Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-l48q4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-29T11:47:30.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fully Automated Measurement of the Modulation Transfer Function of Charge-Coupled Devices above the Nyquist Frequency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2012

Wouter Van den Broek*
Affiliation:
Electron Microscopy for Materials Science (EMAT), University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium
Sandra Van Aert
Affiliation:
Electron Microscopy for Materials Science (EMAT), University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium
Dirk Van Dyck
Affiliation:
Electron Microscopy for Materials Science (EMAT), University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: wouter.vandenbroek@ua.ac.be
Get access

Abstract

The charge-coupled devices used in electron microscopy are coated with a scintillating crystal that gives rise to a severe modulation transfer function (MTF). Exact knowledge of the MTF is imperative for a good correspondence between image simulation and experiment. We present a practical method to measure the MTF above the Nyquist frequency from the beam blocker's shadow image. The image processing has been fully automated and the program is made public. The method is successfully tested on three cameras with various beam blocker shapes.

Type
Techniques and Software Development
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2012

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

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, M. & Stegun, I.A. (Eds.) (1972). Handbook of Mathematical Functions, with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Boothroyd, C.B. (1998). Why don't high resolution simulations and images match? J Microsc 190, 99108.Google Scholar
Bracewell, R.N. (1999). The Fourier Transform and Its Applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Daberkow, I., Herrmann, K.H., Liu, L. & Rau, W.D. (1991). Performance of electron image converters with YAG single crystal screen and CCD sensor. Ultramicroscopy 38, 215223.Google Scholar
de Ruijter, W.J. (1995). Imaging properties and application of slow-scan charge-coupled device cameras suitable for electron microscopy. Micron 26, 247275.Google Scholar
Kak, A.C. & Slaney, M. (1988). Principles of Computerized Tomographic Imaging. New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
Kirkland, E.J. (1998). Advanced Computing in Electron Microscopy. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.R. & Kirkland, A.I. (1998). The effects of electron and photon scattering on signal and noise transfer properties of scintillators in CCD cameras used for electron detection. Ultramicroscopy 75, 2333.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.R. & Kirkland, A.I. (2000). Characterisation of the signal and noise transfer of CCD cameras for electron detection. Microsc Res Techniq 49, 269280.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.R., Kirkland, A.I., Dunin-Borkowski, R.E. & Hutchison, J.L. (2000). Experimental characterisation of CCD cameras for HREM at 300 kV. Ultramicroscopy 85, 913.Google Scholar
Pinsky, M.A. (2002). Introduction to Fourier Analysis and Wavelets. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Thust, A. (2009). High-resolution transmission electron microscopy on an absolute contrast scale. Phys Rev Lett 102, 220801-1220801-4.Google Scholar
Weickenmeier, A.L., Nüchter, W. & Mayer, J. (1995). Quantitative characterization of point spread function and detection quantum efficiency for a YAG scintillator slow scan CCD camera. Optik 99, 147154.Google Scholar