h a l f b a k e r yI think, therefore I am thinking.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Apologies for a somewhat geeky post.
First to explain confocal microscopy. In a conventional
microscope, only a narrow plane is in focus, but light
from
out-of-focus areas (closer to and further from the
objective
lens) also contributes to the image. The blurred
foreground and background
images contribute
noise to the image, especially if (as is usually the case in
biology) you're looking at a semi-transparent object like
a
cell.
The confocal microscope is a brilliant solution to this
problem. The light coming from the objective is
focussed
through a point (imagine the light rays forming an hour-
glass shape, or rather the shape of a diabolo - two cones
point-to-point). At this point in space, you put an
opaque
screen with a pinhole in it, like putting a tight collar
around the waist of the hourglass. The result (easier to
understand if you sketch out the light rays on paper) is
that
light coming from behind or in front of the focal plane is
blocked (because those rays do not focus to the same
point, and hence hit the screen rather than going
through
the pinhole).
The result is that you can image a perfect "optical
section"
through the cell or whatever. You can also take multiple
optical sections, to reconstruct a true 3-D image.
The downside, though, is that the pinhole blocks all of
the
image except for a focal point (ie, light rays coming
from
points on either side are also blocked by the screen, as
well as those from in front or behind). Therefore,
confocal microscopes use a raster-scan technique,
collecting the image point-by-point.
The raster scanning can be done in various ways.
Typically, a pair of mirrors (X and Y) is used to shift the
focal point in a raster pattern. On good systems, the
scanning can be done at better-than-TV rates, so you can
collect maybe a hundred full images per second
(important
for looking at dynamic processes). Another solution is to
use a "Nipkow disc", which is a spinning disc with
multiple
pinholes; each pinhole moves across the image-plane in
turn, to give the same effect as a single pinhole scanning
the image.
(Note - to avoid confusion - this isn't a "pinhole lens"; the
microscope objective is a normal one, and collects much
more light than a pinhole would; that light is then
funnelled through the pinhole to block the out-of-focus
parts of it.)
Anyway, as far as I know, the raster-scanning of the
pinhole is always done mechanically.
Now, it is possible to make LCD screens with very small
pixel sizes, and I'm guessing that it would be possible to
make a small LCD screen with pixel sizes similar to the
pinhole size in a confocal microscope.
So, why not replace the pinhole (and the mechanics
needed
to scan the point-image) with a small, dense LCD array.
The array would be set to "black", except for a single
clear
pixel, and the position of this clear pixel could be
scanned
to produce the confocal image, without any mechanics.
(Note: the pixel-size of the LCD array isn't really very
important; you can funnel the light in such a way that a
100µm "pinhole" correponds to a diffraction-limited spot
on the image, for instance. But small pixels would be
convenient.)
I know this would play havoc with polarised light but, in
most biological applications, polarization doesn't enter
into
things (it does in a few case, though, for which this
method would not work.)
Incidentally, Googling did turn up a "virtual pinhole"
confocal using LCDs. However, as far as I can tell, it's a
light-field camera which collects data allowing a 3D
image (or slice thereof) to be reconstucted in silico,
rather than using the LCD as a moving pinhole.
patent WO 9940471
http://worldwide.es...&NR=9940471A1&KC=A1 uses LCD "spatial light modulator" [xaviergisz, Nov 08 2011]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
|
This sounds like it could work [+]. |
|
|
Coincidentally I was thinking about something similar to this the other day. I was wondering if a scanning pinhole could be used to improve sharpness in a conventional camera, unaware this was in use in microscopes. |
|
|
Look into digital mirror devices - they might be better than LCD for this application. |
|
|
From Wikipedia, "Confocal Microscope": |
|
|
Programmable Array Microscopes (PAM) use an electronically controlled spatial light modulator (SLM) that produces a set of moving pinholes. The SLM is a device containing an array of pixels with some property (opacity, reflectivity or optical rotation) of the individual pixels that can be adjusted electronically. The SLM contains microelectromechanical mirrors or liquid crystal components. The image is usually acquired by a CCD camera. |
|
|
[bigsleep] AFAIK, the sample is moved relative to the lens assembly to alter the position of the focal plane in the sample, as in most microscopes. The pinhole(s) must be scanned because only a point on the sample is illuminated and visible at a time. |
|
|
If an LCD can effectively block enough light, why haven't conventional cameras started using them as aperture diaphragms? Would be much quicker to respond than the mechanical iris. Only thing I can think of is the effect of polarized light on the autofocus system. |
|
|
Also, LCD elements block at least half the light; and they would create artifacts by interacting with the polarisation of the incoming light; and only relatively high-end cameras have irises now, so compromising picture quality would not go down well. Otherwise they would be fine. |
|
|
//sn't it just an up/down movement of the
pinhole through the vertical focal field, like, done
manually like ? Lenses being 2D and all that.// |
|
|
No, if it's truly confocal, then the image itself only
covers a few microns (or much less) of the image
in the plane of focus (ie, the imaged volume is
very small and roughly barrel-shaped), so it's
scanned in 2D (as well as in the 3rd D if you want
multiple optical sections). |
|
|
//So, baked! // I did mention the "light field"
camera, which I think is what you're referring to.
But my understanding is that it collects light in a
different way to a confocal; it collects depth
information, but doesn't reject out-of-focus light
at any particular depth. Or maybe it does - I
couldn't understand it well enough. |
|
|
As for the question of whether LCDs are opaque
enough - yeah, I'm not sure. When I was a kid I
thought I had a brilliant idea for an SLR camera
that used an LCD shutter, and I worried about
speed and opacity. So, I don't know. Speed
should be OK (LCD screens run at a hundred hertz
maybe). As for opacity, I think probably the
transmission of an "open" LCD is pretty high, so if
necessary you could stack them to get the opacity
when "closed". (in a confocal microscope, there
are two or three planes where you can put the
pinhole, so you could put an LCD pinhole at each
so the opacities added). |
|
|
//sn't it just an up/down movement of the
pinhole through the vertical focal field, like, done
manually like ? Lenses being 2D and all that.// |
|
|
No, if it's truly confocal, then the image itself only
covers a few microns (or much less) of the image
in the plane of focus (ie, the imaged volume is
very small and roughly barrel-shaped), so it's
scanned in 2D (as well as in the 3rd D if you want
multiple optical sections). |
|
|
//So, baked! // I did mention the "light field"
camera, which I think is what you're referring to.
But my understanding is that it collects light in a
different way to a confocal; it collects depth
information, but doesn't reject out-of-focus light
at any particular depth. Or maybe it does - I
couldn't understand it well enough. |
|
|
As for the question of whether LCDs are opaque
enough - yeah, I'm not sure. When I was a kid I
thought I had a brilliant idea for an SLR camera
that used an LCD shutter, and I worried about
speed and opacity. So, I don't know. Speed
should be OK (LCD screens run at a hundred hertz
maybe). As for opacity, I think probably the
transmission of an "open" LCD is pretty high, so if
necessary you could stack them to get the opacity
when "closed". (in a confocal microscope, there
are two or three planes where you can put the
pinhole, so you could put an LCD pinhole at each
so the opacities added). |
|
|
As an undergraduate, I my third-year project was to evaluate the properties of an SLM (as mentioned by [spidermother] - essentially it was a very small 48x48 LCD matrix). The problem with it was that the contrast between on and off was pretty poor. |
|
|
Ah well. Perhaps it's a non-starter then. You'd
probably want >95% transmission (of at least one
polarization) when "open", and maybe 90% occlusion
when "off". |
|
| |