I would like to thank Justin for his summary of this topic, which I'm
sure many people found of interest, and is very much in the spirit of
the bulletin board.
I would just like to correct one factual error, in that it has been
possible to specify anisotropic resolution limits to MOSFLM
I would like to have some comments on whether the maps before or after
truncation are better . (obviously the Rfactors will be lower for the
truncated data ..)
I suspect it iwill be completely anecdotal - but I confess to a gut
unhappiness about throwing out measurements..
eleanor
Pavel
Hi Everyone,
I echo Andrew's thanks for the summary offered by Justin.
I would like to mention another way to trim anisotropic diffraction patterns of
the weak patches 'at source', as it were, in MOSFLM, by specifying a sigma cut
off applied to each image.
from the manual:
RESOLUTION [ lowres
Just to add my two ha'porth.
I discussed this some years ago with Garib, just after I'd added the
anisotropic cutoff to the resolution limits in Mosflm (mentioned by
Andrew below); as I remember (and this is an invitation to Garib to
contribute and correct me here!), the answer went along
Dear All;
In response to my Anisotropic Diffraction In Refinement, which asked
for suggestions for how best to proceed with refinement with an
anisotropic data set, I received a large number of responses which
overwhelmingly suggested using the UCLA Anisotropy Server
This is why phenix.refine by default outputs both maps: 2mFo-DFc
filled and not filled, and it is the best to look at both keeping in
mind all pros and cons of each of them.
Pavel.
On 9/15/09 5:22 PM, Peter Zwart wrote:
Application of a elliptical resolution boundary is justified because
