and will not be liable for any delay
> in its receipt.