2,684
edits
2VB1: Difference between revisions
→XSCALE.LP tables
| Line 260: | Line 260: | ||
8.182E+00 1.759E-04 26.36 27.60 ../g/XDS_ASCII.HKL | 8.182E+00 1.759E-04 26.36 27.60 ../g/XDS_ASCII.HKL | ||
7.717E+00 3.694E-04 18.73 21.93 ../h/XDS_ASCII.HKL | 7.717E+00 3.694E-04 18.73 21.93 ../h/XDS_ASCII.HKL | ||
and there are about 1500 rejected reflections. | and there are about 1500 rejected reflections. It is reassuring to note that the error model works well; the ISa goes down toward sweep h probably because the crystal degrades. But see also the "a posterior remarks" below - sweep h is the one that is most affected by a shadow on the detector. | ||
SUBSET OF INTENSITY DATA WITH SIGNAL/NOISE >= -3.0 AS FUNCTION OF RESOLUTION | SUBSET OF INTENSITY DATA WITH SIGNAL/NOISE >= -3.0 AS FUNCTION OF RESOLUTION | ||
| Line 293: | Line 293: | ||
So there is still useful signal beyond 0.65 A. | So there is still useful signal beyond 0.65 A. | ||
== Some ''a posteriori'' remarks == | |||
* For sweeps e-h one should use TRUSTED_REGION= 0 1.2 since that already gives 0.626 A in the corners. | |||
* The first and last frames of sweeps g and h show a shadow in one corner of the detector. Nothing was done by me to exclude this shadow from processing (but one should do so at least if the resolution should be expanded beyond 0.65 A which the XSCALE statistics suggest to be possible). <br> One could experiment with MINIMUM_VALID_PIXEL_VALUE= 40 (or so) instead of 1 - I'd probably try that, but of course one does not want to exclude valid pixels so the result has to be carefully checked. <br> Anyway, there is no general facility in XDS to exclude bad areas of ''specific'' frames in a dataset; one needs to chop the dataset into parts and deal with each shadow separately. | |||
== Comparison of data processing: published (2006) ''vs'' XDS results == | == Comparison of data processing: published (2006) ''vs'' XDS results == | ||