Jump to content


- - - - -

x-ray films vs direct imaging


17 replies to this topic

#16 shane

    Enthusiast

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 07 June 2010 - 10:13 PM

The benefit of the digital pictures is that they are effortlessly moved and you can convey out some quantitative investigation on them more effortlessly too. I acquiesce the sensitivity of the movies can occasionally be better, but its not been an topic for me. I'm attractive altered to the Digital imaging now.
HGH

#17 alinud

    member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 02:09 AM

I never develop X-ray film. Could you give me a protocol or same advice?

#18 Inmost sun

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 267 posts

Posted 19 February 2011 - 06:57 AM

Modern camera-based systems are to prefer since developing immunoblots have a longer linear range of detection; besides, classical films need a threshold level of light for darkening; a third advantage is that normally camera-based systems are offered with a professional gel documentation and analysis software


View Postalmost a doctor, on 18 June 2009 - 12:54 AM, said:

Hi guys,
I've been asked to source all the equipment and reagents needed to set up western blot in the lab, starting from scratch (all we have is a Nupage electrophoresis tank). I know my preferences for transfer system, membranes, reagents.... but I'm having doubts on the developing method. In the past I've always used ECL and x-ray films, but I know more and more labs these days favour other chemiluminescent reagents and imaging as you get a better control on exposure and a better dynamic range.

So here's my question.

What method do you use to develop a western? :lol:


Please share your opinions

Thanks! :lol:






Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2011 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.