My one cent; it's not worth two cents.

I still would like a scale bar because it gives a visible-tangible
distance measurement in the x-y plane and is the only meaningful size
reference that can be included in scanned images unless you write out
the number of pixels and the pixel size, e.g., 512x512x0.22 um
x128x0.4 um. Nobody bothers with "magnification" in confocal images,
and rightly so, but it is nice to have something, and it's useful to
know that a cell is 10 um across and not 30.

As long as, one states clearly that the image is a 2-D projection of
3-D data, I think most people will resist the temptation of reaching
for their rulers.

As I think about this, what might be fun, is to take an image stack
and include a scale bar in one frame, say near the middle. Then do a
couple of 6 deg. plus-minus tilt projections and make a stereo pair.
Then you could see the scale bar "floating" inside the image set.
Just a silly thought, but I haven't had my coffee yet!



>     Could I just chip in and say that in one way, it would be
>     misleading to retain a 2D scale on a 3d data set projected into 2D.
>     This is because on a projection, making an xy measurement between
>     features which are also separated in z would simply be a mistake!
>
>     Anna Smallcombe PhD
>     Senior Applications Specialist
>     Bio-Rad Microscopy Division


Mario M. Moronne, Ph.D.
Material and Life Science Div.  M/S 6-2100
University of California
Berkeley Lab
1 Cyclotron Rd.
Berkeley, CA
94720

ph (510) 486-4236
FAX (510) 528-8076
[log in to unmask]  or [log in to unmask]