Ironically as this stereo discussion ensues, it seems NVidia is pushing 3d glasses once again (http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/09/17/1530202.shtml ) . Those 120Hz LCD's are welcome reprieve from the bulky SGI monitors in our x-ray core now.

More on topic, however, as a 'newer' generation (4th year grad) and after building several structures, I have no problem with not having stereo. One particular case it might be helpful in my experience is building into experimental density maps (the worse the map the more helpful the stereo). However, with automated building programs available (even secondary structure building is quite good), I find this to be a non issue anymore. As for normal building, at least in coot, a simple movement of the model/monomer into the density (using simple translations) and then real space refine usually takes care of the job.

More of my opinion, I use software that I can run on minimal hardware / low cost (it surprises me how much the Quad FX card for a Mac Pro costs!).


My 0.02

FR



On Sep 17, 2008, at 9:21 PM, Engin Ozkan wrote:

From another member of the new generation...

I could not agree more with Scott. Stereo is not essential, my lab of thirteen crystallographers does not even have the capability, and noone has ever asked for it (including our older PI). And I have refined and built in one year one 3.9 A and one 3.8 A model, and someone else just built a 3.5A de novo phased model on a small Mac screen with coot (I think that was heroic). We have to do without stereo, but only if there was an easy way to set it up and use it, I would have it. And we should have it (hear that Apple). It's just not worth the lack of freedom and limitations right now.

As a grad student we had access to stereo, I did not use it much. I have to say I do not know why new students would be swayed just by them. As a young grad student, I was amazed by chemistry in action (and I still am), and did not need stereo to think about charge, coordination, pi-pi packing and hydrogen bonding, and not the cool 3D (I see the attraction to middle or high school students). Rotating models with depth cues was sufficient.

Engin

Scott Pegan wrote:

Just to put my two cents in on this as I would fall into that new generation so to speak:

I started out with the SGI and linux systems with stereo, O, and dials about eight years ago. Never used the dials and rarely seen anyone else use them. Over the past few years I have transition to coot, pc, and now have a MAC. The freedom of not having a bulky system that I have to build on is a huge plus for many of the reasons you described.

However, My colleagues and I I DO WANT STEREO. I have nearly perfected building without IT not out of choice but mostly out of lack of one. I feel as many of my colleagues do, that if we had the stereo option on our flat panels we most undoubtedly would use it. We just don't those type of options right know. As a result, I wholeheartedly support anyone trying to get us this added capability.
Scott



   Steve Lane wrote:

       Warren et al.:

       The following is based largely on a survey conducted here
       about 6 months
       ago (the survey questions are at the bottom of this msg).

       Among the "older" generation of PIs, there is a strong
       perception that
       stereo and SGI dials are very important to users.  This
       perception is not
       at all borne out among users themselves (20+ grad students and
       postdocs,
       plus one or two junior faculty) - no one uses the dials (see
       below for
       why), and stereo is used very infrequently to never.

       The consensus among the users regarding stereo seems to be
       some version
       of the following: if it's available, I might use it
       occasionally for a
       particularly difficult part of a molecule, but not otherwise;
       if it's
       not available, that's fine.  Reasons for not using it seem to
       be based
       primarily on: inconvenience (we use StereoGraphics glasses and
       emitters -
       in spite of having many pairs available, and efforts by the
       admins here
       to keep them functional, it can be difficult for a user to
       find a pair
       that works, either because of dead batteries or because
       they're just
       broken); discomfort (wearing the glasses themselves is a pain,
       people
       complain of headaches, and the ambient lighting situation can
       make using
       them difficult under some circumstances and cause eye strain);
       and lack
       of need.

       No one uses the dials because no one in our environment is
       building with
       O, and this is the only piece of software we have that
       supports the dials
       (we have a Linux-only environment).  *Everyone* here builds
       with Coot.
       I believe (based on somewhat anecdotal evidence) that if Coot
       supported
       the dials people would use them more, but they seem quite
       happy without
       them; they are certainly not enough reason for people to learn
       to use O
       (or go back to using it).

       The above "perception vs reality" dichotomy seems to stem
       largely from a
       generation gap: users who learned to build using SGIs running
       O are firm
       believers in the need for stereo and dials (even though, for
       the most
       part, they are no longer actively building); users who learned
       to build
       on Linux boxes using Coot simply don't see the need, for the
       most part.
       Note that these are, for the most part, users who have never
       used O,
       but who *do* actively build, spending hours and days at a time
       sitting
       in front of the workstation doing so.

In addition, many/most users these days do alot of their building
       using their own laptops (many/most of which are Macs running
       OS X),
       often but not always in conjunction with an external flat
       panel display.
       When doing so, they don't use stereo or dials, and again, this
       doesn't
       seem to be a huge loss to them, especially given the
       convenience of being
       able to work where they want (i.e. at home, in coffee shops &
       libraries,
       outdoors, etc.)

       Users also like to be able to sit in front of a flat-panel
       display to do
       their work.  This seems to be a combination of two factors:
       the extra
       space available on the work surface that isn't taken up by a
       huge CRT;
       and the absence of the huge, heavy, space-hogging CRT sitting
       in front of
       them all day (i.e. a psychological "lightness" provided by a
       flat-panel
       display - this seems hard to quantify, but I experienced it
       myself when
       switching from a CRT to a flat-panel, and others I have talked
       to have
       reported similar feelings).  Obviously, if a reasonably-priced
       flat-panel
       stereo solution were to become available this would influence
       decisions
       about stereo.

       I've included our survey questions below my .sig - please feel
       free to
       use or adapt them as you like.

       --
       Steve Lane
       System, Network and Security Administrator
       Doudna Lab
       Biomolecular Structure and Mechanism Group
       UC Berkeley

       ==================================

       Greetings.  This is a semi-informal survey of recent
       crystallography
       workstation users.  Please take a minute to respond.  Your
       answers will
       help us improve the crystallography computing environment.


       1) Have you recently (past few months) used a crystallography
       workstation
         for molecular model building and/or visualization?  YES  NO

         Answer:


       2) If yes to (1), which model building software did you use
       (list all
         that apply)?  COOT  O  <OTHER - please specify>

         Answer:


       3) When model building, do you use the dial box?
         ALWAYS  OFTEN  SOMETIMES  RARELY  NEVER

         Answer:


       4) When model building, do you use 3D stereo visualization
       (i.e. stereo
         glasses)?  ALWAYS  OFTEN  SOMETIMES  RARELY  NEVER

         Answer:


       5) If yes to (1), which molecular visualization software did
       you use (list
         all that apply)?  COOT  O  CHIMERA  PYMOL  <OTHER - please
       specify>

         Answer:


       6) When visualizing molecular models, do you use the dial box?
         ALWAYS  OFTEN  SOMETIMES  RARELY  NEVER

         Answer:


       7) When visualizing molecular models, do you use 3D stereo
       visualization
(i.e. stereo glasses)? ALWAYS OFTEN SOMETIMES RARELY NEVER

         Answer:


8) Is there any software you would like to have available in the
         computing environment to assist you in molecular model
       building and/or
         visualization that is not currently available?

         Answer:


       Thank you for your time.



   --     Dr. Jeroen R. Mesters
   Gruppenleiter Strukturelle Neurobiologie und Kristallogenese
   Institut für Biochemie, Universität zu Lübeck
   Zentrum für Medizinische Struktur- und Zellbiologie
   Ratzeburger Allee 160, D-23538 Lübeck
   Tel: +49-451-5004070, Fax: +49-451-5004068
   Http://www.biochem.uni-luebeck.de
   Http://www.iobcr.org
   Http://www.selfish-brain.org
   Http://www.opticryst.org
   --
   If you can look into the seeds of time and say
which grain will grow and which will not - speak then to me (Macbeth)
   --




--
Scott D. Pegan, Ph.D.
Senior Research Specialist
Center for Pharmaceutical
Biotechnology
University of Illinois at Chicago

Reply via email to