Dear Jorge As a rule of thumb I would always integrate every reflection on the detector face & only limit the resolution in scaling (*1) - most integration programs are well behaved when it comes to modelling reflection profiles & integrating spots which are “invisible”
As to why you observe what you observe… that would depend on the detail of how XDS integration works, but I would expect the sharp truncation would mess with the profile modelling, since most algorithms don’t take kindly to arbitrary sharp limits. Best wishes Graeme *1 there is some argument that even this is probably not right… i.e. should only limit after refinement perhaps? On 20 Feb 2017, at 11:24, Jorge Iulek <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear all, I have been noticing, with many datasets, processed the duet xds/scale, that when one integrates to a resolution limit which is (a little) higher than the one used for scaling/merging, the statistics (and here I mean R-symm, R-meas, <I/sigI> and even CC1//2) get better (I might also advance that, in many cases, completeness gets a little better too). Just to make clear, suppose I want to process to resolution x (according to any criteria/index I decide) ; suppose y is a little (how much is yet another good discussion) higher resolution, id est, numerically, x > y, I get better statistics when I integrate up to y and scale/merge to x, rather than using x in both cases, therefore, its seems to be advisable to integrate up to y and then to scale/merge up to x. So the question is: why does this happen? Would this be related this the fact that the spot profiles gets more well defined? In this case, is it fair to do this and to obtain better data (and, I suppose, a better structural model)? In principle, I suppose this might be legitimate, as even CC1/2 gets better. Has anyone else ever observed such behavior, maybe with other processing duets? Jorge -- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail. Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd. Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses and we cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses which may be transmitted in or with the message. Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in England and Wales with its registered office at Diamond House, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom
