Actually the CSU-22 spins at 5000 rpms and csux up to 10,000 rpm or  
2000 scans / sec (12 scans per rotation).
1800 rpm (360 scans / sec) is the default speed that can be adjusted  
from software to the highest speed.

George Peeters
Solamere Technology Group

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 1, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Andrea Latini <ricco@CRISEL- 
INSTRUMENTS.IT> wrote:

> Dear Dr. Zhan Cheng and dear List,
>
> I think you can solve all problems by using a faster spinning disk  
> confocal
> system, i.e. the CARV-II.
> this is a 7500 rpm spinning disk unit and I've been able to test it  
> either
> with a low resolution-high sensitivity Photometrics EVOLVE 512x512  
> and a
> less sensitive- higher resolution CoolSnap EZ.
> Results:
> with the Evolve EMCCD I've been down to 5ms exposure time without  
> any loss
> due to slow spinning disk speed, i.e. the CSU-22 system (this spins  
> at less
> than 1800rpm).
>
> with the CoolSnap camera system I've been able to collect very good  
> images
> (i.e. S/N > 5), even at 19ms exposure time.
>
> Of course, due to the CARV-II very high rotation speed, the only  
> limitation
> is from the CCD system speed.
>
> I'm ready to provide you with all pieces of information you may need.
>
> Regards.
>
> Andrea Latini, PhD
> Crisel Instruments Srl, ITALY
> [log in to unmask]
>
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:19:21 -0000, Steve Bagley <[log in to unmask] 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> We have both a deltavision (seven years with several upgrades) and a
>> roper csu22 spinning disk system (one year). Both have the same  
>> camera
>> (EMCCD cascade), filters (ET-Chroma) and objective lenses
>>
>> In our hands we find that
>>
>> i) when live cell imaging fibre like structures (cytoskeletal  
>> elements)
>> the deltavision system seems to present the better results, when  
>> imaging
>> spots (e.g. spindle pole bodies) the spinning disk system seems more
>> suited
>>
>> ii) the limiting factor on the spinning disk is exposure time. When
>> going below 50msec the image quality drops due to the rotational  
>> speed
>> of the disk. For very fast imaging the deltavision presents more
>> favourable capture times. I believ that with the x1 you can go a  
>> little
>> faster in capture speed without deterimentally effecting image  
>> quality
>> but the scanner rotational speed is around the same.
>>
>> iii) overall we have seen slightly less photo-toxcity on our spinning
>> disk system. This maybe due to the model of Olympus microscope that  
>> our
>> systems are on (DV olympus IX71 SD olympus IX81).
>>
>> iv) on both systems we have full environmental chambers, bioptechs
>> chambers, objective heaters and the cellasic microfluidic system.  
>> Both
>> systems are well suited to enviromental control.
>>
>> v) I guess the draw back is the range of wavelengths available to the
>> spinning disk via the lasers. We have the full 'sedat filter' range
>> 406/491/555/643 whereas the DV is not limited by wavelength  
>> selection.
>>
>> vi) with both systems the data is deconvolved afterwards, the SD to
>> further vastly improve the axial resolution. All data goes through  
>> the
>> same 3D imaging and analysis software. For deconvolution we have  
>> scaled
>> up with multiprocessors and linux with Huygens, both data streams (DV
>> and SD) can be processed this way with the same software.
>>
>> vii) we have been considering the Princeton ProEM 1024B to increase
>> sensitivity and photoefficiency, however the minimum usable capture  
>> rate
>> of the spinning disk 50msec still could not be exceeded without
>> seriously effecting image quality. The advantage would be a  
>> reduction in
>> the amount of laser light used thus a reduction in the rate of
>> photo-toxicity.
>>
>> I hope this has helped, all the best
>>
>> steve
>>
>>
>> Steve Bagley
>> Head of Imaging
>> Imaging Facility
>> Cancer Research UK
>> Paterson Institute for Cancer Research
>> University of Manchester
>> Wilmslow Road
>> Manchester
>> M20 9BX
>> UK
>> www.paterson.man.ac.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "zhan cheng" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 6:50 PM
>> Subject: spinning disk confocal Vs deltavision?
>>
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>  Our facility is planning to buy a live cell imaging setup, spinning
>> disk
>> confocal and deltavision seem both good. We are concering about  
>> imaging
>> quality, imaging speed, phototoxin, and photo bleaching for long term
>> imaging.
>> Could you share your experience? some time lapse our imaging maybe  
>> last
>> over
>> 12 hours, so  sometimes the data is huge. I know the  deltavision
>> system's
>> imaging quality is good after deconvolution, but I worry about the 3D
>> deconvolution's speed, especially for huge data.
>>   Thanks.
>>   zhan cheng
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the  
>> person(s)
> ('the intended recipient') to whom it was addressed. Any views or  
> opinions
> presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily  
> represent
> those of the Paterson Institute for Cancer Research or the  
> University of
> Manchester. It may contain information that is privileged &  
> confidential
> within the meaning of applicable law. Accordingly any dissemination,
> distribution, copying, or other use of this message, or any of its  
> contents,
> by any person other than the intended recipient may constitute a  
> breach of
> civil or criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you are NOT the
> intended recipient please contact the sender and dispose of this e- 
> mail as
> soon as possible.
>>