Hi Steve,

First a short disclaimer - I work for PerkinElmer!

With the spinning disk systems you can start to get scanning artefacts at short exposure times, this is caused by partial disk segments being exposed. You can get around this by increasing the exposure time (which greatly reduces the effect of the partial sectors but also reduces the speed of the system) or by carefully synchronising the camera exposure to the disk speed. We do the latter with the UltraVIEW ERS and VoX, we find that we can get exposures in the 1 ms range with minimal scan-line artefacts.

Cheers,

Steve

On 25 Feb 2010, at 16:19, Steve Bagley 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.



Steve Baxter
R&D CoE Leader
PerkinElmer Coventry
 
Email : [log in to unmask]  
Telephone: +44-2476-698115
Mobile/Cell: +44-7730-437929 
Fax: +44-2476-690091