Dear Ian,

I'm using Huygens since about 1.5 years. I can't tell you a lot about
the advantages and disadvantages from a physicists point of view. I just
can tell you that I'm satisfied with the results, e.g. a cross section
of an dye-filled axon that looks elliptic in the original image stack
looks circular after deconvolution. That's all I want. However, I'm also
interested in the responses of the more physical experienced list
members to know how 'realistic' my results are.

Regards
Christian

Ian Gibbins wrote:
>
> dear List
>
> We are keen to deconvolve both wide field and confocal images. I have
> been back through the confocal archives and re-read the debates that
> have been going on since at least 1995 on the list.... so I am aware of
> all the various arguments people have put up about the merits of
> deocnvolution or otherwise, as well as some of the issues with regard to
> the different methods of deconvolution...
>
> But in the end, we can only afford to buy one product. It seems that to
> me that the two best approaches are those use by the "Huygens" system,
> based on an observed point spread function, or the "AutoDeblur" system,
> based on a blind deconvolution algorothm. I can see good cases for
> either approach, which doesn't help us make a decision!! At this stage,
> I'm tempted to go the Huygens route, but I would value any advice /
> input from others out there, especially with regard to any serious
> disadvantages of the blind deconvolution methods...
>
> Thanks
>
> IAN
>
> --
> Professor Ian Gibbins
> Anatomy & Histology
> Flinders University of South Australia
> GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001
> Australia
>
> Phone:  +61-8-8204 5271
> FAX:    +61-8-8277 0085
> Email:  [log in to unmask]

--
Christian Lohr, Ph.D.
ARL Division of Neurobiology
University of Arizona
PO Box 210077
Tucson, AZ 85721-0077
Phone: (520) 621-6671
FAX: (520) 621-8282
[log in to unmask]