Premium
Reply to “Comment on ‘Super‐resolution microscopy by movable thin‐films with embedded microspheres: Resolution analysis’ [Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 527, 513 (2015)]”
Author(s) -
Allen Kenneth W.,
Li Yangcheng,
Astratov Vasily N.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
annalen der physik
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.009
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1521-3889
pISSN - 0003-3804
DOI - 10.1002/andp.201600211
Subject(s) - magnification , resolution (logic) , microsphere , superresolution , microscopy , object (grammar) , image resolution , computer science , optics , physics , nanotechnology , materials science , artificial intelligence , image (mathematics) , chemical engineering , engineering
In a comment [A. Darafsheh, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 528 (2016)] on our paper [K. W. Allen et al., Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 527, 513–522 (2015)], the results and conclusions of our work were doubted along two directions. The first is related to the methodology of our resolution quantification and use of confocal microscopy. The second is related to the mathematical treatment of our magnification measurements aimed at estimating the gap between the microsphere and the object which is relevant to the mechanisms of super‐resolution imaging. We explain that both our estimates of the object resolution and gap are valid. The comment brings out points that are of rather secondary relevance, does not offer a worthwhile improvement of the mathematical treatment, and misrepresents our estimation procedure for the gap size. We also discuss general factors and problems involved in the quantification of resolution in microsphere‐assisted microscopy.