2,652
edits
MINIMUM ZETA: Difference between revisions
m
→An example
m (→Examples) |
m (→An example) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
== An example == | == An example == | ||
We collected data at the SLS, beamline X06SA, on a MarCCD 225 detector. Below, I show the final output of CORRECT.LP and a mapping of R-factors on the surface of the detector. | We collected data at the SLS, beamline X06SA, on a MarCCD 225 detector. Below, I show the final output of CORRECT.LP and a mapping of R-factors on the surface of the detector (file rf.pck produced by XDSSTAT). | ||
Using the default value of MINIMUM_ZETA= 0.15, one obtains in CORRECT.LP: | Using the default value of MINIMUM_ZETA= 0.15, one obtains in CORRECT.LP: | ||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
and there are few reflections missing in the blind region: | and there are few reflections missing in the blind region: | ||
[[Image:zeta-0.01.png]] | [[Image:zeta-0.01.png]] | ||
Finally, we may take a look at FRAME.pck and see that very few reflections are missing. The resolution of this image is not good enough to actually see the circles but one can see that all observed reflections are indeed hit by predictions. | |||
[[Image:ms688-frame.png]] | |||
Form looking at rf.pck of many datasets, it is my experience that at the SLS (X06SA), the R-factors along the spindle are better than perpendicular to it, which is quite surprising (and should be investigated). However it is clear that for these data, it is a good thing to decrease MINIMUM_ZETA because good reflections are added to the data set. | Form looking at rf.pck of many datasets, it is my experience that at the SLS (X06SA), the R-factors along the spindle are better than perpendicular to it, which is quite surprising (and should be investigated). However it is clear that for these data, it is a good thing to decrease MINIMUM_ZETA because good reflections are added to the data set. | ||