Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
Next revision Both sides next revision
docs:comparison_with_confocal [2015/06/15 22:30]
Jon Daniels 		docs:comparison_with_confocal [2015/08/25 16:45]
Jon Daniels
Line 1: Line 1:
 ===== Comparison of diSPIM With Confocal ===== ===== Comparison of diSPIM With Confocal =====
  
-The following comparison was written with diSPIM in mind, but the main points apply to all types of SPIM.+The following comparison was written with diSPIM in mind, but the main points apply to all types of SPIM/LSFM.
  
-  * Confocal has much more photobleaching/phototoxicity than SPIM (i.e. SPIM uses the excitation light much more efficiently)  Low light dose is the main motivation for most SPIM users. +Spinning disk confocal (SDCM) is just a massively parallel confocal implementation so it's faster but otherwise has the some characteristics as laser scanning confocal. 
-      * In general for X slices you need X times as much light for confocal as you do for SPIM. + 
-      * [[http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n11/fig_tab/nbt.2713_SV2.html|Supplementary Video 2 of Wu et al.]] is a good demonstration; note how quickly the spinning disk kills the cells being imaged. +  * **Light dose:** diSPIM has much lower dose and hence less photobleaching/phototoxicity than confocal. Reducing light dose is the main motivation for most SPIM users. 
-  * Confocal has better Z resolution than single-view SPIM but worse than dual-view SPIM after registration/fusion.  XY resolution is comparable. +      * A rule of thumb is that you need X times as much light for confocal as you do for SPIM where X is the number of slices in your stack. 
-  * Spinning disk confocal is just a massively parallel confocal implementation so it's faster but has the some characteristics otherwise. +      * [[http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n11/fig_tab/nbt.2713_F3.html|Figure 3]] and [[http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n11/fig_tab/nbt.2713_SV2.html|Supplementary Video 2]] of Wu et al. offer bleaching comparisons of imaging with diSPIM and SDCM.  Other papers such as [[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jbio.201200144|this one]] offer comparisons of light sheet with confocal which should apply to diSPIM. 
-  * diSPIM is comparable speed (per view) to to spinning disk confocal (assuming you increase the laser intensity to make up for the ~3% open area of the spinning disks).+  * **Z resolution:** diSPIM after registration/fusion has best Z-resolution (same as XY resolution).  Next best is confocal, which in turn has better Z resolution than single-view SPIM. 
 +      * Using Bessel beams to create the sheet can improve Z-resolution for single-view SPIM, but won't meaningfully change dual view resolution after registration/fusion. 
 +  * **XY resolution:** confocal and SPIM are comparable. 
 +  * **Speed:** SPIM (per view) and SDCM have comparable speed (assuming SDCM has higher laser intensity to make up for the ~3% open area of the spinning disks). 
 +      * Camera readout bounds the maximum achievable frame rate.  For example, 512 pixels high ROI is 2.5 ms readout time for sCMOS.  Allowing 2.5 ms illumination time results in 5 ms total per image or 200 frames per second.

Trace: