The problem appears to be that for some reason every message
gets submitted in duplicate. This naturally causes the server
to reject the second copy on the grounds it has already been
posted (which it has). What needs to be sorted is why messages
are getting posted twice when they are only sent once.
Guy
Optical Imaging Techniques in Cell Biology
by Guy Cox CRC Press / Taylor & Francis
http://www.guycox.com/optical.htm
______________________________________________
Associate Professor Guy Cox, MA, DPhil(Oxon)
Electron Microscope Unit, Madsen Building F09,
University of Sydney, NSW 2006
______________________________________________
Phone +61 2 9351 3176 Fax +61 2 9351 7682
Mobile 0413 281 861
______________________________________________
http://www.guycox.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ignatius, Mike
Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2008 3:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Rejected postings warnings keep coming up.
I have been getting similar odd notification each time I submit of late. Wondering if a fix is needed.
Starts of with subject line: Rejected posting to [log in to unmask]
Then this subject:
"Your message is being returned to you unprocessed because it appears to have already been distributed to the CONFOCAL list. That is, a message with identical text (but possibly with different mail headers) has been posted to the list recently, either by you or by someone else. If you have reason to resend this message to the list (for instance because you have been notified of a hardware failure with loss of data), please alter the text of the message in some way and resend it to the list. Altering the "Subject:" line or adding blank lines at the top or bottom of the message is not sufficient. Instead, you should add a sentence or two at the top explaining why you are resending the message. This explanation will help the other subscribers understand why they are getting two copies of the same message."
I haven't been double posting either.
Ideas on how to remedy?
Mike Ignatius,
Molecular Probes/Invitrogen
-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steffen Steinert
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 9:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: AW: Structured Illumination vs Deconvolution
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Sorry, for the multiple sending of the email. I always got an response from the list, that my email has been rejected so I sent it again without knowing it´s been sent already.
SORRY, won´t happen again!
Steffen
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Steffen Steinert
Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Juni 2008 18:30
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: AW: Structured Illumination vs Deconvolution
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Dear Claire,
According to recent reports (Schermelleh et al., Science 2008 or Gustafsson et al., Biophysical Journal 2008) Widefield-SIM breaks the resolution by a factor of about 2 to 3, laterally AND axially. Thus, you can separate objects being apart 100nm in lateral direction and 300nm axially.
>From my understanding, the restoration of attenuated higher spatial frequencies due to Deconvolution of 'ordinary' Widefield images will give you at best a resolution proposed by Abbe/Rayleigh (in frequency domain k(z)= NA²/2ηλ and k(xy)=2NA/λ). As far as I know (and I know rather little), calculating information beyond that limit using Deconvolution is not possible, since your OTF is zero and hence the information is lost and not just attenuated. Due to the spatial frequency mixing with a certain illumination pattern in SIM (interference of 3 mutually coherent beams in the Gustafsson paper) you will get a way bigger total Optical-Transfer-Function (with higher k-values) since you can additively overlay these OTFs in the frequency domain. Therefore, you´ll obtain images with a higher resolution than with a Widefield/Deconvolution system.
Hope this helps,
Cheers,
Steffen
Steffen Steinert, Dipl.-Ing.
--------------------------------------
Universität Stuttgart
3. Physikalisches Institut
Pfaffenwaldring 57
70550 Stuttgart
Tel.: 049/0711/68569832
Fax: 049/0711/68565281
http://www.pi3.uni-stuttgart.de/en/
--------------------------------------
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Claire Brown
Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Juni 2008 16:51
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Structured Illumination vs Deconvolution
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
I was wondering if there is any clear advantage to structured illumination versus deconvolution? Can it actually give you higher resolution?
Sincerely,
Claire
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1519 - Release Date: 25/06/2008 4:13 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1522 - Release Date: 27/06/2008 8:27 AM
|
