Abstract
ABSTRACTThe plethora of available scientific cameras of different types challenges the biologically oriented experimenter when picking the appropriate camera for his experiment. In this study, we chose to investigate camera performances in a typical nonsingle molecule situation in life sciences, that is, quantitative measurements of fluorescence intensity changes from video data with typically skewed intensity distributions. Here, intensity profile dynamics of pH‐sensors upon triggered changes of pH‐environments in living cells served as a model system. The following camera types were tested: sCMOS, CCD (scientific and nonscientific) and EM‐CCD (back‐ and front‐illuminated). We found that although the EM‐CCD cameras achieved the best absolute spatial SNR (signal‐to‐noise ratio) values, the sCMOS was at least of equal performance when the spatial SNR was related to the effective dynamic range, and it was superior in terms of temporal SNR. In the measurements of triggered intensity changes, the sCMOS camera had the advantage that it used the smallest fraction of its dynamic range when depicting intensity changes, and thus featured the best SNR at full usage of its dynamic range. Microsc. Res. Tech. 76:835–843, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Bibliography
Jung, J., Weisenburger, S., Albert, S., Gilbert, D. F., Friedrich, O., Eulenburg, V., Kornhuber, J., & Groemer, T. W. (2013). Performance of scientific cameras with different sensor types in measuring dynamic processes in fluorescence microscopy. Microscopy Research and Technique, 76(8), 835â843. Portico.
References
35
Referenced
7
10.2144/02335dd10
10.1523/JNEUROSCI.12-02-00363.1992
10.1038/346818a0
10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3398-07.2008
10.1038/359859a0
{'key': 'e_1_2_6_7_1', 'volume-title': 'Live Cell Imaging: A Laboratory Manual', 'author': 'Goldman RD', 'year': '2005'}
/ Live Cell Imaging: A Laboratory Manual by Goldman RD (2005)10.1063/1.3148224
10.1038/373663b0
10.1364/OE.19.019156
10.1016/j.toxlet.2012.08.027
10.1039/b807408a
10.1364/OE.20.017741
10.1186/1756-6606-3-11
10.1038/28190
10.1007/978-0-387-45524-2
10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.09.054
10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-15-06427.1999
10.1117/1.3505017
10.1038/nmeth.1991
10.1038/35008615
10.1364/OE.20.007338
10.1016/j.jsb.2005.06.002
10.1038/nmeth.1202
10.1038/nature09642
10.1002/jemt.20858
10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80376-1
10.1038/nmeth.2062
10.1074/jbc.M109.043711
10.1002/jemt.20943
10.1111/j.1471-4159.2006.03821.x
10.1034/j.1600-0854.2002.31108.x
10.1371/journal.pone.0013514
10.1016/j.bpj.2010.12.3706
10.1007/s00249-011-0722-3
10.1038/nn1739
Dates
Type | When |
---|---|
Created | 12 years, 3 months ago (June 3, 2013, 8 a.m.) |
Deposited | 1 year, 11 months ago (Oct. 3, 2023, 3:48 p.m.) |
Indexed | 1 year, 11 months ago (Oct. 4, 2023, 1:40 a.m.) |
Issued | 12 years, 3 months ago (June 3, 2013) |
Published | 12 years, 3 months ago (June 3, 2013) |
Published Online | 12 years, 3 months ago (June 3, 2013) |
Published Print | 12 years, 1 month ago (Aug. 1, 2013) |
@article{Jung_2013, title={Performance of scientific cameras with different sensor types in measuring dynamic processes in fluorescence microscopy}, volume={76}, ISSN={1097-0029}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jemt.22236}, DOI={10.1002/jemt.22236}, number={8}, journal={Microscopy Research and Technique}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Jung, Jasmin and Weisenburger, Siegfried and Albert, Sahradha and Gilbert, Daniel F. and Friedrich, Oliver and Eulenburg, Volker and Kornhuber, Johannes and Groemer, Teja W.}, year={2013}, month=jun, pages={835–843} }