CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

May 1996

CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@LISTS.UMN.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"Martin W. Wessendorf" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 31 May 1996 14:51:29 CDT
Reply-To:
"Martin W. Wessendorf" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (13 lines)
In message  Paul Goodwin writes:
> The problem with deconvolving confocal images is that the signal-to-noise
> is generally poor so that the noise, which can look like small points to
> the deconvolution algorithm tends to get enhanced as well. There are
> methods that have reported good success with this (the blind
> deconvolution people in Holland) and we are working at ways of masking
> the noise frequencies out of our images and OTF's. So far the image is
> improved, i.e., there is resolution extension, but I would be happier if
> the noise was less.
 
AutoQuant (Troy NY) has a blind deconvolution package that can handle confocal
images, too.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2