CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

April 2024

CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@LISTS.UMN.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Emmanuel Levy <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:22:44 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (74 lines)
*****
To join or leave the confocal microscopy listserv or to change your email address, go to:
https://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=confocalmicroscopy&A=1
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Dear Zdenek and Cătălin,

Thank you for your replies! Indeed, the "distance" of the camera relative
to the camera-port lens sounds like an intuitive parameter to adjust.

So the question is, have you adjusted that distance before and achieved a
1-2 pixel zoom in/out in this manner? I assume that there should also be an
optimal distance for proper focus

The picture I attached was imaged with beads. We do a lot of
co-localization experiments, so it would be good if we managed to tune the
hardware flawlessly.

Thank you for sharing your experience.
Best wishes,

Emmanuel


On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 17:31, Cătălin Pavel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> *****
> To join or leave the confocal microscopy listserv or to change your email
> address, go to:
> https://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=confocalmicroscopy&A=1
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Emmanuel,
> It looks that one of the camera is closer to the microscope than the
> other. Try to check that all the connections are flush and tight.
>
> Catalin
>
> > On Apr 15, 2024, at 09:30, Emmanuel Levy <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> > *****
> > To join or leave the confocal microscopy listserv or to change your
> email address, go to:
> > https://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=confocalmicroscopy&A=1
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > We have a W1 spinning disk with dual cameras. We recently had them
> aligned,
> > and upon close inspection, we see that the GFP channel image is about 1
> to
> > 2 pixels larger than the RFP image in every corner (we used a 60x
> > objective, and the cameras are primeBSI express with 6.4um pixels, so the
> > image is off by 100-200nm in every corner). you can download the two
> images
> > as a composite here if you are curious:
> >
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TWIxwiZF6uf3FspyA96AX6r092PB_102/view?usp=sharing
> >
> > What would be the best way to solve this issue? Shouldn't the standard
> > camera mounts enable us to correct this?
> >
> > Thanks for your help and comments,
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Emmanuel
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2