*****
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 have two add-on questions, one for Rusty and one for all the camera gurus out there.
Rusty, your response was very informative so thanks much; but when you refer to "the usual sCMOS cameras", does that include the latest generation, Ham Flash 4.0 v3, pco.panda, etc., that are supposed to handle fixed pattern noise better than previous versions?
And to camera gurus: I sometimes see reference to "2nd generation" and "3rd generation" for sCMOS. Is there an industry standard of these definitions, or are they vendor-specific?
Thanks and Kind Regards,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Rusty Nicovich [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 11:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 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.
*****
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
> 70+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/
> >
>
|
