*****
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 2/9/2017 8:16 AM, Jeff Spector 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've often read and heard the new 95B can be used for single molecule work,
> but I'd like to know how it compares to an emccd and other cameras on the
> market for single molecule work where the single fluorophores are moving
> around and the exposure is short (say between 20 and 100 ms). I see a lot
> of cameras marketed as 'single molecule' but they mean 'stationary single
> molecule in fixed samples with good exposure times'. Anyone have any info
> on how this camera compares hen looking at dynamic single molecules?

I know Ahmet Yildiz tested it for single molecule imaging, but I don't 
know what he found.

Kurt
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:04 AM, 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/
>>>


-- 
Kurt Thorn
Associate Professor
Director, Nikon Imaging Center
http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/