[ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

:55 An: Schreuder, Herman /DE; CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Betreff: [EXTERNAL] RE: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum "Quality of image" has a lot of parameters, including resolution, noise, systematic errors, etc. I am not aware of a global "quality of imag

Re: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

On 11/12/2017 6:48 AM, Kay Diederichs wrote: > On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:04:26 -0800, Dale Tronrud > wrote: > ... >> >> My belief is that the fact that our spot intensities represent the >> amplitude (squared) of a series of Sin waves is the result of the hard >> work of

Re: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:04:26 -0800, Dale Tronrud wrote: ... > > My belief is that the fact that our spot intensities represent the >amplitude (squared) of a series of Sin waves is the result of the hard >work of people like Bob who give us monochromatic illumination.

Re: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

On 11/10/2017 1:38 PM, Robert Sweet wrote: > This has been a fascinating thread. Thanks. > > I will dip my oar in the water.  Here are a couple of snippets. > >> Jacob: It was good of proto-crystallographers to invent diffraction as >> a way to apply Fourier Series. > > and > >> Ethan: So

Re: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

This has been a fascinating thread. Thanks. I will dip my oar in the water. Here are a couple of snippets. Jacob: It was good of proto-crystallographers to invent diffraction as a way to apply Fourier Series. and Ethan: So here's the brain-teaser: Why does Nature use Fourier transforms

Re: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

>>My understanding is that EM people will routinely switch to diffraction mode >>when they want accurate measurements. You lose the phase information but, >>since EM lenses tend to have imperfections, you get better measurements of >>the intensities. Only to my knowledge in the case of

Re: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

reu...@sanofi.com] > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 10:22 AM > To: Keller, Jacob <kell...@janelia.hhmi.org>; CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > Subject: AW: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum > > At the bottom line, it is the quality of the image, not only the

Re: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

lography-style modelling! > > Jacob Keller > > > > -Original Message- > From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Tristan > Croll > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 8:36 AM > To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [c

Re: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

erman -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Keller, Jacob Gesendet: Freitag, 10. November 2017 15:48 An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Betreff: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum It seems, th

[ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Keller, Jacob Gesendet: Freitag, 10. November 2017 15:48 An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Betreff: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum It seems, then, to be generally agreed that the conversion between voxels

Re: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum Or a nice familiar 2D example: the Ramachandran plot with 7.5 degree binning, as a grid (left) or with bicubic smoothing (right). Different visualisations of the same data, but the right-hand image uses

[ccp4bb] AW: Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Betreff: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum Ethan and I apparently agree that anomalous scattering is "normal" and Friedel's Law is just an approximation. I'll presume that your "unique" is assuming otherwise and you

Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

Ethan and I apparently agree that anomalous scattering is "normal" and Friedel's Law is just an approximation. I'll presume that your "unique" is assuming otherwise and your 62,500 reflections only include half of reciprocal space. The full sphere of data would include 125,000 reflections.

Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

On Friday, 10 November 2017 05:29:09 Keller, Jacob wrote: > >>62500 is < 40^3, so ±20 indices on each axis. > 50Å / 20 = 2.5Å, so not quite 2.5Å resolution > > Nice--thanks for calculating that. Couldn't remember how to do it off-hand, > and I guess my over-estimate comes from most protein

Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

>>62500 is < 40^3, so ±20 indices on each axis. 50Å / 20 = 2.5Å, so not quite 2.5Å resolution Nice--thanks for calculating that. Couldn't remember how to do it off-hand, and I guess my over-estimate comes from most protein crystals having some symmetry. I don't really think it affects the

Re: [ccp4bb] Basic Crystallography/Imaging Conundrum

On Friday, 10 November 2017 00:10:22 Keller, Jacob wrote: > Dear Crystallographers, > > I have been considering a thought-experiment of sorts for a while, and wonder > what you will think about it: > > Consider a diffraction data set which contains 62,500 unique reflections from > a 50 x 50 x