Hi, everyone I have a question about HKL2000 too. During scaling, there is a check option call absorption correction. I processed the data with and without it checked. With absorption correction checked, my rejection file is only 0.4%. When I leave it out, the rejection file is 0.8%.
I read through the HKL2000 online manual and only find "direction cosines produce information that can be read by an outside absorption correction program, such as Shelx. The need for it will disappear as the HKL-2000 absorption correction routines are implemented." So do I need to use the absorption correction routinely or just for some trouble dataset. Obviously I don't want to incorporate bad spots. Thanks for your input. Best, Zheng On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Engin Ozkan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I have recently been plagued by incomplete data according to HKL2000. My last > dataset, which is 360 degrees of images, with < 0.1% rejected during scaling, > and no overlaps during indexing/integration, keeps on scaling in HKL2000 as > incomplete. It is reported incomplete only at higher resolution (see stats > below, in my case 5 Angstroems is usually high resolution). This is really > odd, because (1) the data is 360 degrees, (2) if the beamstop was the > culprit, I would expect incompleteness at low res., not high, and not 35% > incomplete, (3) at this resolution the blind region outside the Ewald sphere > should be insignificant (not 35%), (4) and there are no overlaps (thanks to > the detector being sent to "Outer Mongolia", according to our synchrotron > host), and (5) there are no overloads. Moreover, mosflm thinks the data is > 100.0% complete. I have had similar incompleteness issues on other unrelated > low resolution data in the last year or two with HKL2000. > > So before I lose it because of HKL2000, I have two questions, and I'd > appreciate any answers to either: > 1. Can there be another reason for incompleteness that I am missing (other > than blind region at higher res., overlaps, overloads, and "not enough many > frames")? > 2. Has anyone been experiencing similar phenomena with HKL2000 (v0.98.698o)? > Especially with anisotropic data? > > Thanks, > > Engin > > Shell Summary of observation redundancies: > Lower Upper % of reflections with given No. of observations > limit limit 0 1 2 3 4 5-6 7-8 9-12 13-19 >19 > total > 50.00 11.49 0.1 0.1 3.7 2.9 93.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 99.9 > 11.49 9.14 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.3 96.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 100.0 > 9.14 7.99 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.8 95.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 100.0 > 7.99 7.26 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.8 95.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 100.0 > 7.26 6.74 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.2 96.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 100.0 > 6.74 6.35 0.0 0.3 1.3 4.1 94.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 100.0 > 6.35 6.03 2.1 3.6 4.0 7.3 83.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 97.9 > 6.03 5.77 8.9 6.2 5.1 10.2 69.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 91.1 > 5.77 5.54 16.0 6.1 6.6 9.4 61.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 84.0 > 5.54 5.35 20.6 7.3 6.5 6.4 59.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 79.4 > 5.35 5.19 25.7 6.8 6.6 7.9 52.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 74.3 > 5.19 5.04 26.1 5.9 6.2 7.2 54.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 73.9 > 5.04 4.91 28.7 7.9 6.2 7.0 50.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 71.3 > 4.91 4.79 29.0 7.7 5.8 7.3 50.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 71.0 > 4.79 4.68 32.4 7.2 7.0 7.2 46.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 67.6 > 4.68 4.58 31.8 9.2 7.5 6.6 44.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 68.2 > 4.58 4.49 35.1 9.7 6.1 6.1 43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 64.9 > 4.49 4.40 33.8 11.2 7.0 6.4 41.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 66.2 > 4.40 4.32 37.9 9.4 7.7 7.8 37.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 62.1 > 4.32 4.25 36.7 11.5 8.5 6.8 36.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 63.3 > All hkl 18.3 5.5 5.1 6.0 65.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > 81.7 >
