Re: Becker & Hickl versus Picoquant

willryu <willryu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I have been running a B&H system (SPC-730) for 3 years and a PQ system
(TimeHarp 200) for a bit less than 1 year now. My main interest has been
FLIM using a Ti:Sa, but I've also done a few single beam recordings
using both systems. I have found both system usable, though I do find
there are a number of differences.

As far as I can tell, there are two leading hardware vendors for TCSPC
systems - Becker & Hickl and Picoquant. The major difference in their
implementation seems to be the difference in where and how the timing
information is stored. Becker & Hickl relies on PCI cards with ONBOARD
memory, while picoquant streams the information to system memory or disk.
All in all: that is the main technical difference. If you're doing FCS,
the SPC-cards from B&H will run in FIFO mode, also streaming the data to
disc.

What in some situations is the main advantage of B&H: the on-board
memory, turns into the main disadvantage in other situations. The
SPC-cards are almost completely independent of the PC they are running
in, but the memory is limited. This will become a problem if you really
want to do FLIM. Using the SPC-730 you are limited to 256 time channels
if you are using 128x128 pixels and only one routing channel. Obviuosly
things are better with the SPC-830.

PQ's TimeHarp theoretically has no such limit and I have been able to
record 512x512 images with around 1000 time channels.

For several years the time resolution of SPC-cards was much better, but
I recall reading that the PicoHarp from Picoquant has about the same
resolution, so that difference is no longer an issue.

I wondering if there is anyone with experience using both systems or
someone who has recently researched both systems. Are there large areas
of overlap in the capability of their hardware?
I don't have any experience with the DLLs or APIs. I have tried loading
binary files from both systems and here the PQ-formats are _much_ more
straight forward.

I would say at the moment there are large overlaps in the hardware
capabilities, leaving the price as the main difference.

If you want to do FLIM and don't want to write your own analysis
software, I would recommend a good look at SPCImage and SymphoTime. IMHO
they are not close to equal in their capabilities.

Finally. Are these guys the only game in town?
As far as I can tell: if you don't want to buy a complete spectrometer
system: yes. Otherwise there are a number of TCSPC fluorometers out
there.

And: no, I am not associated with either of the companies. :-)

H2H, Chris W.
.

Relevant Pages

  • loosing sound and /or DVD after Fedora 7or 8 install ...
    ... ASUSTeK Computer Inc. Unknown device 8276 ... Capabilities: Vendor Specific Information ... Memory behind bridge: fa000000-fe8fffff ... pin A routed to IRQ 16 ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: New to Fedora, struggling with wireless
    ... 00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation Mobile ... 945GM/PM/GMS/940GML and 945GT Express Memory ... Subsystem: Sony Corporation Unknown device ... Capabilities: Vendor Specific Information ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Linux 2.6.22-rc2
    ... that certainly would also explain memory corruption. ... It's hard to set up a normal PCI-PCI bridge subtly incorrectly. ... Latency L0s unlimited, L1 unlimited ... Capabilities: Virtual Channel ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Memory Management during Program Loading
    ... depend largely on what your monitor does, exactly, and what capabilities ... > Bus monitor hardware. ... The problem is that you're using an unsecured kernel to initially load the secure ... memory region - so an attacker is free to load broken code into the secure ...
    (Linux-Kernel)