IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Phosphorimager vs. Film

Jim Voeller voeller at his.com
Fri Dec 1 19:09:38 EST 1995


In article <e-anderson-3011951848200001 at e-mac-56.ski.mskcc.org>,
e-anderson at ski.mskcc.org (Eric C. Anderson) wrote:

> In article <ege-3011951122280001 at cancer-ctr-mac-24.mit.edu>, ege at mit.edu
> (ege) wrote:
> 
> > Does anyone have a reliable figure for how sensitive a phosphorimager
> > screen is vs standard X ray film?  I seem to remember that manufacturers
> > claim 20X greater sensitivity then film but in my experience this figure
> > seems inflated.
> 
> it depends on the phosphorimager.  i don't know the figures for the Fujix
> BAS1000 since i only recently started using it, but the Molecular Dynamics
> one claimed about 10:1.  we did our own guesstimates that said it was more
> like 5-6 times faster.  the best thing about a phosphorimager besides the
> time savings though is the ease of quantitation compared with either
> scanning a film or using a densitometer.


Using the MD scannner, 5-6 times faster is what I get too. The ability to
quantitate is its strongest aspect. However, I feel that the resolution of
x-ray film is higher. I mean that the image one gets from film looks
better than the image from the phosphoimager. So for the best pictures I
still try to get an x-ray film exposure. Then I usually scan the film with
an optical scanner and convert to a TIFF file. The phosphoimager can give
you a TIFF image too but like I said the image from x-ray film looks
better.

-- 
Jim Voeller
voellerj at gunet.georgetown.edu
Lombardi Cancer Center, Georgetown University
Washington DC, USA



More information about the Methods mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net