Hi Tim, hi Natesh, one expression is mathematically, the other one is technically 'more > correct'. > I favour the terms poor and good resolution to avoid confusion, or > explicitly > list the values.
just out of curiosity.. what's your definition of 'poor' and 'good' resolutions? I suspect there are as many definitions as many subscribers to this list are -;) One way to quantify resolution is that what kind of detail you can see in the map, like for example: - deformation density (~0.7A and higher) = ultra-high, sub-atomic, sub-Angstrom; - H atoms (~0.9A and higher) = not sure what the name is; - individual non-H atoms (~1.2A and higher) = atomic; - hole in rings (~2A and higher?) = high; - medium; - still can see side chains (up to 4.5A); - no side-chains but SS elements (such as tubes of density for helices) = low - no SS, molecular envelopes = very low. Note, resolution alone is not a good measure though. Data completeness is similarly important, e.g. a map corresponding to 2A resolution may look like a 3ish A resolution if you miss some low-resolution data or high-resolution end is severely incomplete (Acta Cryst. (2014). D70, 2593-2606). Low resolution --> worse than 2.7 A > Ultra high resolution --> better than 0.95 A > Looking into this in some systematic way one can define low-resolution as 6A and lower, and ultra-high resolution as 0.7A and higher (Page 1291: Acta Cryst. (2009). D65, 1283–1291). All the best, Pavel
