Phosphoimagers vs Instantimager

Ian A. York york at mbcrr.dfci.harvard.edu
Tue Oct 4 08:16:35 EST 1994


In article <36odp6$6p4 at mserv1.dl.ac.uk> grggta at picr.cr.man.ac.uk (Graham Atherton) writes:

	I can't compare the two as I've only used the PhosphorImager, but 
I agree with Graham that the main advantage would be for 32P.  I used one 
mainly for 35S and didn't find a great deal of advantage vs. 
autoradiography.  After a while I went back to autorads, as the results 
were prettier that way.  (Note: the time was about the same using fluor 
with autorads/no fluor with PI; if you don't use fluor - but doesn't 
everybody? - you will save with PI.)  Where I did use the PI was when I 
wanted quantitative results; much easier to do this rather than use 
densitometry and pre-flashed film.
  
>  Neither machine gives publishable figure quality output - autoradiography
>is still king here!

	Well, I have published PI output, filtered it through 
CorelDraw along the way (to add legends and arrows and so on) and the 
results were acceptable.  You need a good printer - we used a 600 dpi, 
which was the minimum acceptable.  (A colleague sent his file down to AV 
services at the university - on about 25 floppies - and got a 1200 dpi 
printout which looked great.)

Ian
-- 
Ian York   (york at mbcrr.harvard.edu)
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney St., Boston MA 02115
Phone (617)-632-4328     Fax  (617)-632-2627




More information about the Methods mailing list