4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Efficient phase contrast imaging in STEM using a pixelated detector. Part II: Optimisation of imaging conditions

Journal

ULTRAMICROSCOPY
Volume 151, Issue -, Pages 232-239

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2014.10.013

Keywords

Phase contrast; Pixelated detectors; Ptychography; Contrast transfer function

Categories

Funding

  1. EPSRC through the UK National Facility for Aberration-Corrected STEM (SuperSTEM)
  2. EPSRC Grant [EP/K032518/1]
  3. European Union Seventh Framework Programme [312483-ESTEEM2]
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/M010708/1, EP/K032518/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. EPSRC [EP/M010708/1, EP/K032518/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In Part I of this series of two papers, we demonstrated the formation of a high efficiency phase contrast image at atomic resolution using a pixelated detector in the scanning transmission electron microscope (STEM) with ptychography. In this paper we explore the technique more quantitatively using theory and simulations. Compared to other STEM phase contrast modes including annular bright field (ABF) and differential phase contrast (DPC), we show that the ptychographic phase reconstruction method using pixelated detectors offers the highest contrast transfer efficiency and superior low dose performance. Applying the ptychographic reconstruction method to DPC segmented detectors also improves the detector contrast transfer and results in less noisy images than DPC images formed using difference signals. We also find that using a minimum array of 16 x 16 pixels is sufficient to provide the highest signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for imaging beam sensitive weak phase objects. Finally, the convergence angle can be adjusted to enhance the contrast transfer based on the spatial frequencies of the specimen under study. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available