Richard:
 
I saw your posting and agree that slit scanners will be useful to
the pathologists.  In fact, we are using a Meridian Insight Plus at
UCSB to study the effects of anti-cytoskeletal drugs on photoreceptors.
I have had excellent results using the Meridian Insight Plus.  I am
in the fortunate position of using a point scanner (Biorad 500 MRC) for
maximum z-resolution and a slit scanner for speed intensive applications.
I am not optimistic that a software solution will make a slit scanner
the equal of a point scanner.  However, I would be interested in the
opinons of other investigators about this potential.
 
Concerning the available slit scanning microscopes, I have used the
Biorad on two occasions, and a graduate student that I am advising,
Irene L. Hale, has also examined the Biorad.  We cannot confirm the
observation that this microscope provides a "brighter" image.  Generalizations
made on relative differences in microscope performance is risky.  Especially,
if they are made under non controlled conditions.  For example, we could
not determine if laser intensity was equivalent between the two microscopes.
In both microscopes, the laser output is adjustable and one must ensure
that it is providing the same intensity illumination  at the level of the
specimen.  Failure to do so, makes relative intensity comparisons meaningless.
 
Another variable is slit width adjustment.  With faint samples, it is
usual to wident the slit width to provide a brighter image at the expense
of "confocality".  Because of such variables, I would not be able to
confirm or deny that the Biorad is optically more light efficient.  All
I can say is that the Meridian has done an excellent job at UCSB and that
I am happy with its performance.
 
Brian
 
 
 
D