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

> We have two Noran Oz, a PE Ultraview and a Visitech QLC100.
>
> I agree, the Noran was way ahead of it's time. Great hardware, clunky
> software - not just because of the "unfriendly" Silicon Graphics
> platform. Trying to get the software to do dual channel imaging is
> quite something, not at all  intuitive. It will however, do high
> speed *simultaneous* dual channel imaging, something the camera based
> confocals have yet to sort out. And of course, as you say, FRAP

Hmmm.  We are about to set this up using the Yokogawa scanhead and the
Optical Insights Multi-view box.  I expect no problems, especially since
we build this set-up at the last ASCB meeting and have been very happy
with the Multi-view box in other applications (including simultanuous
single molecule imaging).  So, I don't think this last statement was true...


(and
> therefore FRET that uses photobleaching) cannot be done with a camera
> based system.

True, the only way would be to have a second optical path that does the
bleaching.  Would be nice (and not impossible to build).



> Getting the Noran software to grab a hi-res image is also difficult,
> but it will do it - I can email you a hi-res image if you'd like.
>
> I think one of the flaws was in the marketing rather than the
> hardware. It was sold pretty much exclusivley based on its speed, but
> slowed down (albeit still pretty quick) it generates pretty good
> hi-res images (I'll get around to putting numbers on this one
> day...). So, the short answer is the hardware seems great but the
> software is appawling, especially compared to modern software. A
> friendly PC version of the software would have benefited the hardware
> as its capabilities would have been easier to exploit. I'm sure there
> are existing users that would be interested in a PC version of the
> software too.
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> Tony
>
>
> > Folks; this is really aimed at those of you who owned a Noran
> > system, and
> > then have acquired a Yokagawa head (Perkin Elmer/Solamere
> > etc). Which system
> > worked(s) better?(with respect to
> > sensitivity/bleaching/flexibility) I have
> > always thought that the Noran was an instrument before its
> > time and while
> > being a point scan/slit scan system had enormous flexibility
> > (bleaching, ROI
> > scanning etc) that the Nipgow disk system simply  doesnt
> > have.  What if it
> > had been designed in a pc platform, would it have continued
> > to be used, or
> > did it fail for some inherent design flaw that I am unaware of?
> > Looking for input.
> > Thanks
> > Simon
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> > Simon C Watkins Ph.D.
> > Professor,  Cell Biology and Physiology
> > Director, Center for Biologic Imaging
> > BSTS 225
> > University of Pittsburgh
> > Pittsburgh PA 15261
> > tel: 412-648-3051
> > fax: 412-648-2797
> > URL: http://www.cbi.pitt.edu
> > -------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
> Senior Research Associate
> Laboratory of Molecular Signalling
> Babraham Institute
> Babraham
> Cambridge, UK
> CB2 4AT
> Tel: +44 (0)1223 496499
> Fax: +44 (0)1223 496043
>
> The contents of this e-mail are the views of the sender and do not
> necessarily represent the views of The Babraham Institute or of
> BBSRC.  This e-mail is confidential. It should not be read, copied,
> disclosed or used by any person other than the intended recipient.
> Unauthorised use, disclosure or copying by whatever medium is
> strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
> e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and delete the
> e-mail from your system.
> Although we have taken steps to check that this e-mail and
> attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with
> good computing practice the recipient should also ensure they are
> actually virus free.
>