Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core NetNotes Bob Price University of South Carolina School of Medicine
[email protected] . IP address: Selected postings are from recent discussion threads included in NA, for example, a 40× NA 1.4 objective compared to 63× NA 1.4? 170.106.202.8 the Microscopy (http://www.microscopy.com), Confocal Microscopy Confocal.nl stated this is in a recent webinar and on their website: “A (https://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy), and 3DEM lower magnification allows for a larger field of view and brighter images, (https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem) listservers. since light intensity is inversely proportional to the magnification squared.” , on Postings may have been edited to conserve space or for clarity. Complete (https://www.confocal.nl/#rcm2). I would think that this is caused by less 27 Sep 2021 at 13:46:36 listings and subscription information can be found at the above websites. light going through the smaller back focal aperture when the illumination is held constant? Most of the light is clipped as explained in figure 1 of https://www.nature.com/articles/s41596-020-0313-9. So, the microscope Zemax Simulations and Microscope Objectives manufacturer could adjust the illumination beam path and laser powers Confocal Listserver to best suit the objective? Or are lower magnification objectives really To enable Zemax simulations for a customized two-photon microscope brighter? The field of view will obviously be larger for the 40× objective, but , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at (university research application), I am looking for the prescription for the I am more interested in understanding the claimed benefit in brightness.