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

I think this is the conclusion of a paper by Sripad Ram (PNAS 103, 2006, 4457), but i think in this case you have to know the number of objects you are looking at. 

best wishes

Andreas

 

 


 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Wessendorf <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 4:41
Subject: Re: Deconvolution of 3D SIM data


***** 
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: 
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy 
***** 
 
On 4/13/2011 5:28 PM, Guy Cox wrote: 
 
> Abbe considered rays diffracted by two points on the sample.  The points 
> will be resolved if their diffracted rays can enter the objective.  This 
> can only apply to  a specimen illuminated from an external source.  In 
> fluorescence each point emits light and this is totally incoherent with 
> respect to light from another point.   There is no diffraction at the 
> sample so Abbe's calculation cannot be applied.  Rayleigh's criterion, 
> based on how the optics turn the image of a point into a disk (the Airy 
> disk) does apply. 
 
This is (for me!) a very intuitive explanation, but it suggests that with fluorescence, arbitrarily small resolution can be attained given sufficiently high s/n.  That sounds something like what you said in your earlier posting, except for the phrase "arbitrarily small". 
 
Is that correct?  If not, what is the absolute limit of resolution in fluorescence? 
 
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]