CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

September 2009

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:
From:
John Oreopoulos <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:26:14 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
Hi Sundar

I am unsure if there is a standard way to compare your "before" and  
"after" deconvolution image stacks, but one way that I've seen in the  
literature is to analyze identical line profiles in both image sets  
(either in the xy lateral dimensions or along the z-direction) and  
present the profiles on the same graph. If your deconvolution has  
worked, features of interest along your line profiles should be  
sharper in the deconvolved line. ImageJ has several standard  
functions and plugins that could be used to do this.

John Oreopoulos


On 21-Sep-09, at 10:08 AM, sundar wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I'm using a deconvolution software to deconvolve a 3D stack. Does  
> anyone
> know of any way in which I can measure the improvement over the  
> original
> dataset? Are there any standard techniques for the same?
>
> Thanks,
> Sundar
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Validating- 
> deconvolution-tp3685530p3685530.html
> Sent from the Confocal Microscopy List mailing list archive at  
> Nabble.com.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2