CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

March 2010

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:
Glen MacDonald <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:15:45 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (30 lines)
On Mar 3, 2010, at 8:09 AM, yee sarah wrote:

> Dear confocal listers,
>  
> I've got a few questions about our Zeiss LSM510 system. And I am wondering if you could help me out with this.
>  
> Under the scan control panel in the software, there are two methods to do the scanning : mean and sum.
> .......
>  
> Another question is about the Line or Fram mode for averaging. People claim that fram averaging helps reduce photobleaching.
> If I use one direction scan for a fixed sample and my system is a laser point scanning confocal microscope.
Averaging or summing only reduces  photobleaching if it allows you to avoid increasing the dwell time and/or laser intensity to achieve the same SNR.
Line operations may be fractionally faster that frame operations but both accomplish the same thing.  Line averaging is usually preferred for live specimens since you will have less motion artifact between pixels.  
> 
> Would these two method apply the same photobleaching to my sample? In another word, would these two method have the same acquire time?
> 
> Any feedback would be appreciated.
Regards,
Glen


Glen MacDonald
Core for Communication Research
Virginia Merrill Bloedel Hearing Research Center
Box 357923
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-7923  USA
(206) 616-4156
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2