Dear Herman and David,
This thread seems inexhaustible :-) .
On the matter of "measurement" vs. "observation", we seem again to be
in a situation described by the British idiom "half of one and half-a-dozen"
of the other, i.e. distinct but synonymous terms between which a choice is
quite indifferent.
In the work on STARANISO and the documentation of that work, a
distinction had to be made between the two terms, for which readers are
referred to Ian's carefully crafted material at
http://staraniso.globalphasing.org/anisotropy_about.html
and
http://staraniso.globalphasing.org/staraniso_glossary.html
Here, a measurement is a number plucked out of examining the raw data,
namely an integrated intensity obtained by considering the pixel values
around the position in 3D reciprocal space predicted from an indexing
solution. The next step is to determine whether this qualifies as an
observation, in the sense of containing information that a structural model
would be expected to comply with. This determination is carried out by
computing a local average of I/sig(I) through reciprocal space and applying
a cut-off criterion based on a threshold value for that local average. Other
criteria can be considered, and are indeed offered by the program as
alternatives. Measurements complying with this selection criterion are then
called "observations". In this picture, an observation is defined as a
significant measurement. This basic distinction of vocabulary is then
extended to talking about "unmeasured" reflections (for which there weren't
any detector pixels to catch any photons at their predicted position - e.g.
in gaps between detector modules) and "unobserved" reflections (that are
unmeasured but for which the analysis of the I/sig(I) distribution predicts
that they would have been significant, had they been measured - e.g. in
cusps or missing angular ranges, as well as in module gaps etc.). The
display of the latter as blue dots in the STARANISO Reciprocal Lattice
Viewer then gives a vivid picture of the inadequacies of the experimental
protocol used, in failing to catch all the significant diffraction from the
sample.
This being said, things could very well had been done the other way,
saying that the blindly integrated intensity was an observation, and that
the subsequent analysis was intended to determine whether you had really
measured something significant (i.e. a useful integrated intensity) by
making that observation. We were aware of this ambivalence, but felt that we
had to comply with the boundary condition that what we ended up with, after
conversion to an amplitude, had to be denoted "Fobs" ;-) . If the early
crystallographers had used the notation "Fmeas" for what they considered as
their experimental data, the choice of terminology would definitely have
gone the other way.
As Graeme said, use the terminology you want, but document exactly what
you mean by it. The two URLs quoted above (especially the second) show that
this suggestion was conscientiously followed by the STARANISO developers.
With best wishes,
Gerard,
--
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 10:22:43AM +0000, Schreuder, Herman /DE wrote:
> Dear David,
>
> Thank you for your reaction. It has become clear to me that although most
> people understand what I intended with “measurement”, in practice it is very
> much in the eye of the beholder. It was suggested in the BB to use
> observation instead, but I am fairly sure that some people will also have
> issues with that.
>
> The advantage of multiplicity/redundancy is that it does not mention what is
> multiple or redundant and that one can refer to the program documentation for
> an exact definition. Since most people are happy with the
> multiplicity/redundancy they grew up with, that is the way it will stay.
>
> Best regards,
> Herman
>
>
>
>
> Von: David Waterman <dgwater...@gmail.com>
> Gesendet: Freitag, 3. Juli 2020 10:49
> An: Schreuder, Herman /DE <herman.schreu...@sanofi.com>
> Cc: CCP4BB@jiscmail.ac.uk
> Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] number of
> frames to get a full dataset?
>
>
> EXTERNAL : Real sender is dgwater...@gmail.com<mailto:dgwater...@gmail.com>
>
> Hi Herman,
>
> I like the idea of MPR, but I continue to worry about the term "measurement".
> The intensity associated with a particular reflection is a fit based on a
> scaling model, and ultimately, depending on your integration software, may be
> linked to a weighted sum of two raw measurements: the summation and
> profile-fitted intensities. I think these are the measurements, not the
> intensity derived during the scaling procedure. Sure, anyone who wants to be
> even more pedantic than me will point out that these "raw measurements" are
> also the result of fitting procedures. However, to my eyes, the difference is
> that we don't consider the profile and summation integrated intensities to
> change as a result of the procedure that ultimately determines the statistic
> (MPR) of interest. During that procedure they are independent, not dependent
> variables.
>
> Maybe I am worrying about nothing. It agree it is fairly clear what you mean
> by MPR. I just wanted to explore if there was any opportunity for further
> reducing ambiguity.
>
> Cheers
> -- David
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 08:12, Schreuder, Herman /DE
> <herman.schreu...@sanofi.com<mailto:herman.schreu...@sanofi.com>> wrote:
> Dear Ian,
>
> Since some very advanced countries still use miles, Fahrenheit and inches, I
> did not expect anything to change. It was an escalating discussion in this
> thread on data completeness(!) on the use of multiplicity vs redundancy that
> made me suggest a different term. Except for an occasional discussion in the
> BB, there is nothing against people using the term they are most comfortable
> with.
>
> However, I insist that trying to impose a different definition of
> “measurement” for MPR vs the definition used for the calculation of
> redundancy/multiplicity is not a valid argument against MPR.
>
> Cheers,
> Herman
>
>
>
>
> Von: CCP4 bulletin board
> <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>> Im Auftrag von Ian
> Tickle
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Juli 2020 22:06
> An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] number of frames to get a
> full dataset?
>
>
> EXTERNAL : Real sender is
> owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk<mailto:owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk>
>
>
> Well I very much doubt that many software developers are going to trawl
> through all their code, comments, output statements & documentation to change
> 'redundancy' or 'multiplicity' to 'MPR' or whatever terminology is agreed on
> (assuming of course we do manage to come to an agreement, which I doubt).
> And good luck with persuading wwPDB to change 'redundancy' in their mmCIF
> dictionary! That would be not only pointless but also a lot of work, partly
> because terms get abbreviated in code and in outputs (e.g. to 'redund' in
> mine, or 'mult'). And don't say I can keep the code & comments the same and
> only change the outputs and documentation: that will really tax my brain!
> Also don't say this need only apply to new code: no code is ever completely
> new, and mixing up old & new terminology would be a disaster waiting to
> happen! Also it won't end there: someone will always find terminology that
> they disagree with: I can think of plenty cans of worms that we could open,
> but I think one is already one too many!
>
> By the way, "measurements per reflection" won't float, because some
> measurements will be rejected as outliers (that's why we need redundancy! -
> as opposed to simply measuring intensities for longer). What I call
> redundancy is "the count of _contributing_ measurements per reflection"
> (CCMPR, sigh). Personally I think that adding one more term is going to
> confuse things even more since if I'm right most people will continue to use
> the old terms in parallel anyway.
>
> IMO we should all be free to use the terminology we are most comfortable
> with, and it's up to the receivers of the information to perform the
> translation. That's how it always has been, and IMO always will be. Of
> course it behoves (behooves?) the sender to point to or make available any
> necessary translation tools, such as a dictionary or glossary, but once that
> is done it is the responsibility of the receiver to make use of those tools.
> Even better if you can point to formally-published information (i.e. book or
> peer-reviewed paper), since information on the web is so ephemeral. As a
> receiver of information myself that's what my brain is doing constantly, i.e.
> converting others' terminology into concepts my brain can process. If I'm
> forced to write code using a different set of terms it's inevitable that I
> will unconsciously lapse into my old bad ways and I'll end up with a dog's
> breakfast! If I'm constantly having to convert my terminology into some
> standardised (standardized?) terminology before committing it to code, I'm
> going to use up what little brainpower I have left!
>
> The absolutely critical thing surely is to DEFINE all terms that might be
> unfamiliar or ambiguous (yes Bernhard, I abhor a definitional vacuum for this
> very reason!). That way the developers feel comfortable and the users can
> understand what's going on. I'm very happy to put my head on the chopping
> block and add redundancy, multiplicity and whatever other terms people find
> unfamiliar or ambiguous in my outputs or documentation to my
> Glossary<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__staraniso.globalphasing.org_-7Eitickle_staraniso-5Fglossary.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=YOMbn7m3LdRKpXMxrwkn8Qfa99nEsioggRbgwTvMFtM&e=>.
> Note that this covers only terms used on the STARANISO server; it is by no
> means intended as a replacement for the IUCr's Online Dictionary of
> Crystallography (or any other dictionary for that matter).
>
> By the way, James, you left out my favourite (favorite?): "I could/couldn't
> care less", the positive one of which I always find illogical (if one could
> care less that means the amount of caring must be strictly positive since a
> negative amount is meaningless, whereas if one couldn't care less the amount
> of caring must already be exactly zero, which is surely what the expression
> is meant to convey). I'm not suggesting at all that I don't care, quite the
> opposite: I think it's vital that terminology is universally understood
> ("define your terms, Sir, or we'll never agree").
>
> So my 2p's worth is: carry on as we are, but please, please, please DEFINE
> (and only argue about the definitions!).
>
> https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/dylan_moran_557269?src=t_please_everyone<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.brainyquote.com_quotes_dylan-5Fmoran-5F557269-3Fsrc-3Dt-5Fplease-5Feveryone&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=e3bL2Imbw_jrHBV5-UdMXDmTLVsgmIktLHjdQzF5Vjc&e=>
>
> Cheers
>
> -- Ian
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 11:11, Harry Powell - CCP4BB
> <0000193323b1e616-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk<mailto:0000193323b1e616-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk>>
> wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I’ve been persuaded that MPR is a useful name (and see that there are
> shortcomings with both “multiplicity” and “redundancy") and I agree with much
> of what’s been said most recently in this thread.
>
> BTW, just because the Physics definition of a measurement/quantity/whatever
> is given on wikipedia (or elsewhere, for that matter), it doesn’t mean that’s
> what we (crystallographers, structural biologists, etc) should use without
> question. If you check
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Reflection-5F-28physics-29&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=tj7dE-cxPqP4L8eRvjiu0CaZL3VNFn19dKa-9VTdVvM&e=>
>
> you will find no mention of diffraction maxima corresponding to reflections
> except a link to a page on diffraction. Or maybe we should slavishly follow
> the Physicists and use another term…
>
> H
>
> > On 2 Jul 2020, at 10:41, Schreuder, Herman /DE
> > <herman.schreu...@sanofi.com<mailto:herman.schreu...@sanofi.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > While following the development of this thread, I am truly amazed how
> > people cling to names for the number of measurements per reflection whose
> > meaning:
> > • Depends on the cultural/engineering/scientific context
> > • Can only be understood by experts
> > • Where the experts, as witnessed by the discussions in this thread,
> > do not agree on which name to use.
> >
> > What is wrong with the name “measurements per reflection”? The definition
> > for measurement is the same as is used to calculate the
> > multiplicity/redundancy.
> > The only disadvantage I see is that it can be understood by non-experts as
> > well, which reminds me of medical doctors, who invent complicated Latin
> > names for common ailments to prevent patients to understand where they are
> > talking about.
> >
> > Another 2 cents/pennies from my side,
> > Herman
> >
> >
> >
> > Von: CCP4 bulletin board
> > <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>> Im Auftrag von James
> > Holton
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Juli 2020 20:52
> > An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> > Betreff: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] number of frames to get a full dataset?
> >
> > EXTERNAL : Real sender is
> > owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk<mailto:owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry to take this thread on a detour/diversion: What I was attempting to
> > point out below, perhaps unclearly, is that the different interpretations
> > of the word "redundant" are a cultural difference. As a student of
> > multiple English languages perhaps I can explain:
> >
> > Few US English speakers know that in UK/European/Australian English the
> > word "redundant" has a strong negative connotation. I, for one, was
> > surprised to learn that the phrase "made redundant" is used in the UK to
> > describe loss of employment. That is, a layoff, firing or perhaps a
> > furlough. So, I think it important to spell out for my fellow US English
> > speakers that the emotional ties to this negative connotation can be strong
> > ones.
> >
> > Conversely, many UK English speakers do not know that in US English the
> > word "redundant" has a strong positive connotation. We never use the
> > phrase "made redundant" to describe a lost job. Most Americans I think
> > would be confused by such a turn of phrase. If a US English speaker was
> > told their jobs was "made redundant" they would most likely think that a
> > new hire was onboarded to back them up. This would imply that their job
> > was so important that the company wanted at least two people doing it, just
> > in case you got hit by a bus. This strong positive connotation also has
> > emotional roots.
> >
> > Personally, I prefer the positive connotation. Perhaps that is my cultural
> > bias, or perhaps I just generally believe that positivity is better than
> > negativity. Maybe I'm just a "nice" guy. The meaning of the word "nice" has
> > changed enormously over the last few hundred years, and I don't think we're
> > going to change that any more than we are going to change the meaning of
> > "redundant" in these two major forms of English.
> >
> > However, just because a word has slightly different meanings in two
> > slightly different languages does not mean we should abandon it. Are we
> > going to stop eating "chips" just because we are not sure if our fried
> > potato will come as sliced wedges or thin crispy wafers? If you are unhappy
> > with your meal, is it the fault of the culture you are visiting? or the
> > customer for forgetting where they are? Context is everything.
> >
> > So, for those unfamiliar with one or more of the major English-speaking
> > cultures, here are a few other important differences to be aware of:
> > "Football" may not be the game you think it is.
> > If you are offered a "biscuit" in the US, do not expect it to be sweet.
> > If you want to leave a building you should take the "lift" to the "ground
> > floor", but if you take an "elevator" get off on the "1st floor".
> > A "dummy" is a pacifier for a baby in the UK/Australia, but in the US it
> > only means an unintelligent person, or a plastic replica of one.
> > "please" and "thank you" are considered baseline politeness in some English
> > cultures, but their excessive use in others, such as the US, can be seen as
> > rude.
> > A "tap" in the US dispenses beer, water comes out of a "faucet".
> > A "flat" in the US is not a place to live, but rather where we test rocket
> > cars.
> > "Gas" can be a liquid in the US.
> > "Rubber" is a substance in both languages, but in the US a lump of it meant
> > for erasing pencil marks is an "eraser". Do not ask for a "rubber" at the
> > shop unless you are sure which country you are in.
> > A "holiday" in the US is a special day on the calendar when everyone gets
> > off work, not just when an individual takes a "vacation".
> > If you go walking down the "pavement" you are risking getting hit by a car
> > in the US, because that is what we call the road bed, not the "sidewalk".
> > A "torch", is a handheld electric light in the UK, but in the US it is a
> > flaming stick of wood.
> > A "queue" is a line of people in the UK, but in the US it is known only to
> > computer scientists submitting jobs on a cluster.
> >
> > Then there are words like "capillary", which means the same thing in both
> > languages but the alternate pronunciations never fail to enrage someone. It
> > is perhaps odd that since US English and UK English are spoken with many
> > different accents we pronounce essentially every word at least slightly
> > differently, but for some reason "capillary" makes people angry. Same with
> > "schedule". Equally emotional responses arise from how you pronounce the
> > letter "z". Go figure.
> >
> > Similar ire is risen for spelling. My favourite/favorite is
> > aluminum/aluminium, but equally divisive are colour/color, tire/tyre,
> > cheque/check, gray/grey, theatre/theater, pyjamas/pajamas, and many others.
> >
> > It is at this stage when you will find people of another culture trying to
> > "correct" you on how to speak or write your own language. This can be
> > confusing because you will probably not be corrected for calling a
> > "courgette" a "zucchini", especially if you are Italian. However, a native
> > Hindi speaker might feel compelled to correct your pronunciation of
> > "shampoo". I am not singling out any one culture here, we have all given
> > in to the temptation to "correct" someone, perhaps even while visiting
> > their home. Ahh, the errors of my youth.
> >
> > All that said, I don't think this forum is the place to discuss cultural
> > differences. This is especially true once we start using words like
> > "correct"/"incorrect" and "right"/"wrong", as these tend to generate far
> > more heat than light. However, I do think it important to identify and
> > describe cultural differences when they start to impede scientific
> > discussion. It is OK to disagree. But let it be over interpretation of
> > complete information that both parties possess, not preconceived notions
> > nor ignorance of the complete picture. If we understand WHY another person
> > thinks in a way we find disagreeable, then perhaps we have a better chance
> > of moving forward and enjoying the upcoming celebrations of
> > Independence/GoodRiddanceUngratefulColonials Day.
> >
> > Whatever you call it, an eggplant or an an aubergine, its odour/odor and
> > flavour/flavor are the same. I apologize/apologise to my
> > neighbours/neighbors across the Lake/Pond for my behaviour/behavior if you
> > are not enamoured/enamored with my endeavour/endeavor at humor/humour. It
> > is not my specialty/speciality. fullstop/period.
> >
> > -James Holton
> > MAD Scientist
> >
> >
> > On 6/29/2020 3:36 PM, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
> > I think it is time to escalate that discussion to crystallographic
> > definition purists like Massimo or to a logical consistency proponent like
> > Ian who abhors definitional vacuum 😊
> >
> > Cheers, BR
> >
> > From: CCP4 bulletin board
> > <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>> On Behalf Of Andreas
> > Förster
> > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 15:24
> > To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> > Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] number of frames to get a full dataset?
> >
> > I like to think that the reflections I carefully measured at high
> > multiplicity are not redundant, which the dictionary on my computer defines
> > as "not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous" and the American
> > Heritage Dictionary as "exceeding what is necessary or natural;
> > superfluous" and "needlessly repetitive; verbose".
> >
> > Please don't use the term Needless repetitivity in your Table 1. It sends
> > the wrong message. Multiplicity is good.
> >
> > All best.
> >
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:03 AM James Holton
> > <jmhol...@lbl.gov<mailto:jmhol...@lbl.gov>> wrote:
> > I have found that the use of "redundancy" vs "multiplicity" correlates very
> > well with the speaker's favorite processing software. The Denzo/HKL
> > program scalepack outputs "redundancy", whereas scala/aimless and other
> > more Europe-centric programs output "multiplicity".
> >
> > At least it is not as bad as "intensity", which is so ambiguous as to be
> > almost useless as a word on its own.
> >
> > -James Holton
> > MAD Scientist
> >
> > On 6/24/2020 10:27 AM, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
> > > Oh, and some of us prefer the word 'multiplicity' ;-0
> >
> > Hmmm…maybe not. ‘Multiplicity’ in crystallography is context sensitive, and
> > not uniquely defined. It can refer to
> >
> > • the position multiplicity (number of equivalent sites per unit
> > cell, aka Wyckoff-Multiplicity), the only (!) cif use of multiplicity
> > • the multiplicity of the reflection, which means the superposition
> > of reflections with the same d (mostly powder diffraction)
> > • the multiplicity of observations, aka redundancy.
> > While (a) and (b) are clearly defined, (c) is an arbitrary experimental
> > number.
> >
> > How from (a) real space symmetry follows (b) in reciprocal space (including
> > the epsilon zones, another ‘multiplicity’) is explained here
> >
> > https://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?a14080<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__scripts.iucr.org_cgi-2Dbin_paper-3Fa14080&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=uHL7oQAeeuh10DrZQvGksLGrkHsdGucSKMblCZGSeNU&e=>
> >
> > and also on page 306 in BMC.
> >
> > Too much multiplicity might create duplicity…
> >
> > Cheers, BR
> >
> >
> >
> > Jon Cooper
> >
> > On 23 Jun 2020 22:04, "Peat, Tom (Manufacturing, Parkville)"
> > <tom.p...@csiro.au<mailto:tom.p...@csiro.au>> wrote:
> > I would just like to point out that for those of us who have worked too
> > many times with P1 or P21 that even 360 degrees will not give you 'super'
> > anomalous differences.
> > I'm not a minimalist when it comes to data- redundancy is a good thing to
> > have.
> > cheers, tom
> >
> > Tom Peat
> > Proteins Group
> > Biomedical Program, CSIRO
> > 343 Royal Parade
> > Parkville, VIC, 3052
> > +613 9662 7304
> > +614 57 539 419
> > tom.p...@csiro.au<mailto:tom.p...@csiro.au>
> >
> > From: CCP4 bulletin board
> > <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>> on behalf of
> > 00000c2488af9525-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk<mailto:00000c2488af9525-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk>
> >
> > <00000c2488af9525-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk<mailto:00000c2488af9525-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 1:10 AM
> > To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> > <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>>
> > Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] number of frames to get a full dataset?
> >
> > Someone told me there is a cubic space group where you can get away with
> > something like 11 degrees of data. It would be interesting if that's
> > correct. These minimum ranges for data collection rely on the crystal being
> > pre-oriented, which is unheard-of these days, although they can help if
> > someone is nagging you to get off the beam line or if your diffraction
> > fades quickly. Going for 180 degrees always makes sense for a well-behaved
> > crystal, or 360 degrees if you want super anomalous differences. Hope this
> > helps a bit.
> >
> > Jon Cooper
> >
> > On 23 Jun 2020 07:29, Andreas Förster
> > <andreas.foers...@dectris.com<mailto:andreas.foers...@dectris.com>> wrote:
> > Hi Murpholino,
> >
> > in my opinion (*), the question is neither number of frames nor degrees.
> > The only thing that matters to your crystal is dose. How many photons does
> > your crystal take before it dies? Consequently, the question to ask is How
> > best to use photons. Some people have done exactly that.
> > https://doi.org/10.1107/S2059798319003528<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__doi.org_10.1107_S2059798319003528&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=7PsShgmbN7Lnfs9SMUFk6q3ICDcrjGvo6EtogE8dEMQ&e=>
> >
> > All best.
> >
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> >
> > (*) Disclaimer: I benefit when you use PILATUS or EIGER - but I want you
> > to use them to your advantage.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:04 AM Murpholino Peligro
> > <murpholi...@gmail.com<mailto:murpholi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Hi.
> > Quick question...
> > I have seen *somewhere* that to get a 'full dataset we need to collect n
> > frames':
> > at least 180 frames if symmetry is X
> > at least 90 frames if symmetry is Y
> > at least 45 frames if symmetry is Z
> > Can somebody point where is *somewhere*?
> >
> > ...also...
> > what other factors can change n... besides symmetry and radiation damage?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=UyX3RjiV2Rb1RpRMT1-smotYE-Q3U3G0d_9di9M2Im4&e=>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andreas Förster, Ph.D.
> > Application Scientist Crystallography, Area Sales Manager Asia & Pacific
> > Phone: +41 56 500 21 00 | Direct: +41 56 500 21 76 | Email:
> > andreas.foers...@dectris.com<mailto:andreas.foers...@dectris.com>
> > DECTRIS Ltd. | Taefernweg 1 | 5405 Baden-Daettwil | Switzerland |
> > www.dectris.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.dectris.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=fv0w1arJi-7fEBkRYf5lb6cPy4Z--8ijD8AxBi19cvk&e=>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Confidentiality Note: This message is intended only for the use of the
> > named recipient(s)
> > and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not
> > the intended
> > recipient, please contact the sender and delete the message. Any
> > unauthorized use of
> > the information contained in this message is prohibited.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=UyX3RjiV2Rb1RpRMT1-smotYE-Q3U3G0d_9di9M2Im4&e=>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=UyX3RjiV2Rb1RpRMT1-smotYE-Q3U3G0d_9di9M2Im4&e=>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=UyX3RjiV2Rb1RpRMT1-smotYE-Q3U3G0d_9di9M2Im4&e=>
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=UyX3RjiV2Rb1RpRMT1-smotYE-Q3U3G0d_9di9M2Im4&e=>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=UyX3RjiV2Rb1RpRMT1-smotYE-Q3U3G0d_9di9M2Im4&e=>
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=UyX3RjiV2Rb1RpRMT1-smotYE-Q3U3G0d_9di9M2Im4&e=>
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=UyX3RjiV2Rb1RpRMT1-smotYE-Q3U3G0d_9di9M2Im4&e=>
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=UyX3RjiV2Rb1RpRMT1-smotYE-Q3U3G0d_9di9M2Im4&e=>
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=UyX3RjiV2Rb1RpRMT1-smotYE-Q3U3G0d_9di9M2Im4&e=>
> >
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=UyX3RjiV2Rb1RpRMT1-smotYE-Q3U3G0d_9di9M2Im4&e=>
>
> This message was issued to members of
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_CCP4BB&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=1z0nczFGMdzVqnUQod4rl0Wt5qBjhOQ9doPYaGkwZ00&e=>,
> a mailing list hosted by
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=mzwcxlHpXOVfmBWOYqhIGst1XLK8AxFOuQlVgKq3K1U&e=>,
> terms & conditions are available at
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_policyandsecurity_&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=rotjqYY-BKIumcrQTVKTb5xQcYV0APV7obUEU0UaWqs&e=>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=rkv3VHbs8Bfme-xQfteNHrAgAmRdtVOsCD3ryGGQbTI&s=UyX3RjiV2Rb1RpRMT1-smotYE-Q3U3G0d_9di9M2Im4&e=>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=iQrZqZaz9Y8C4p6GEypHQgGb-j1CTGXAkux1aJMDvco&s=5K0A6qsj9vrNI27xAaX-AHsZamiSUdZ694GxjC-oa1I&e=>
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
>
> This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing
> list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
