Just to add my two ha'porth.
I discussed this some years ago with Garib, just after I'd added the
anisotropic cutoff to the resolution limits in Mosflm (mentioned by
Andrew below); as I remember (and this is an invitation to Garib to
contribute and correct me here!), the answer went along t
Hi Everyone,
I echo Andrew's thanks for the summary offered by Justin.
I would like to mention another way to trim anisotropic diffraction patterns of
the weak patches 'at source', as it were, in MOSFLM, by specifying a sigma cut
off applied to each image.
from the manual:
RESOLUTION [ ] < hi
I would like to have some comments on whether the maps before or after
truncation are better . (obviously the Rfactors will be lower for the
truncated data ..)
I suspect it iwill be completely anecdotal - but I confess to a gut
unhappiness about throwing out measurements..
eleanor
Pavel Afon
I would like to thank Justin for his summary of this topic, which I'm
sure many people found of interest, and is very much in the spirit of
the bulletin board.
I would just like to correct one factual error, in that it has been
possible to specify anisotropic resolution limits to MOSFLM for
This is why phenix.refine by default outputs both maps: 2mFo-DFc
"filled" and not "filled", and it is the best to look at both keeping in
mind all pros and cons of each of them.
Pavel.
On 9/15/09 5:22 PM, Peter Zwart wrote:
Application of a elliptical resolution boundary is justified because
> Application of a elliptical resolution boundary is justified because the
> resolution boundary from common integration programs (Denzo and Mosflm for
> example) is spherical where diffraction for anisotropic data is ellipsoidal.
> A spherical boundary would result in the inclusion of numerous poo
