*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

On 1/28/2011 12:56 AM, Julian Smith III wrote:

> Pardon if this is an ignorant question--why simultaneous scanning, when
> sequential scanning is likely to be what the users want to avoid
> bleedthrough?

You're right--in practice they'll usually want to use sequential scanning.

I guess my age is showing since I was worrying about something that most 
confocals no longer require for sequential scanning!  --My rationale for 
suggesting simultaneous scanning in this case was that with simultaneous 
scanning they'll avoid having to worry about differences in the precise 
position of the beam and the stage between scans.  That's probably not 
so much of an issue in x-y, but it would be if they did a complete x-y-z 
scan for each color, in sequence--which is what we had to do in the "old 
days".  In any case, since we a priori know that the tetraspec beads are 
multiple-labeled, bleed-through isn't much of an issue.

With a mirror scan it again wouldn't make much of a difference, as long 
as each color were scanned before moving the z-position.  However, with 
a mirror scan, you're looking at monochromatic laser light, so again 
bleed-through isn't an issue.

Take care--

Martin

-- 
Martin Wessendorf, Ph.D.                   office: (612) 626-0145
Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: (612) 624-2991
University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: (612) 624-8118
6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: (612) 626-5009
Minneapolis, MN  55455                    e-mail: [log in to unmask]