Signal-to-Noise in Confocal Microscopes

  • Colin J. R. Sheppard
  • Xiaosong Gan
  • Min Gu
  • Maitreyee Roy


Strictly, to obtain true confocal imaging, the detector pinhole must be infinitesimally small, which would result in a vanishingly weak image signal. On the other hand, a very large pinhole degrades the confocal imaging effect. So, in practice it is necessary to adopt some optimum size for the pinhole, which may depend on the design of microscope, how it is operated, and the type of specimen. The resultant imaging performance will then also depend on these various factors. In this way we can compare the performance of different designs of confocal microscopes and also compare them with wide-field (WF) microscopes that have electronic image capture coupled with digital 3D image restoration. In addition, we can understand how best to use the microscope in order to achieve optimum imaging performance.


Noise Model Shot Noise Point Object Sensor Noise Stray Light 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Awamura, D., and Ode, T., 1992, Optical properties of Type 1-Type 2 microscopes. In: New Trends in Scanning Optical Microscopy, Okinawa, Japan, pp. 43–48.Google Scholar
  2. Benedetti, D.A., Evangelista, V., Guidarini, D., and, Vestri, S., 1992, Confocal line microscopy, J. Microsc. 165:119–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brakenhoff, G.J., and Visscher, K., 1992, Confocal imaging with bilateral scanning and array detectors, J. Microsc. 165:139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cox, I.J., and Sheppard, C.J.R., 1983, Digital processing of confocal images, Image Vision Comput. 1:52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox, I.J., and Sheppard, C.J.R., 1986, The information capacity of a multidimensional communication system, Int. J. Electron. 60:655–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Draaijer, A., and Houpt, P.M., 1988, A standard video-rate confocal laser-scanning reflection and fluorescence microscope, Scanning 10:139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gan, X.S., and Sheppard, C.J.R., 1993, Detectability: A new criterion for evaluation of the confocal microscope, Scanning 15:187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gu, M., and Sheppard, C.J.R., 1991, Effects of a finite-sized detector on the OTF of confocal fluorescent microscopy, Optik 88:6569.Google Scholar
  9. Koester, C.J., 1980, Scanning mirror microscope with optical sectioning characteristics: Applications in ophthalmology, Appl. Optics 19:1749–1757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Machida, S., Yamamoto, Y., and Itaya, Y., 1987, Observation of amplitude squeezing in a constant-current-driven semiconductor laser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58:1000–1003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Roy, M., and Sheppard, C.J.R., 1993, Effects of image processing on the noise properties of confocal images, Micron. 24:623–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shannon, C.E., 1949, Communications in the presence of noise, Proc. IRE 37:1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sheppard, C.J.R., 1991, Stray light and noise in confocal microscopy, Micron Microsc. Acta 22:239–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sheppard, C.J.R., and Mao, X.Q., 1988, Confocal microscopes with slit apertures, J. Mod. Optics 35:1169–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sheppard, C.J.R., Hamilton, D.K., and Cox, I.J., 1983, Optical microscopy with extended depth of field, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 387:171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sheppard, C.J.R., Cogswell, C.J., and Gu, M., 1991, Signal strength and noise in confocal microscopy: Factors influencing selection of an optimum detector aperture, Scanning 13:233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sheppard, C.J.R., Gu, M., and Roy, M., 1992, Signal-to-noise ratio in confocal microscope systems, J. Microsc. 168:209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Slusher, R.E., Hollberg, L.W., Yurke, B., Mertz, J.C., and Valley, J.F., 1985, Observation of squeezed states generated by four-wave mixing in an optical cavity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 55:2409–2412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Webb, W.W., Wells, K.S., Sandison, D.R., and Strickler, J., 1990, Optical Microscopy for Biology, Wiley-Liss, pp. 73–108.Google Scholar
  20. Wells, K.S., Sandison, D.R., Strickler, J., and Webb, W.W., 1990, Quantitative laser scanning confocal microscopy. In: Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy (J.B. Pawley, ed.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 23–35.Google Scholar
  21. Wilson, T., and Hamilton, D.K., 1982, Dynamic focusing in the scanning microscope, J. Microsc. 128:139–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin J. R. Sheppard
    • 1
  • Xiaosong Gan
    • 1
  • Min Gu
    • 1
  • Maitreyee Roy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physical Optics, School of PhysicsUniversity of SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations