*****
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.
*****
Jeff,
I was not including these latest-generation cameras. I was referring to
the 1st and 2nd generation sCMOS cameras (ie PCO.Edge 4.2 and Orca v2).
There obviously is a lot of movement in the sector and it's hard to keep up
(and news doesn't always make it to Sydney quickly)!
Thanks,
Rusty
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Reece, Jeff (NIH/NIDDK) [E] <
[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 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/
> > >
> >
>
|
