Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy pp 55–67Cite as

The Pixilated Image

  • Chapter

Abstract

There are optimal settings of magnification and detector gain for confocal microscopes. This chapter will show that the “zoom” magnification control must be chosen to produce a sampling rate that conforms to the Nyquist criterion so that we don’t lose or confuse the data by undersampling and so that we don’t “cook” the sample by oversampling. The material described here is generally applicable to all imaging systems, but is of particular import for the flexible digital images available from a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alpern, M., 1978, The eyes and vision. In: Handbook of Optics (W.G. Driscoll and W. Vaughan, eds.), McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Analog Devices, 1986, Analog-Digital Conversion Handbook, 3rd ed., Analog Devices, Inc., P.O. Box 796, Norwood, Massachusetts 02062.

    Google Scholar 

  • Born, M., and Wolf, E., 1983, Principles of Optics, 6th ed., Pergamon Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castleman, K.R., 1979, Digital Image Processing, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Chapter 12 is a fine description of sampled data.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corle, T.R., Chou, C.-H. and Kino, G.S., 1986, Depth response of confocal optical microscopes, Opt. Lett. 11:770–772.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cornsweet, T.N., 1970, Visual Perception, Academic Press, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorey, C.K., and Ebenstein, D.B., 1988, Quantitative multispectral analysis of discrete subcellular particles by digital imaging fluorescence microscopy (DIFM). Visual Communications and Image Processing ′88 SPIE 1001, pp. 282–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gates, S.C., 1989, Analog To Digital Converters in the Laboratory Scientific Computing and Automation 49–56 (Feb. 1989). Gordon Publications, Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950–0650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C.H., 1965, Vision and Visual Perception, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inoué, S., 1981, Video image processing greatly enhances contrast, J. Cell Biol. 89:346–356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Inoué, S., 1986, Video Microscopy, Plenum Press, New York. A fine general reference on many of these topics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R.C., 1961, Information capacity of photographic films, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 51:1159–1171.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J.S., Slater, D.C., Timothy, J.G., and Jenkins, E.B., 1989, Centroid position measurements and subpixel sensitivity variations with the MAMA detector, Appl Opt 28:1178–1192.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, A.V., Willsky, A.S., and Young, I.T., 1983, Signals and Systems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Chapter 8 describes sampling theory very well.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, W.K., 1978, Digital Image Processing, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • RCA, 1970, Photomultiplier Manual, PT-61, RCA Electronics Components, Harrison, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • RCA, 1974, Electro-Optics Handbook, EOH-11, RCA Solid State Division, Electro-Optics and Devices, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard C.J.R., and Wilson T., 1978, Depth of field in the scanning microscope, Opt. Lett. 3:115–117.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spomer, L.A., and Smith, M.A.L., 1988, Image analysis for biological research: camera influence of measurement accuracy, Intell. Instrum. Computers 6:201–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J.M., 1963, Radiation and Optics, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, R.H., and Hughes, G.W., 1993, Detectors for scanning video imagers, Appl. Opt. 32:6227–6235.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, J.B., Pizer, S.M., Staab, E.V., Perry, J.R., McCartney, W., and Brenton, B.C., 1988, An evaluation of the effectiveness of adaptive histogram equalization for contrast enhancement, IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 7:304–312.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schepens Eye Research Institute and MGH Laser Center, 20 Staniford Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02114, USA

    Robert H. Webb & C. Kathleen Dorey

Authors
  1. Robert H. Webb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Kathleen Dorey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Zoology Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

    James B. Pawley

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Webb, R.H., Dorey, C.K. (1995). The Pixilated Image. In: Pawley, J.B. (eds) Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5348-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5348-6_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-5350-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-5348-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation