Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-wph62 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T05:20:51.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of Slow-Scan CCD Cameras in Routine Biological TEM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

P.E. Mooney ,
O.L. Krivanek ,
D.A. Ray  and
J. Charlesworth
P.E. Mooney
Affiliation:
Gatan, Inc.
O.L. Krivanek
Affiliation:
Gatan, Inc.
D.A. Ray
Affiliation:
Gatan, Inc.
J. Charlesworth
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Slow-scan CCD (charge-coupled device) cameras (SSCs) are based on optical image detection technology introduced in the seventies and first used in astronomy in the eighties. When they are properly configured for the detection of medium energy electrons rather than photons, they are able to capture images that exceed the quality of images recorded on photographic film. Here we discuss aspects of their operation pertinent to routine biological TEM.

Compared to the TV-rate CCD sensors that have become ubiquitous in miniature camcorders, scientific (astronomy-grade) CCDs have several unique characteristics: 1) their pixels are typically 20-27 urn in size rather than the 6 urn typical of TV rate CCDs, 2) their read-out amplifiers are optimized for low noise at read out rates of 1/10 to 1/100 of TV rate, 3) they do not have a separate frame-transfer buffer for CCD read-out, and 4) they are available in large total sizes (up to 2048 x 2048 pixels).

Type
Research Article
Information
Microscopy Today , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 4 - 5
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 1993

References

1. Amelio, G.F., Charge-coupled Devices, Scientific American, (Feb., 1974), 22.Google Scholar
2. Kristian, J. & Blouke, M., Charge-coupled Devices in Astronomy, Sci. Am., (Oct., 1982), 66.Google Scholar
3. Mochel, M.E. & Mochel, J.M.. Proc. 44th EMSA Meeting (1986), 616.Google Scholar
4. Mooney, P.E., et al, Proc. XIIth ICEM (1990), 164.Google Scholar
5. Krivanek, O.L., et al, (to be published in Proc. 1991 EMAG Meetings)Google Scholar