Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T19:47:52.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dose Limited Resolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

D. Van Dyck
Affiliation:
Dept. Physics, University of Antwerp (RUCA), Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020Antwerpen, Belgium
A.J. den Dekker
Affiliation:
Dept. Physics, University of Antwerp (RUCA), Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020Antwerpen, Belgium
J. Sijbers
Affiliation:
Dept. Physics, University of Antwerp (RUCA), Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020Antwerpen, Belgium
E. Bettens
Affiliation:
Dept. Physics, University of Antwerp (RUCA), Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020Antwerpen, Belgium
Get access

Extract

1. Introduction

The definition of resolution as introduced by Lord Rayleigh [1] is related to the width of the point spread function of the imaging device. In this definition, noise has not been taken into account. Another definition of resolution has been introduced by Rose [2] in the field of radar and TV. Here the resolution is defined in terms of the dose (D) (i.e. number of imaging particles per unit area) and the signal to noise ratio SNR (i.e. the minimal contrast) A third definition of resolution is based on the idea that the microscope is a communication channel between the object and the observer. The resolution can then be rephrased as the amount of information that is transmitted by the channel in the sense as defined by Shannon [3] as a number of bits per unit area. This definition however does not describe how this information can be deduced and what its precision is.

Type
Developments in Measuring Polymer Microstructures
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Rayleigh, Lord, Philosophical Magazine, 8, 261 (1879).Google Scholar
2.Rose, H., Optik 85, 19 (1990).Google Scholar
3.Shannon, C.E., in: “The Mathematical Theory of Communication”, Univ. of 111. Pr., Chicago (1949);Google Scholar
Van Dyck, D.de Jong, A.F., Ultramicroscopy 47, 266281 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.van den Bos, A.,in “Handb. of Measurement Sci”, Vol. 1, Sydenham, P.H. (ed), 1982, p. 331377.Google Scholar
5.den Dekker, A.J., Sijbers, J., Van Dyck, D., van den Bos, A., Ultramicroscopy, to be published.Google Scholar
6.van den Bos, A., Ultramicroscopy 47, 298306 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.van den Bos, A. and Den Dekker, A.J., Ultramicroscopy 60, 345348 (1995); A.J., den Dekker, in: “Proceedings of the ICASSP96, Atlanta 1996, IEEE, 1996, p. 2395-2398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar