Wes Wallace wrote:

> We have been using Autodeblur from Autoquant on an NT machine.  In our
> experience, it is the best deconvolution software on the market not only
> for PCs but for any platform.  The other available software require
> empirically acquired point-spread functions which are very demanding to
> acquire.  If the empirical point-spread function is not acquired under
> absolutely pristine conditions, the deconvolution will impair your image
> more than it will improve it.

--A couple (or three) comments:  First, the Huygens 2 package from
Scientific Volume Imaging (http://www.svi.nl), though written for SGI's
(and I understand now, for Linux), is an incredibly well-written and
user-friendly deconvolution package--wonderful to work with and
wonderfully supported.  Second, although Hans VanderVoort (the developer
of it) would probably rend his clothes and gnash his teeth to hear me
say this, very good results can (at least sometimes) be obtained using
calculated PSF's.  I found that images obtained on a BioRad MRC-1024
using Olympus BX-series optics could be improved considerably using a
calculated PSF; the result with an empirical PSF was only slightly
better.  I gather that different microscopes and different confocals may
produce PSFs that vary more from the theoretical, but in my hands, it
works.  Third, obtaining an empirical PSF is NOT a big deal--it's just a
matter of imaging some beads and letting the software do its thing.
It's minutes of data-collection/analysis, not "months of headaches".

Thus the Autoquant package may be fine, but there are other good cars on
the lot, too.

Good luck!

Martin Wessendorf
--
Martin Wessendorf, Ph.D.                        office: (612) 626 0145
Associate Professor                             lab:    (612) 624 2991
Dept. Neuroscience                      Preferred FAX:  (612) 624 8118
University of Minnesota                 Dept FAX:       (612) 626 5009
Minneapolis, MN  55455                e-mail: [log in to unmask]