Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T22:39:03.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

High Dynamic Range Electron Imaging: The New Standard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2014

Keith Evans  and
Richard Beanland
Keith Evans*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, West Midlands, CV4 7AL, UK
Richard Beanland
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, West Midlands, CV4 7AL, UK
*
*Corresponding author. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Transmission electron microscopes regularly produce data which has a dynamic range that exceeds the capabilities of the recording media used, particularly in diffraction patterns. Hardware solutions such as readable phosphor imaging plates have existed since the 1990s, but in recent years the advent of robust CCD digital cameras capable of capturing high intensities in a transmission electron microscope has made image acquisition fast and straightforward. However, all CCD cameras have a saturation limit, making imaging of low intensities difficult when an image is dominated by strong features. Here we present a simple and effective tool to overcome this limitation through acquisition of multiple images and software processing to produce high dynamic range electron images.

Keywords

HDR imagingCCD cameraelectron diffractionscriptingreduced density function
Type
Instrumentation and Techniques Development
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 20 , Issue 5 , October 2014 , pp. 1601 - 1604
Copyright
© Microscopy Society of America 2014 

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

Cockayne, D.J.H. & McKenzie, D.R. (1988). Electron diffraction analysis of polycrystalline and amorphous thin films. Acta Crystallogr A 44(6), 870–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, G.E. & Kondepudy, R. (1994). Radiometric CCD camera calibration and noise estimation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 16(3), 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janesick, J.R., Elliott, T., Collins, S., Blouke, M.M. & Freeman, J. (1987). Scientific charge-coupled-devices. Opt Eng 26(8), 692–714.Google Scholar
Kirkland, E.J. (2010). Advanced Computing in Electron Microscopy. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longchamp, J.-N., Latychevskaia, T., Escher, C. & Fink, H.-W. (2013). Graphene unit cell imaging by holographic coherent diffraction. Phys Rev Lett 110(25), 255501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogura, N., Yoshida, K., Kojima, Y. & Saito, H. (Eds.) 1994). Development of the 25 micron Pixel Imaging Plate System for TEM. Les Ulis: Editions Physique.Google Scholar
Pesty, F., Garoche, P. & Dorel, S. (2002). Modulation of the beam intensity for high-dynamic-range low energy electron diffraction. J Appl Phys 92(6), 3021–3026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russ, J.C. (2011). The Image Processing Handbook. USA: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Schanz, M., Nitta, C., Bussmann, A., Hosticka, B.J. & Wertheimer, R.K. (2000). A high-dynamic-range CMOS image sensor for automotive applications. IEEE J Solid State Circuits 35, 932–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, J.C.H. & Zuo, J.M. (1988). Large dynamic range, parallel detection system for electron diffraction and imaging. Rev Sci Instrum 59(9), 2102–2105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, E.G. (1991). Photoresponse nonlinearity of solid-state image sensors with antiblooming protection. IEEE Trans Electron Devices 38(2), 299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuo, J.M. (2000). Electron detection characteristics of a slow-scan CCD camera, imaging plates and film, and electron image restoration. Microsc Res Tech 49(3), 245–268.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed