Thanks Bob. That was exactly I was looking for. I have read somewhere that
using an oversampled PSF (better resolution than the image itself) can be
beneficial. But it didn't seem logical for your plugin.
For instance, Huygens Pro suggested to use the Nyquist rate to have the
ideal sampling size (micron per pixel). Would you recommend this approach
for your plugin?
Regards,
Milad
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Robert Dougherty <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> Milad,
>
> I'm not sure I understand the question, but the general idea is to make the
> PSF and the images you plan to deconvolve have the same number of microns
> per pixel.
>
> Bob
>
> Robert P. Dougherty, Ph.D.
> President, OptiNav, Inc.
> Phone (425) 990-5912
> Fax (425) 467-1119
> www.optinav.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ImageJ Interest Group [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
> > Milad Alemzadeh
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 12:50 PM
> > To:
[hidden email]
> > Subject: Iterative Deconvolution
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I am using Bob Dougherty's Iterative Deconvolution plugin. I was
> wondering
> > when using experimental PSF images, what size would be appropriate for a
> > PSF? What I understand is the plugin only considers the PSF width in
> pixel
> > and not the physical width (DPI). Therefore, if I take an image of a PSF
> > with higher resolution, the size of PSF in pixel increases but the final
> > deconvolved image will be degraded.
> >
> > What pixel size should I use to record my beads as PSF?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Milad
>
Locked
