Friends
do you have an idea of the price of autoquant software! Is it the same sold
by deltavision? My information, in that case, are that the price, even if
including microscope et al., is very high around 200 KUSD!
Bye
ALby
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"It was morning, and the new sun sparkled
gold across the ripples of a gentle sea.
[...] More than anything else, Jonathan
Livingston Seagull loved to fly."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Diaspro
INFM-Dept. of Physics, Univ.Genoa
Via Dodecaneso 33, 16146 Genoa, Italy
voice: +39-0103536426/480  fax 010314218
***********************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Holmes" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: deconvolution


> AutoQuant sells a deconvolution package for the confocal microscope and
for
> widefield optics.  www.aqi.com
>
> There are some papers on the topic you brought up about which modality
gives
> sharper
> images.
>
> See the paper by Peter Shaw,   Prog. Biophys. molec. Biol., Vol. 56, pp.
> 187- 213, 1991.
> and the chapter by me in The Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy,
by
> J. Pawley.
>
> Generally, our experience and as pointed out by Peter Shaw is that:
>
> Widefield deconvolution and confocal microscopy without deconvolution
> provide
>    comparable resolution in all 3 directions (x, y and z).  The widefield
> case provides a little resoution improvement, but it is subtle. If you are
> making it
>    choice between these 2 modalities, lower noise (better signal to
noise),
> lower
>         photobleaching, faster acquisition and some other advantages speak
in
>         favor of widefield.  The fact that no time is needed for
deconvolution
>         and that there are no deconvolution-induced artifacts speaks in
favor of
>         confocal.
>
> Confocal with deconvolution provides far superior resolution, especially
> along z,
> compared to widefield with deconvolution.  Depending upon the settup, you
> can expect on the order of 0.2 micrometers resolution along z, compared to
> about 0.5 to 0.8 with widefield.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Sarah Locknar
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 2:08 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: deconvolution
>
>
> Hi-
> We're looking into buying a new confocal / deconvolution scope and I'm
> wondering
> if anyone has a feel for which gives a sharper, more detailed image
assuming
> all
> optics are otherwise the same (i.e. identical objectives and sample) - one
> generated using a deconvolution microscope or one generated with a
confocal
> microscope which has then undergone a deconvolution algorithm.  Also, what
> sort
> of deconvolution packages are out there, how long does data processing
take
> and
> what sort of price range are we talking about?
> Thanks-
> Sarah
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Sarah Locknar, Ph.D.
> Confocal Microscopy Coordinator
> Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology
> University of Vermont
> 802-656-0413
> ----------------------------------------------------
>