*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

I also would suggest the following paper containing some criteria for optimizing (open access):
Galiani, S., Harke, B., Vicidomini, G., Lignani, G., Benfenati, F., Diaspro, A., & Bianchini, P. (2012). Strategies to maximize the performance of a STED microscope. Optics express, 1–13.
All the best
AD

Il giorno 01/set/2012, alle ore 02:09, Peng Xi <[log in to unmask]> ha scritto:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
> 
> Dear Brian,
>     You can read the following:
> 1. Volker Westphal and Stefan W. Hell, Nanoscale Resolution in the
> Focal Plane of an Optical Microscope, PRL 94, 143903, 2005.
> In this paper the excitation and STED PSF were assumed to be sin and
> cos, and with Taylor expansion the 1/sqrt(1+I/Is) is obtained.
> 
> 2. Benjamin Harke et al., Resolution scaling in STED microscopy, OE16
> (6) 4154, 2008.
> In this paper the excitation is assumed to be Gaussian, and STED is
> assumed as x^2. The 1/sqrt(1+a*I/Is) is obtained.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Peng Xi
> Ph. D.    Associate Professor
> Peking University
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> http://xipeng.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Brian Northan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> *****
>> 
>> On a related note can anybody recommend a paper that explains how to
>> calculate the STED PSF?
>> 
>> Is it worth it to deconvolve this type of data? I've heard conflicting reports.
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Martin Wessendorf <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>> *****
>>> 
>>> Dear Alan--
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 8/31/2012 7:22 AM, Alan Smith wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I understand how the illumination psf is formed in STED using a depletion
>>>> beam. However, if the emission is detected is collected in epi-detection,
>>>> why is the resolution not determined by the diffraction limit for the
>>>> objective.
>>>> 
>>>> As an example, if a single molecule was producing fluorescence, the image
>>>> will be an airy disk determined by the NA of the detecting objective and
>>>> the
>>>> wavelength of light. Despite the fluorescence solely coming from a single
>>>> molecule.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You're right: with both a single molecule and with STED, you see a
>>> diffraction-limited Airy disk on the emission side.  However, with STED, you
>>> know to a high degree of precision the position of the excitation beam
>>> eliciting that Airy disk.  Thus, as you scan that small excitation beam over
>>> a small structure, you can obtain resolution that's many times better than
>>> confocal.  In that way, it's similar to near-field super-resolution methods.
>>> 
>>> Hope that helps!
>>> 
>>> Martin Wessendorf
>>> --
>>> Martin Wessendorf, Ph.D.                   office: (612) 626-0145
>>> Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: (612) 624-2991
>>> University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: (612) 624-8118
>>> 6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: (612) 626-5009
>>> Minneapolis, MN  55455                    e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 席鹏
> 特聘研究员
> 北京大学工学院生物医学工程系
> 地址：中关村北大街北京大学医院A536室
> 邮编：100084
> 电话：010-6276 7155
> Email:  [log in to unmask]
> http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040003
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> Peng Xi
> Ph. D.    Associate Professor
> Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering
> Peking University, Beijing, China
> Tel: +86 10-6276 7155
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040003