*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Gerhard,

Happy to be corrected.  Thanks for the info!

Rusty

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Gerhard Holst <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Dear Rusty,
>
> I just wanted to correct your assumption that the recent QE improvement in
> the CSI2020 Image sensor (BAE Fairchild) cameras by PCO, Andor and
> Hamamatsu with an QE increase up to 80% is NOT based on a back thinned
> version, but on a process improvement in the fab and an optimized optical
> stack (e.g. better microlenses).
> The BSI400 base cameras from Photometrics, Princeton Instruments and
> Tucsen are based on a backside thinned sCMOS image sensor.
>
> While backside thinning usually comes with an improved QE (no need for
> microlenses) it also comes at a cost, it always has a reduction of the MTF
> as consequence, sometimes more, sometimes less, but always less MTF
> compared to frontside illuminated and second, the additional boundary layer
> is always an additional source for dark current and noise, sometimes more,
> sometimes less, but always more compared to frontside illuminated. These
> are semiconductor physics.
>
> But like all other camera applications, the camera has to fit to the
> application.
>
> with best regards,
>
> Gerhard
> ___________________________
> Dr. Gerhard Holst
> PCO AG
> Donaupark 11
> 93309 Kelheim, Germany
> fon +49 (0)9441 2005 0
> fax +49 (0)9441 2005 20
> www.pco.de
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Johann Plöb
> Umsatzsteuer ID-Nr.: DE128590843
> Steuernummer: 132/120/68033
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Regensburg HRB 9157
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Im Auftrag von Rusty Nicovich
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 18:36
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: 95b versus the world
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Kurt's comparison is excellent and covers most of the issues with this
> camera.
>
> We have one on our SMLM rig, replacing a 70% QE PCO sCMOS and with a 82%
> QE Orca v2 on the other side port.  This is not a back-thinned version of
> the usual sCMOS camera (all? using the CIS2020 sensor chip, now the
> back-thinned SCI2020 from Fairchild), but rather a different back-thinned
> sensor chip all together (GSense 144 BSI).  There was some trepidation
> buying a camera based on a new chip from a new company, packaged by a small
> camera company, but
>
> The 95B is more sensitive than the other two cameras, though the field of
> view is reduced.  That is both because of the smaller chip and because of
> the need for the 1.5x optivar with a 100x objective to get to sub-Nyquist
> sampling.  The larger pixels are slightly annoying, but it's still better
> than an 897 or even 888.  We have ours on the output of an adaptive optics
> module so we're actually constrained by the size of the deformable mirror
> rather than the chip.  As such we have to tolerate some larger-than-desired
> pixels.
>
> The 95B has better fixed pattern noise characteristics than the usual
> sCMOS cameras.  There is some additional on-device correction that helps.
> For the highest precision you'd want to map the fixed pattern noise/pixel
> response but that's true for all chips.
>
> We have ours running in MicroManager (1.4 and 2.0) and Metamorph.  There
> may be more options but that's all of the acquisition softwares on that
> system.  We also have it on a water circulator to cut the fan when needed.
> This adds ~$1k to the cost.
>
> One fun quirk is that the camera doesn't use a frame grabber.  Instead it
> has a small card allowing it to act as a PCIe x4 device directly.  This is
> nice for less fooling with frame grabber software, but it means that the
> camera *has* to be turned on when the PC boots or the PC won't recognize
> it.  You can imagine some small complications with this if you, for
> example, do data transfers overnight from instrument PCs and now have to
> shutdown/start up the computer before acquisitions.
>
> Price is basically halfway between the usual sCMOS cameras (Orca, Zyla, PCO
> Edge) and an EMCCD (897, 888...).
>
> With these 95% QE chips on the low-light end and the Sony Pregius machine
> vision sensors on the low end (ie the Point Grey Blackfly - 5 MP, 75 fps,
> 70+% QE, USB 3.0, and $1100 USD) there are a lot of exciting options for
> cameras in the last year.
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Kurt Thorn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > On 2/8/2017 8:36 AM, Feinstein, Timothy N wrote:
> >
> >> Have people with spinning discs compared the Photometrics 95b against
> >> leading EM-CCD and sCMOS options?  I am interested to know how it
> >> compares in real world use, especially:
> >>
> >
> > Here's the comparison I did last summer:
> > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/2016/
> > 07/testing-the-prime95b-a-back-illuminated-scmos-camera-with-95-qe/
> >
> > Kurt
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kurt Thorn
> > Associate Professor
> > Director, Nikon Imaging Center
> > http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
> > http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
> >
>