Image Collection, Analysis, and Reconstruction by Computer

  • Theodore George Rochow
  • Paul Arthur Tucker

Abstract

Automated image processing has facilitated new insight into complex data; for example it is no longer necessary to view a three-dimensional specimen as a series of two-dimensional slices. A three-dimensional image can be reconstructed, and this new image can be electronically rotated or subsections of it studied at high resolution, although a more common application is automated statistical characterization of a complex two-dimensional image. Parameters can be measured and aspect statistics calculated on a large enough population to make such numerical characterization impossible by manual means. We must recall the concept of empty magnification versus resolution when we hear that it is possible to magnify up to one thousand or more by video microscopy with a low-resolution objective. Classical principles still apply to these new techniques.(1)

Keywords

Acoustics Adapter Digital Scanner 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Tim Studt, “Add Video to Your Microscope for Even Better Imaging,” R & D Magazine (July 1992), 32–36.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shinya Inoué, Video Microscopy ( New York: Plenum, 1986 ).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    John C. Russ, The Image Processing Handbook ( Ann Arbor, MI: CRC Press, 1992 ).Google Scholar
  4. a. Photometrics, Ltd., 3440 East Britannia Dr., Tucson, AZ 85708.Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    John C. Russ, Computer-Assisted Microscopy ( New York: Plenum, 1990 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 5.
    R. H. Webb and C. K. Dorey, “The Pixelated Image”, in Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy, J. B. Pawley, ed. ( New York: Plenum, 1990 ), 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 6.
    Robert Keeler, “Shop Like a Pro for Your Image Analysis System,” R & D Magazine (March 1991), 48–52.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    M. Richardson, “Confocal Microscopy and 3-D Visualization,” American Laboratory (Nov. 1990), 19–24.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    The Imagist 1 2 (1991).Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    In Focus, The Magazine for Instant Scientific Imaging 3 (Spring/Summer 1991).Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    D. J. Palatini, “Distributing Images to Remote Sites Using a Computer Network,” EMSA Bulletin 21, 1 (spring 1991 ).Google Scholar
  12. 10a.
    “The Computer Corner,” EMSA Bulletin 22 3 (Nov. 1992), 78–81.Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    David Hessler et al.,“SYNU: Software for Visualization of 3-Dimensional Biological Structures,” Microscopy: The Key Research Tool,(Mar. 1992), 73–82.Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    D.-P. Hader, ed., Image Analysis in Biology, ( Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1992 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theodore George Rochow
    • 1
  • Paul Arthur Tucker
    • 1
  1. 1.North Carolina State University at RaleighRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations