docs:comparison_with_confocal

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.

===== Comparison of diSPIM With Confocal =====

The following comparison was written with diSPIM in mind, but the main points apply to all types of SPIM.

  * 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.
      * 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.
  * Confocal has better Z resolution than single-view SPIM but worse than dual-view SPIM after registration/fusion.  XY resolution is comparable.
  * Spinning disk confocal is just a massively parallel confocal implementation so it's faster but has the some characteristics otherwise.
  * 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).

Trace: • gpu_dispimfusion • troubleshooting • labview • video_tutorials • mipav_generatefusion

Navigation

Search

Toolbox