Dear Jacob, >Also, resolution would depend a lot on phase accuracy/precision, no?
I feel that there is a traditional confusing between the terms, which "resolution" you are talking about since this term is over-used: - resolution of a particular map (then it may be local or a kind of an overall resolution); also, which "features" you want to see as separated ? - formal resolution CUT-OFF (and not a "resolution") of a corresponding set of reflections ; - effective resolution CUT-OFF of a set of reflections (say, if the highest resolution shell is incomplete, what we consider as such a resolution?) - ... Differences between them and some relations are (yet not exhaustively) addressed in Urzhumtseva et al. (2013) Acta Cryst., D69 , 1921-1934 . Is it what you want to know : - at which resolution cut-off a map calculated with a corresponding complete data set with exact phases can show two atoms (with which B?) as separate peaks ? If you want a more "rule of thumbs"-kind answer, there was a discussion about the "Sheldrick's rule" (works by Sheldrick and by Bricogne's teams); I think traditionally the corresponding limit was considered as such an atomic resolution (CUT-OFF). Otherwise, as it was said in several previous comments, everybody has his own idea what is a "high resolution" and what is a "low resolution" (even more disagreement on this :-) ). Best regards, Sacha Urzhumtsev ----- Le 11 Jan 18, à 21:31, Keller, Jacob <[email protected]> a écrit : >>I tell people it is when your resolution is less than the bond length that > >connects the two atoms. > I thought this was sort of a pitfall, since the Bragg spacings don't > necessarily > map on to conventional resolution. But it would fit the 1.5 Ang estimate. > Also, resolution would depend a lot on phase accuracy/precision, no? > JPK
