Hi,
I agree with what has been mentioned about "fuzzy spots". But what seems
obvious as well is that the resolution for spot picking should be
limited (to 3.5 or 4 A resolution). It is difficult to judge from an
image of a diffraction pattern, but it seems to me from this image that
the spots do not extend to the limits of the detector, whereas the spot
picking algorithm wishes to find spots on the entire detector surface.
Fred.
Petr Kolenko wrote:
Dear colleagues,
I am working on one dataset that is hard to process. The data are
about 3A of resolution. As we are not able to reproduce the experiment
again, I have to use this one, collected in a dirty way.
The problem starts immediately with finding of spots. I have tried
HKL2000, XDS, D*trek, ipmosflm, imosflm, but none of them gave a good
read-out of the images. All the programs find some spots in wrong
positions and the real spots are not covered. Here is an example:
http://kolda.webz.cz/image-predictions.jpg
The data were collected in-house, Saturn 944++ CCD, and all the
necessary information should be in the header properly. I checked the
distance, other parameters, but the problem is with finding of
"correct" or "real spots" on the image. This should be even
header-independent, should not? All the programs fail (or even crash)
in this routine. Does anyone have any suggestion, please?
Btw, we have several structures in the PDB from this experimental
setup. This is the first problem I have met.
Many thanks for any response.
Petr
--
Petr Kolenko
petr.kole...@biochemtech.uni-halle.de
<mailto:petr.kole...@biochemtech.uni-halle.de>
http://kolda.webz.cz
