Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Years ago (though not that much either), for my thesis, I needed some
images at high magnification of a fungus and its spores. For obvious
reasons, my promoter advised me to contact someone at the KULeuven
university to acquire SEM-images. When I passed the doorstep, the
?SEM-lady? looks at me and tells me: ?You don?t think I?m gonna scan
for you, you?ll do it yourself, and you?ll do it with this SEM from
the 60?s?. After getting the appropriate introduction and of course
constant guidance, she taught me how the images were formed, what
happened if I changed this, adjusted that etc. I mean, sitting behind
that microscope was as if I was sitting inside a spaceship:
impressive! But! I learned how to ?feel? the microscope and how an
image is created.
At that point, I really felt as if I CREATED the image, and that?s
something I lose sometimes in automation, now the computer creates the
image for you.
When I nowadays have to train someone to work with the microscope,
whether it?s epi-fluorescence or two-photon / confocal microscopy, I
always start from the basics onwards and make sure the students (PhDs
and Post-docs) know how the ?thing? works, I don?t want them to be
acquiring images as blind moles. Of course, if they afterwards decide
to only use the automatic functions, that?s their good right, but they
always leave with a feeling of ?well, I learned something in
microscopy?, and I never got to hear that ?it was a waste of time
since automation could do the job as well as fully manually adjusting
all?.
But then again, I also am thankful for automation. As previously
stated, on a well calibrated system one can work faster without having
to worry about certain settings which are default for his/her type of
research. I also use it and especially, if you work for a professor
who wants results yesterday, as I do ?, you?d be happy to have it.
And actually, most of the students use ?my? settings, simply by
pushing the re-use button of an image I previously acquired for them.
But that one time that they have to interfere, they will know how, and
especially what the effect is of adjusting this or that.
To summarize, for me, automation is a very good thing, but two main
rules have to be present: 1. you (can) control it and 2. you know what
you are doing! After all, YOU are still the microscopist, not the
computer.
Sven Terclavers
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Mike Bode
Sent: 15 May 2007 18:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CONFOCAL] Automation of microscopy?
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Hi everybody,
as a manufacturer of 'automation" I would like to respond to the
question and to some of the comments I have read. As you can imagine,
I do NOT think that automation is inherently bad, as some of the
comments seem to propose. On the contrary, a computer can do many (but
by no stretch of the imagination all) things better than a human
could. Those tasks are better left to a computer. Other things, like
flipping a filter, are the same whether you push a lever or a key on
the keyboard. Many things a computer can't even begin to do, like
looking for the right sample area. So, automation can help to focus on
the things that are important, and leave the rest to the computer.
Other things, like setting up the microscope for a certain observation
method are easier and more accurately done with an automated
microscope. You store the steps once and the computer repeats them the
same way every time you tell it to. Going that way, you just can't
"forget" to select a certain filter or other device on the microscope.
Of course it requires that the microscope is in good condition, well
maintained and calibrated. But you need that also when you manually
set things. If your lenses are dirty, you're not going to get good
images, automatic system or not.
One person brought up Koehler illumination. That's a good point, but
Koehler has nothing to do with automation. Those people who had never
heard of Koehler illumination would not be able to acquire good images
with a manual microscope either. That is really a comment on education
rather than automation.
Bottom line from my point of view: An automated system is not
inherently good or bad. Used correctly it can simplify usage and save
time and effort, improve ergonomics, reduce complexity, and help to
avoid mistakes. Whether that is a good thing depends on the user and
other circumstances. . Automation does not absolve the user from
knowing the Physics and Mechanics behind the instrument and from
maintaining the instument in top shape. But that is required for both
manual and automatic systems. If you want to take the best images
possible, you better know what you are doing, automatic system or not.
Training on both the mciroscope (hardware) and automation (software)
aspects really is the key here.
That's just my 2 cents.
mike
Michael Bode, Ph.D.
General Manager
OLYMPUS SOFT IMAGING SOLUTIONS
12596 West Bayaud Ave #300
Lakewood, CO 80228
USA
Tel.: +1 (303) 234-9270
Fax.: +1 (303) 234-9271
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
www.olympus-sis.com
________________________________________
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of John Oreopoulos
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 08:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Automation of microscopy?
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal Dear Rosemary,
thanks for pointing out that article. It was a very good read and I
thought the final paragraphs were also a bit ominous in regards to the
automation of microscopy. I personally hope that microscopes do not
all become automated "black boxes" that do everything for you. To me,
it's still important to look through those eyepieces and use my hands
to focus and feel the resistance as the objective is moved up and down.
I'm very curious to know from some of the older and more experienced
microscopists out there what they think about this trend, ie: I've
seen that the newest models of the confocal microscope that we have
(which is about ten years old now) comes with all sorts of buttons
that flip the filters and focus the image automatically, etc. Is this
really a good thing for microscopy, or, as the article points out, is
it possible that it promotes sloppy image collection?
John Oreopoulos, BSc,
PhD Candidate
University of Toronto
Institute For Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering
Centre For Studies in Molecular Imaging
Tel: W:416-946-5022
On 14-May-07, at 7:55 PM, Rosemary White wrote:
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal Greetings
comrades,
I guess most of you will have read the following, which a few of our
users sent to me. I?m inclined to do as Alison North does, and
outline to new users in a more formal setting (rather than just at the
microscope) all the possible ways of mis-collecting or misinterpreting
images. Great stuff! What do others do ? I guess this is on your
websites?
cheers,
Rosemary
Dr Rosemary White [log in to unmask]
CSIRO Plant Industry ph. 61 (0)2-6246 5475
GPO Box 1600 fax. 61 (0)2-6246 5334
Canberra, ACT 2601
Australia
Nature 447 , 138-140 (10 May 2007) | doi :10.1038/447138a ;
Published online 9 May 2007
The good, the bad and the ugly
Helen Pearson 1
Helen Pearson is a reporter for Nature based in New York.
Top of page
Abstract
Imaging fluorescent molecules in live cells is revolutionizing cell
biology. But a pretty image is not necessarily a good one, and many
biologists are learning this the hard way, finds Helen Pearson.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7141/full/447138a.html
Seeing is believing? A beginners' guide to practical pitfalls in image
acquisition
Alison J. North
http://www.jcb.org/cgi/content/full/172/1/9
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
|
