*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

When you illuminate a single pixel, some charge inevitably leaks to
adjacent pixels.  The result of this is a roll off of the MTF.

For what it's worth, Sony and various vendor's claimed to have solved
this problem with techniques like deep trench isolation, where a deep
nonconductive barrier is etched between pixels. This is pretty
important for applications like cell phone cameras where the pixels
are extremely densely packed.  It is less important as pixel sizes get
larger, but will probably trickle down from mass market to scientific
imaging eventually.

Mike

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Andrew York
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
>  I'm also happy to receive this education; I didn't know cameras had an
> MTF!
>
>  I'd noticed before that I've never managed to focus light onto a single
> pixel of an SCMOS without also illuminating adjacent pixels, but I assumed
> this was due to my optics. I suspected the sensor, but didn't have a
> mechanism to blame.
>
> Does anyone know typical MTF values for SCMOS and EMCCD sensors?
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Rusty Nicovich <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
>> *****
>>
>> Gerhard,
>>
>> Happy to be corrected.  Thanks for the info!
>>
>> Rusty
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Gerhard Holst <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > *****
>> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
>> posting.
>> > *****
>> >
>> > Dear Rusty,
>> >
>> > I just wanted to correct your assumption that the recent QE improvement
>> in
>> > the CSI2020 Image sensor (BAE Fairchild) cameras by PCO, Andor and
>> > Hamamatsu with an QE increase up to 80% is NOT based on a back thinned
>> > version, but on a process improvement in the fab and an optimized optical
>> > stack (e.g. better microlenses).
>> > The BSI400 base cameras from Photometrics, Princeton Instruments and
>> > Tucsen are based on a backside thinned sCMOS image sensor.
>> >
>> > While backside thinning usually comes with an improved QE (no need for
>> > microlenses) it also comes at a cost, it always has a reduction of the
>> MTF
>> > as consequence, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always less MTF
>> > compared to frontside illuminated and second, the additional boundary
>> layer
>> > is always an additional source for dark current and noise, sometimes
>> more,
>> > sometimes less, but always more compared to frontside illuminated. These
>> > are semiconductor physics.
>> >
>> > But like all other camera applications, the camera has to fit to the
>> > application.
>> >
>> > with best regards,
>> >
>> > Gerhard
>> > ___________________________
>> > Dr. Gerhard Holst
>> > PCO AG
>> > Donaupark 11
>> > 93309 Kelheim, Germany
>> > fon +49 (0)9441 2005 0
>> > fax +49 (0)9441 2005 20
>> > www.pco.de
>> > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Johann Plöb
>> > Umsatzsteuer ID-Nr.: DE128590843
>> > Steuernummer: 132/120/68033
>> > Registergericht: Amtsgericht Regensburg HRB 9157
>> >
>> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> > Von: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> > Im Auftrag von Rusty Nicovich
>> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 18:36
>> > An: [log in to unmask]
>> > Betreff: Re: 95b versus the world
>> >
>> > *****
>> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
>> posting.
>> > *****
>> >
>> > Kurt's comparison is excellent and covers most of the issues with this
>> > camera.
>> >
>> > We have one on our SMLM rig, replacing a 70% QE PCO sCMOS and with a 82%
>> > QE Orca v2 on the other side port.  This is not a back-thinned version of
>> > the usual sCMOS camera (all? using the CIS2020 sensor chip, now the
>> > back-thinned SCI2020 from Fairchild), but rather a different back-thinned
>> > sensor chip all together (GSense 144 BSI).  There was some trepidation
>> > buying a camera based on a new chip from a new company, packaged by a
>> small
>> > camera company, but
>> >
>> > The 95B is more sensitive than the other two cameras, though the field of
>> > view is reduced.  That is both because of the smaller chip and because of
>> > the need for the 1.5x optivar with a 100x objective to get to sub-Nyquist
>> > sampling.  The larger pixels are slightly annoying, but it's still better
>> > than an 897 or even 888.  We have ours on the output of an adaptive
>> optics
>> > module so we're actually constrained by the size of the deformable mirror
>> > rather than the chip.  As such we have to tolerate some
>> larger-than-desired
>> > pixels.
>> >
>> > The 95B has better fixed pattern noise characteristics than the usual
>> > sCMOS cameras.  There is some additional on-device correction that helps.
>> > For the highest precision you'd want to map the fixed pattern noise/pixel
>> > response but that's true for all chips.
>> >
>> > We have ours running in MicroManager (1.4 and 2.0) and Metamorph.  There
>> > may be more options but that's all of the acquisition softwares on that
>> > system.  We also have it on a water circulator to cut the fan when
>> needed.
>> > This adds ~$1k to the cost.
>> >
>> > One fun quirk is that the camera doesn't use a frame grabber.  Instead it
>> > has a small card allowing it to act as a PCIe x4 device directly.  This
>> is
>> > nice for less fooling with frame grabber software, but it means that the
>> > camera *has* to be turned on when the PC boots or the PC won't recognize
>> > it.  You can imagine some small complications with this if you, for
>> > example, do data transfers overnight from instrument PCs and now have to
>> > shutdown/start up the computer before acquisitions.
>> >
>> > Price is basically halfway between the usual sCMOS cameras (Orca, Zyla,
>> PCO
>> > Edge) and an EMCCD (897, 888...).
>> >
>> > With these 95% QE chips on the low-light end and the Sony Pregius machine
>> > vision sensors on the low end (ie the Point Grey Blackfly - 5 MP, 75 fps,
>> > 70+% QE, USB 3.0, and $1100 USD) there are a lot of exciting options for
>> > cameras in the last year.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Rusty
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Kurt Thorn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > *****
>> > > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> > > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> > > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
>> > posting.
>> > > *****
>> > >
>> > > On 2/8/2017 8:36 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b against
>> > >> leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to know how it
>> > >> compares in real world use, especially:
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Here's the comparison I did last summer:
>> > > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/2016/
>> > > 07/testing-the-prime95b-a-back-illuminated-scmos-camera-with-95-qe/
>> > >
>> > > Kurt
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Kurt Thorn
>> > > Associate Professor
>> > > Director, Nikon Imaging Center
>> > > http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
>> > > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
>> > >
>> >
>>