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

Another example I've seen divides the pixels in to subpixels and
deconvolves them using Autoquant.

http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=850529

This version is actually included in the Autoquant 3D  blind expert
settings.  We tested this a few times but gave up because the initial
results did not look any better than when we used the standard Autoquant
blind default settings.  The sub-pixel routine took a long time to process
and obviously the output files are much bigger when you make sub-pixels.
 We lacked a fast enough computer to allow more systematic testing.
 Nevertheless, this is an interesting approach, which further emphasizes
the point made previously that some super-resoluton approaches can be
viewed as a type of deconvolution.  A range of super-resolution approaches
(SIM, STED, STORM, PALM, light-sheet) add a deconvolution step post-hoc to
increase signal-to-noise.

Mike



On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Guy Cox <[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
> *****
>
> There's no simple answer.  Some people have aimed to use deconvolution to
> go beyond the optical resolution limit.  The best example I know is:
> Carrington, W.A., Lynch, R.M., Moore, E.D.W., Isenberg, G., Fogarty, K.E.
> and Fay, F.S., 1995.  Superresolution Three-Dimensional Images of
> Fluorescence in Cells with Minimal Light Exposure. Science 268, 1483-1487
>
> Commercial deconvolution systems are not usually aiming at that.  The aim
> is to separate in focus and out of focus light and thereby achieve optical
> sectioning in wide field.  Since the light budget is always better in wide
> field than in confocal this has certain advantages, but it has the
> disadvantage that the wide field OTF has a 'missing cone' of directions in
> which no information is present.  This limits what can be achieved.
>
> The confocal OTF has no missing cone which makes it quite a good target
> for deconvolution.  The confocal PSF Is far from optimal, being very
> streaked out in the Z direction, and deconvolution can do a lot to improve
> it.  Several people (including me) have advocated 1D deconvolution in just
> the Z direction, which can greatly improve image quality.  My papers on
> this are a bit hard to find but there is an example in my chapter in Jim
> Pawley's book.  However deconvolution of confocal images hasn't really
> caught on as much as it should have.
>
>
>        Guy
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Christophe Leterrier
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2012 3:28 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Question about deconvolution
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I have a long-standing question regarding deconvolution (as processing
> widefield or confocal images to reassign light from where it originated
> using a PSF).
>
> Is there a theoretical limit to the resolution one could obtain using
> deconvolution? Is is theoretically possible to "break" the diffraction
> limit with deconvolution? That is, to get under the classical 200x200x600nm
> spot? I think it is not the case, but then why would you deconvolve
> widefield or confocal images? What do you gain by doing so on a system that
> is reasonably close to its theoretical capabilities in terms of optical
> performances?
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Christophe
>
> --
> Christophe Leterrier
> Researcher
> Axonal Domains Architecture Team
> CRN2M CNRS UMR 7286
> Aix Marseille University, France
>