CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

July 2011

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:
Lutz Schaefer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 3 Jul 2011 13:15:29 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (78 lines)
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

John,

obviously there is a difference. Besides the different wavelengths, when 
using a mirror the image formation in the detection path is almost coherent. 
With a fluorescent object on the other hand, it is incoherent. The 
difference between these two forward problems lies in the way how the final 
intensities on the camera are produced. In the coherent case, (complex) 
amplitudes of elementary sample waves add up (causing the typical 
constructive/destructive interference) before they become subject to 
convolution with the observation PSF. Finally, the camera will sense the 
absolute intensity. In the incoherent case, no interference takes place. The 
forward problem can be modeled as the sum of the intensities before 
convolution. This is the fundamental difference! In practice you will also 
see that the mirror images will show depth varying transverse fringe 
patterns when your mirror has a good quality, indicating partial coherence. 
This is clearly not the case when you are using a SIP chart. To me, adding 
amplitudes and adding intensities are different quantities after convolution 
that you can't really compare against each other better than approximately. 
On that subject is plentiful literature available, one contribution that 
comes immediately to mind is Norbert Streibl's thesis from 1984.

Best Regards
Lutz

__________________________________
L u t z   S c h a e f e r
Sen. Scientist
Mathematical modeling / Image processing
Advanced Imaging Methodology Consultation
16-715 Doon Village Rd.
Kitchener, ON, N2P 2A2, Canada
Phone/Fax: +1 519 894 8870
Email:     [log in to unmask]
Website: http://home.golden.net/~lschafer/
___________________________________



--------------------------------------------------
From: "John Oreopoulos" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 12:25
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Using a mirror for axial resolution testing

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> I have a question regarding the use of a mirror for measuring the axial 
> resolution of a confocal imaging system (laser scanning or spinning disk).
>
> Jim Pawley's handbook has a chapter that describes a few useful tests that 
> can be done across different wavelengths to assess your microscope's axial 
> resolution using a mirror. I have wondered for quite some time if there is 
> any difference between using a mirror and the excitation wavelengths or a 
> fluorescent object (microsphere) to test axial resolution. I could only 
> find one posting on this in the archive:
>
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0106&L=CONFOCALMICROSCOPY&D=0&P=8438
>
> So I'm curious, what is the consensus out there right now? Is there a 
> difference or not? I haven't actually had a chance to test it yet and see 
> if the results obtained with a mirror (with laser illumination) match 
> those obtained with a sub-diffraction sized fluorescent microbead.
>
> John Oreopoulos
> Research Assistant
> Spectral Applied Research
> Richmond Hill, Ontario
> Canada
> www.spectral.ca= 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2