1975
DOI: 10.1016/s0304-3991(75)80005-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thick specimens in the CEM and STEM. Resolution and image formation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

1979
1979
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…STEM images of thick specimens appear blurry due to spreading of the incident beam caused by multiple elastic scattering [36, 37]. As it was pointed out by Rose and Fertig [34], Groves [36] and Gentsch et al [37], image resolution from a thick section could depend to some extent on STEM detector geometry.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…STEM images of thick specimens appear blurry due to spreading of the incident beam caused by multiple elastic scattering [36, 37]. As it was pointed out by Rose and Fertig [34], Groves [36] and Gentsch et al [37], image resolution from a thick section could depend to some extent on STEM detector geometry.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As it was pointed out by Rose and Fertig [34], Groves [36] and Gentsch et al [37], image resolution from a thick section could depend to some extent on STEM detector geometry. Therefore, here we apply Monte Carlo simulation to quantitatively investigate the extent to which image blurring in thick stained biological sections varies with the specific configuration of the STEM detection system.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 However, strong beam interactions such as multiple Rutherford and plasmon scattering cause significant decreases in image resolution with increasing specimen thickness. 2,3 Thus, to achieve good imaging conditions in a TEM/STEM requires extensive sample processing, i.e., thinning, to be performed.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One major argument in support of the STEM is the optimized detection strategy for picking the most sensitive signal as a function of thickness or composition variation, i.e. 'aperture' contrast, was theoretically and experimentally investigated by Crewe & Groves (1974), Reimer & Gentsch (1975) andSmith &Cowley (1975). In the first paper, the authors classify the different categories of electrons which pass through the specimen (unscattered, elastically scattered, inelastically scattered and mixed elastic-inelastic electrons) and calculate the contrast for various modes of illumination and detection in both conventional and scanning modes.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the first paper, the authors classify the different categories of electrons which pass through the specimen (unscattered, elastically scattered, inelastically scattered and mixed elastic-inelastic electrons) and calculate the contrast for various modes of illumination and detection in both conventional and scanning modes. In a subsequent publication, Groves (1975) evaluates the modulation transfer function (MTF) in the case of plural scattering and its associated resolution. As a consequence of the absence of chromatic aberration associated with the imaging lens, he estimates that a STEM operating at 100 keV would be equivalent to a CTEM at 1 MeV.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%