I've been looking around and I can't seem to find a satisfactory answer on this subject. I understand that an SDCM already performs deconvolution by mere virtue of existing (pinholes ignore out-of-focus light). However, I can't find a good consensus on whether adding digital deconvolution on top of that will improve the image. Of the things I've found that say its worthwhile, I get large changes in resolution gained.
My samples are never terribly thick (10-15um, usually) and the microscope is extremely modern. For now, it suits my needs perfectly well. But I was thinking of starting a project where I need to go just slightly beyond its current capabilities.
I'm not hoping for an insane improvement, else I would skip straight to super-resolution or TEM. I'm just wondering if there is one and how much it is.
Edit: This is the sixth time today I've tried to post this question.
I am not so familiar with SDCM, but i know something about its brothers, such as the imaging scanning microscope and the Zeiss Airyscan. I can answer you faithfully that the deconvolution operation will contribute a lot to the final result in this type of mciroscope. Particular, the RL deconvolution behaves best.
Confocal images can be deconvolved, it's not unheard of. Whether it's worth it or not will depend to a large extent on the deconvolution algorithm/software. You will see some improvement in noise reduction and further contrast enhancement. Perhaps a small (20-30 nm) increase in resolution as well.
ImageJ's set of sharpening filters will give you similar performance to state-of-the-art deconvolution methods, especially on real world data.
On the other hand you might be happy with the sharper images!
I'd press sharpen a few times, as this is a reasonable trade-off between time invested and achieved results.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Pharmacology
- Pharmaceuticals
- Drugs