*****
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.
*****

 I'm also happy to receive this education; I didn't know cameras had an
MTF!

 I'd noticed before that I've never managed to focus light onto a single
pixel of an SCMOS without also illuminating adjacent pixels, but I assumed
this was due to my optics. I suspected the sensor, but didn't have a
mechanism to blame.

Does anyone know typical MTF values for SCMOS and EMCCD sensors?

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Rusty Nicovich <[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.
> *****
>
> 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/
> > >
> >
>