*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

I don't know if this is a common technique, but I like the idea of rather
than solving the ill-posed inversion problem, attacking the well-posed
forward problem:

IF this is my system PSF, and IF this is my belief about my object's
diameter, then what measurement do I expect? How does that compare to what
I actually measured?

If you want to formalize it, you could express it as a maximum likelihood
problem with Poisson noise.

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:31 AM, MODEL, MICHAEL <[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
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Remko,
>
> Thank you for the prompt response to the PSF thread.
>
> I have another question that is somewhat related to the topic. We need to
> measure diameters of small intracellular bubbles that can be less than a
> micron across. Ours is a regular (not superresolution) system - either
> widefield fluorescence, or confocal fluorescence, or (hopefully, in the
> near future) a Fluoview 3000 with deconvolution. Has anyone proved that
> accurate measurements on such a small scale are possible? What would it
> take? Some kind of deconvolution - 2D? 3D? Does anyone know what others
> have done in this direction? Thank you
>
> Mike Model
>