T Bannor tbannor at
Mon Nov 28 14:21:04 EST 1994

In article <3bcq9m$fae at>, brazelto at
(brazelton anthony d) writes:

In a previous post I put forth an opinion that the Molecular Dynamics
phosphorimager is superior to the Fuji phosphorimager.  That ill-conceived
post was based solely on the fact that the MD PI has better resolution of
images.  The Fuji PI is in fact more sensitive to weak beta-emissions. 
I use primarily 32P, either machine would probably perform adequately for

The basis of my opinion that the MD PI is superior to the Fuji PI rests on
a comparison of Dot Blot images when considering image quality and 
publishability.  The MD PI yields a nicer picture under similar

My original post on this matter should have stipulated this fact and it
irresponsible of me to state blindly that MD is better than Fuji.  For
users Fuji will suit their needs as well or better than a MD product.  

With apologies to Fuji,

Tony Brazelton

Apology accepted. By the way, it is true that the MD instrument gives a
nicer looking picture. One of the reasons for this is that Fuji displays
the image using a log display while MD apparently uses a linear display. A
linear display gives a cleaner looking image, however, faint signals are
harder to see. I have suggested that Fuji include a toggle in their next
software update that allows the user to choose the manner in which the
image is displayed. One thing phosphor-plate users should always keep in
mind is that the advantages to using these instruments are speed and
superior quantitation. If all you want is a publication quality image, you
can save a lot of money by using X-ray film and a good film scanning

Anyhow, I have decided to move from Fuji to PerSeptive Biosystems so if
there are any readers of this news group in the Midwest who know me, the
next time you hear from me, that's where I'll be.


Todd Bannor

More information about the Methods mailing list