Talk:Differential interference contrast microscopy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I believe DIC is also known as Nomarski microscopy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.129.15 (talk • contribs) 17:52, October 15, 2006 .
- Indeed it is.--Srleffler 00:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Already a while ago I created a redirection page: Nomarski interference contrast. Pvosta 19:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- At the NIC disambiguation page I (re-added) Nomarski Interference Contrast.~~
[edit] Example
This should have an actual DIC picture. —Ben FrantzDale 02:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Instruction Manual?
I recently adopted a DIC olympus microscope and don't really know how to use it optimally. I have read a basic book about microscopy, but it didn't include anything on DIC. I have the instruction manual from olympus but that just includes how to line things up and set up the scope, not how to get the best use from it.
I was just wondering if anybody had a good source about the fundamentals of the scope that could be added so I, and others, could learn a bit about it. Preferably a PDF. Thanks a lot, Rjkd12 16:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- http://www.microscopyu.com/articles/dic/dicindex.html and http://microscopy.berkeley.edu/Resources/instruction/DIC.html may be useful... have a read of these - Zephyris Talk 11:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DIC vs Phase Contrast, and AVEC-DIC
Everyone always says DIC looks better than phase, but on my main microscope (a Nikon Eclipse TE-2000U, using 60x objectives), i don't find that. I think we have abnormally good phase contrast, for some reason!
Anyway, concerning the article, a disadvantage of DIC compared to phase that i've heard is that DIC optics are more demanding in terms of alignment and adjustment; phase is something any lummox can make work on their random tissue culture room microscope, but DIC takes some finesse (possibly the reason it doesn't look so great on my scope!). Is there any basis to that? If so, we should mention it and give details.
Also, a minor thing perhaps, but a big difference between phase and DIC systems is the optical efficiency; you need to put far less light into a DIC than a phase system to get comparable brightness at your eye, and moreover, far less light onto the sample, which is good news for live cell imaging. Related to this is the fact that DIC lenses are also more efficient (do we say 'faster' for microscope lenses?) for fluorescence imaging, so if you have a setup oriented towards fluorescence, going for DIC as your transmission method is a wise move.
Lastly, there's a technique called AVEC-DIC (the 'VEC' bit is, i think,'video enhanced contrast') which was quite popular with fancy-pants microscopists in the '80s, before fluorescence imaging of live cells became feasible, that somehow gives even better images than DIC; i have a 1988 paper by Colin Izzard where he uses it to look at forming actin bundles in migrating cells, something i struggle to do with GFP-actin and hojillions of pounds' worth of confocal microscope.
(edit: we have an entry under vedic for video-enhanced DIC, which just points here, where there isn't an explanation; we do have a citation down at the bottom, though; i should read up on this and come back and write about it)
-- Tom Anderson 2007-02-20 1345 +0000
- Good comments!
- DIC optics are both more expensive and more complex than phase, and so almost certainly harder to set up. I think this belongs in the article if true.
- For optical efficiency do you have a good reference for this? I like this as a concept, and again it belongs in the article.
- Let us know about AVEC-DIC!
