CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

February 2008

CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@LISTS.UMN.EDU
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: Best parameters for optical slicing
From:
"M. van de Corput" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:50:00 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines) 
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Julio Vazquez wrote:
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at 
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal =
>
> Yes, nanometers, of course.... my apologies. 
>
> Julio.
I would not use blind deconvolution. When your system has an 
asymmetrical PSF (mostly due to RI mismatches) blind deconvolution can 
create artifacts that might look like mitochondria (fusion of signals 
into linear structures). So image a 100nm or 200nm bead and use that for 
deconvolution.

Mariette

ATOM RSS1 RSS2