Feedbacks and Comments

Please leave here your feedbacks, comments, or questions about PSFj. We will try to address them as fast as possible. The comments will be subjected to approval and edited if needed.

Leave a feedback

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

7 feedbacks on “PSFj”

  1. Gert-Jan Bakker

    Dear developers,

    PSFj is now around for already a couple of years and for us it is still a valuable tool to evaluate equipment and experiments. The program is nice to evaluate the microscope’s PSF and aberration characteristics, but it potentially enables generation of much more data on the microscope quality.

    My question is, did the team or other PSFj users consider to extend the functionality of PSFj? That would really be helpful. If this is not the case, we might give it a try, to add functionality such that a single psf-bead sample measurement can be used to generate a general overview of the microscope performance.

    The idea we have is as follows. During a microscopy facility meeting of the Dutch association for microscopy (NVvM), we came to the conclusion that most facilities lack the time to do a thorough quality control on all the microscope individual parts, on a frequent basis. Nevertheless, there is a need to track the general microscope performance, especially for high end confocals and super resolution setups. A simple measurement on a bead sample could potentially give this information.

    However, PSFj is focused on resolution and does not evaluate the intensity of the beads, e.g. the intensity distribution over the field of view. This would be easy to add though.

    With best regards,
    Gert-Jan

    Reply
  2. Wolfgang Keil

    Hi,
    I was wondering, whether the software has a way of exporting an average PSF obtained from the various beads. This should be a small stack then. I would like use this empirical PSF to deconvolute z-stacks that I am taking with the microscope.

    Thanks for any hints
    Wolfgang

    Reply
  3. Øystein

    Hi guys, I saw your poster at FOM this year. The software looks great. I have a question: When i use my own data I do not get to set the size of the sub-stacks. The fader is just stuck at zero, and as an implication the analyses do not work. I tested your test-stacks and they seem to work just fine. Any idea what might cause this problem?

    Best regards,
    Øystein

    Reply
  5. Gert-Jan Bakker

    Dear Programmers,

    Thank you very much for this useful and userfriendly tool. I have a question regarding psf analysis of three dimensional bead samples.

    We are currently testing a microendoscope objective and to obtain its optical characteristics I measured a sample with multicolor sub-diffraction sized beads in agar gel. Due to the shape of the objective, it is not possible to measure a standard bead sample, consisting of beads adhered to a flat slide. We will find a solution for that, but currently we have recorded image stacks of randomly positioned beads in agar gel.

    Would it be possible to make a small modification to the program, such that all beads in a thicker z-stack are characterized? Not only those within the narrow volume, around the plane containing the beads? I’m aware of the fact that planarity of the field cannot be characterized in this case.

    Thank you very much for your answer!

    Best regards,
    Gert-Jan

    Reply