Fw: ? of compatability of camera with ImageJ software

[Jeffrey S. Putter, M.D.]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey S. Putter, M.D." <[hidden email]>
To: "David Knecht" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: ? of compatability of camera with ImageJ software

> Dear Dr. Knecht:
>
> Your concerns about equipment costs were well received by me.
> Under special experimental conditions, I am anticipating a particular
> result in our blood storage research. If there is a 'no-effect' in this
> experimentation, I would have expended $14,000 in equipment
> costs for a fruitless endeavor.
>
> To hedge against this risk,  I could purchase the Olympus CX 41X
> upright clinical scope at approximately $4,000 USD for my initial phase
> contrast images of red blood cells. This would include
> 10x, 40x, 60x, 100x objectives and a phase contrast turret with
> dark field (DF probably useful only at lower magnification).
>
> There is a 30W light source, which should be adequate.
> These images could be studied with manual cell counting
> for morphology and no initial requirement for dark field or digital
> imaging.
> The light source is insufficient for high power dark field on
> this particular scope anyway.
>
> If however the early results are promising, this could justify
> an upgrade to an Olympus BX41 or 51 with a 100W light source
> for dark field imaging and digital microscopy. These scopes price at
> approximately $8,000-$9,000 USD. A dark field condenser with iris would
> also be required. To moderate cost, the objectives between the
> CX 41 and BX 41 or BX 51 scopes are interchangeable but not the phase
> contrast turret.
>
> As a result of the input provided to me by the members and also
> three camera/microscope manufacturers, I have been able to better
> prioritize
> the equipment purchases. In order to be pragmatic for this project, the
> results of the early experimentation should determine the future
> equipment needs in my opinion.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Jeffrey S. Putter, M.D.
> Medical Director
> Medical Biomechanics Inc.
> 100 E. San Marcos Blvd., Suite 400
> San Marcos, CA 92069
> Tel.: [phone]
> Fax: [phone]
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Knecht" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Jeffrey S. Putter, M.D." <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:41 AM
> Subject: Re: ? of compatability of camera with ImageJ software
>
>
>>I was not sure I wanted to put this out generally, because it may not
>>matter, but one thing not to be fooled by in your purchasing is  cooling.
>>In my experience, this only really matters for very long  exposures
>>(seconds and beyond). If you can see it by eye through the  microscope,
>>then you can image without cooling.  COoling adds cost  and complexity and
>>something to fail, but unfortunately, it is  sometimes hard to find
>>cameras without it because people think they  need it.  So most of the
>>better cameras have it so they can compete  with the competition.  I have
>>used an inexpensive Sony Firewire  camera (Scion now makes an even better
>>one) for some of our imaging  for years and it works fine.  You will get
>>better quality and  sensitivity out of the expensive cameras ($8-10,000),
>>it just depends  on your needs.  Dave
>>
>> Dr. David Knecht
>> Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
>> U-3125
>> 91 N. Eagleville Rd.
>> University of Connecticut
>> Storrs, CT 06269
>> 860-486-2200
>> 860-486-4331 (fax)
>>
>>
>> On Jan 3, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Jeffrey S. Putter, M.D. wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for the useful input from Drs. Hessman and Ross in  guiding
>>> our equipment purchases.
>>>
>>> Jeffrey S. Putter, M.D.
>>>
>>> Medical Director
>>>
>>> Medical Biomechanics Inc.
>>>
>>> 100 E. San Marcos Blvd., Suite 400
>>>
>>> San Marcos, CA 92069
>>>
>>> Tel.: [phone]
>>>
>>> Fax: [phone]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hessman Frederic"
>>> <[hidden email]>
>>> To: <[hidden email]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 1:25 AM
>>> Subject: Re: ? of compatability of camera with ImageJ software
>>>
>>>
>>>> Coming from astronomy - where all cameras are monochrome and  cooling
>>>> is an absolute necessity for long exposures - I'm not  familiar with
>>>> the cameras used in microscopy, but most CCD color  cameras are just
>>>> monochrome cameras where each pixel has been  outfitted with a filter
>>>> (in groups of 4: 2xgreen, 1xblue,  1xred).  This means monochrome
>>>> cameras are more sensitive only in  the sense that they use "white
>>>> light" (if no filter is used).   Dynamic range is just a question of
>>>> cost and not monochrome vs  color : do you want to pay for 16 bits or
>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>> Rick
>>>>
>>>> On 2 Jan 2007, at 10:43 pm, Jacqui Ross wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jeffrey,
>>>>>
>>>>> Monochrome cameras are more sensitive and have more dynamic range
>>>>> than
>>>>> colour. If you have the additional dollars available, then I  would go
>>>>> for the cooled monochrome option.
>>>>>
>>>>> The cooling decreases noise which is important if you are doing
>>>>> fluorescence or dark field imaging, where light levels are much less
>>>>> than in brightfield/transmitted light imaging and where higher  gain
>>>>> or
>>>>> longer exposure times are required.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think darkfield images will be easier to segment for analysis than
>>>>> phase contrast ones and a better quality image with less background
>>>>> noise means less processing time required.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, if possible, you should trial the two cameras that you are
>>>>> considering on your optical platform as Gabriel suggested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacqui.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacqueline Ross
>>>>> Biomedical Imaging Research Unit
>>>>> School of Medical Sciences
>>>>> Faculty of Medical & Health Sciences
>>>>> The University of Auckland
>>>>> Private Bag 92019
>>>>> Auckland, NEW ZEALAND
>>>>>
>>>>> Tel: [phone] Ext 87438
>>>>> Fax: [phone]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.health.auckland.ac.nz/biru/
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: ImageJ Interest Group [mailto:[hidden email]] On  Behalf Of
>>>>> Jeffrey S. Putter, M.D.
>>>>> Sent: 31 December 2006 15:38
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Subject: Re: ? of compatability of camera with ImageJ software
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Members:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a follow-up to the valuable input provided by G. Landini.
>>>>> I have spoken with Qimaging Corporation regarding the
>>>>> following monochrome CCD cameras. My understanding is
>>>>> that the QICAM cameras are ImageJ compatible.
>>>>> Does the improved camera image
>>>>> as a result of cooling warrant an additional $1,000 USD expense?
>>>>>
>>>>> QICAM 12-bit Mono Fast 1394
>>>>> Model: QIC-F-M-12
>>>>> 1392 x 1040 pixels
>>>>> 12 bit
>>>>> Binning up to 8 x 8
>>>>> $4,490 USD pretax; $2,287.31 GBP
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> QICAM 12-bit Mono Fast 1394 Cooled
>>>>> Model: QIC-F-M-12-C
>>>>> 1392 x 1040 pixels
>>>>> 12 bit
>>>>> Binning up to 8 x 8
>>>>> $5,490 USD pretax; $2,796.73 GBP
>>>>>
>>>>> I intend to measure the perimeters and areas of red blood cells  in
>>>>> dark
>>>>> field photomicrosocopy.
>>>>> I intend to visualize aberrations of the red blood cell membrane
>>>>> morphology ((blebs and spicules) using phase contrast microscopy.
>>>>> QIMAGE Corp recommended dark field microscopy for optimal
>>>>> imaging regarding red blood cell membrane edge detection.
>>>>> QIMAGE Corp recommended a monochrome CCD camera for improved
>>>>> image resolution versus color.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cordially,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeffrey S. Putter, M.D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Medical Director
>>>>>
>>>>> Medical Biomechanics Inc.
>>>>>
>>>>> 100 E. San Marcos Blvd., Suite 400
>>>>>
>>>>> San Marcos, CA 92069
>>>>>
>>>>> Tel.: [phone]
>>>>>
>>>>> Fax: [phone]
>>>>>
>>>>> Email: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>