On Jun 7,  3:31pm, Guy Cox wrote:
> Subject: Re: confocal vs. deconvolution microscopy
> Several unrelated points from this thread:
>
> I'm not sure that you even need to buy any extra software.  On the
> MRC 600 you simply select 'video' as your input and you can use the
> Biorad software to capture and digitise the images from your CCD
> camera.  I'd imagine the MRC 1024 has the same option.
>
It may, but I will not be producing a video output. Instead I will use a CCD
digital camera where each pixel is digitized and acquired as it is clocked out.
There are a number of advantages to doing this, but the major disadvantage is
that you do not produce video.
 
>
> The resolution of the stepper motor itself isn't usually the main problem
> since it is geared down by the focus drive.  But the overall message here
> certainly IS very important.  Many microscope fine focus drives do not
> have sufficient accuracy for effective Z-sectioning down near the
> resolution limit. Zeiss microscopes are particularly bad since they
> use a friction drive which slips.  (On their own confocal they drive
> the coarse focus by a separate reduction system).  The bottom line is
> that if you are pushing the envelope you need a dedicated z-stage.  This
> applies equally to confocal or deconvolution.
>
I have had some indications that there might be slippage, and now I will check
it more carefully.
 
--aryeh
 
 
 
--
Aryeh Weiss                          | email:     [log in to unmask]
Department of Electronics            |
Jerusalem College of Technology      | phone:     972-2-751146
POB 16031                            | FAX:       972-2-422075
Jerusalem, Israel                    | ham radio: 4X1PB/KA1PB