*****
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.
*****

Not specific for individual cameras, but Edmund has a good intro to MTF
page on their site.
http://www.edmundoptics.com/resources/application-notes/optics/introduction-to-modulation-transfer-function/


Craig

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Andrew York <
[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.
> *****
>
>  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/
> > > >
> > >
> >
>