Talk:Super-resolution microscopy

Replacing Cremer-isms on the page
This page contains an unusual number of Cremer-isms, that is, words and phrases used by C. Cremer et al, but nobody else in the community. For example, SPDM is an extremely unusual term, SMLM being much more common. Additionally, SPDMphymod is not significantly differing from PALM, STORM and consorts, so I would suggest to reorganize the LM section with a common introduction and specific sections for each method. Objections, anyone?

Thiton (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing common parts from the STORM subsection and mentioning the dSTORM/STORM naming conflict
While liking it overall, I see two problems that should be remedied in the recent addition of the STORM subsection:


 * There is no need for the first few sentences, which equally refer to all localization microscopy techniques, to be repeated, they are already sufficiently mentioned in the introduction to localization microscopy. I'd like to delete them for the sake of clarity. Objections, anyone?
 * It is very confusing for new people when mentioning STORM with single molecules first and unconditionally naming both dye pairs and single dyes as "STORM" and then declaring single dyes as "dSTORM". I'd like to either go the grand unified way here and merge the dSTORM and STORM section (since, frankly, this is the same technique and the naming just politics) or at least place a hint towards the temporal development, i.e. put dyes first and then single fluorophores, and a hint towards the fact that some people call single, organic fluorophore localization microscopy "STORM" and some call it "dSTORM".

@Zhuanglab, could you please give your opinion about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.193.177.220 (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

PALM/FPALM
The FPALM discussion might benefit from the following sources: LeadSongDog come howl!  15:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Eq. 2 missing
althoug referred in the text--134.130.95.104 (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Simplification
Opinion: This article needs to be simplified and/or divided into sub-articles. It needs to be slightly "laymanized".

Hrodrik (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinion: This is a mess. The heading "true super-resolution techniques" makes it sound like the other methods are "untrue." That is nonsense. Also a name like "deterministic functional" is meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.180.64 (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Opinion: Introduction needs serious overhaul. All that tunneling microscopy and guerra's 1995 paper details need to be put under the proper sub-section.217.110.38.73 (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Super-resolution microscopy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070314005309/http://www.olympusmicro.com:80/primer/techniques/nearfield/nearfieldintro.html to http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/techniques/nearfield/nearfieldintro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

GSDIM is stochastic method
GSDIM is another name for SMLM (single molecule localization microscopy), used by Leica. I'ts the same as (d)STORM (F)PALM, SPDM, ... This creates some confusion with Stefan Hell's GSD Imaging (a kind of complementary approach to STED)... zdenek

Overly complex passage in lead, possibly ambiguous as well
Super-resolution imaging techniques rely on the near-field (photon tunneling microscopy as well as those that utilize the Pendry Superlens and near field scanning optical microscopy) or on the far-field. Among the latter are techniques that improve the resolution only modestly (up to about a factor of two) beyond the diffraction-limit like the confocal microscope (with closed pinhole), or confocal microscopy aided with computational methods such as deconvolution or detector-based pixel reassignment (e.g. re-scan microscopy, pixel reassignment), the 4Pi microscope, and also structured illumination microscopy technologies like SIM and SMI.

I find that too hard to mentally review, so for my own notes I refactored the above as follows:

Super-resolution that relies on the near-field:
 * photon tunneling microscopy
 * Pendry Superlens
 * field scanning optical microscopy

Super-resolution that relies on the far-field (limited to about a factor of two in resolution gain beyond the diffraction-limit):
 * confocal microscope (with closed pinhole)
 * confocal microscopy aided with computational methods such as:
 * deconvolution or detector-based pixel reassignment (e.g. re-scan microscopy, pixel reassignment)
 * the 4Pi microscope
 * structured illumination microscopy technologies like SIM and SMI.

In doing so, I realized that the second sentence is formally ambiguous, with the following also being a valid reading:

Super-resolution that relies on the far-field (limited to about a factor of two in resolution gain beyond the diffraction-limit):
 * confocal microscope (with closed pinhole)
 * confocal microscopy aided with computational methods such as:
 * deconvolution or detector-based pixel reassignment (e.g. re-scan microscopy, pixel reassignment)
 * the 4Pi microscope
 * structured illumination microscopy technologies like SIM and SMI.

In general, about 30% of the time when I encounter a nested such-as within a complex list, some element of the parse is floating in the wind and placing mad faith the judgement of the reader.

It can be fixed in its original form through the careful use of semicolons, or it can blown apart along the lines of my private crib, as quoted above. &mdash; MaxEnt 03:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)