Alright, thanks. To be clear I used the term "pixels" in describing the characteristics of the final images produced, which are a series of stacked 2D images c

Alright, thanks. To be clear I used the term "pixels" in describing the characteristics of the final images produced, which are a series of stacked 2D images comprised of pixels. But, I don't think it matters what we label the units we're counting, as long as we count them accurately. The paper you've referenced states: > field-of-view = 12 × 12 × 24 mm and matrix size = 200 × 200 × 400 giving an image with (60μm)[cubed] isotropic voxels The "64 million times better" article states a resolution of 5μm voxels (for one aspect of the imaging). The paper the article references, by contrast, states 15μm when specifically comparing to MRI, and claims 1,000x improvement. Diambiguating what is meant by "resolution" is a common problem, as it can refer to either the length of the axes or the overall area when multiplying them. Conservatively, I'm going with 12x better resolution with the new technique when comparing apples to apples, or, to hype it reasonably: 5 cubed vs 60 cubed = a difference of 1,728 times more voxels in the same given area.