I should add that inspecting the average three-dimensional profiles in INTEGRATE.LP could give you an indication if you have overlaps or not. The profiles look like slices through a 3D unimodal gaussian. If you have overlaps it will be revealed by bi-/multi-modal features. However, these are average profiles so a small number of overlaps may not be apparent.
/Michel On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 14:54 -0800, Engin Ozkan wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I have been recently relying on XDS quite a bit, but at the same time > worrying about how XDS treats overlaps. We had one dataset that both > HKL2000 and Mosflm would show to have severe overlaps, as expected due > to unit cell parameters and the unfortunate crystal orientation in the > loop. We always ended up with completeness percentages in the 70's. > > XDS can find the same lattice, index and scale the data, but yields a > 100% complete mtz (and a nice structure). Without the HKL/Mosflm-like > GUI, it is difficult to assess the fate of the overlapped observations > in XDS. What I could see with VIEW was that some observations were being > divided into several ovals, probably different reflections, but I'm not > very certain. > > So, the basic question is, how does XDS treat overlaps? I could not > find in the documentation an answer to this question; the single mention > of overlaps I could find tells me that XDS can recognize overlaps, but > does not tell me if it rejects them, or divvies them up into separate > reflections, and if that is the case, how does it divide them, and how > reliable is that? Depending on how it divides the overlaps, could that > affect commonly-used intensity stats and distributions? > > Thanks, > > Engin
