Pat, at least give it a try with the one sweep approach. We have collected plenty of 360deg data sets on a Rigaku system which requires two omega sweeps at phi 0 and 180 deg. These data sets are for in-house phasing. We haven't seen big issues with running XDS over these images as one continuous sweep. Monitoring scalefactors might be a good indicator.
Good luck Jan On Mar 31, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Patrick Loll wrote: > We've just collected a number of inverse beam data sets. It turns out the > crystals showed little radiation damage, so we have a lot of data: 2 x 360 > deg for each crystal, broken up into 30 deg wedges. The collection order went > like this: 0-30 deg, 180-210, 30-60, 210-240, etc. > > Now, assuming no slippage, I could simply integrate the first set of data > (non-inverse?) in one run: 0-360 deg. However, since the 12 individual wedges > making up this 360 deg sweep were not collected immediately one after the > other, I don't expect the scale factors for individual images to vary > smoothly (there should be discontinuities at the boundaries between wedges). > If I do integrate the data in one fell swoop, am I in danger of introducing > errors? For example, I seem to recall that denzo had built-in restraints to > ensure that scale factors for adjacent images didn't vary by too much. Is > there a similar restraint that in XDS that I might run afoul of? > > The alternative is to integrate each each wedge separately, but with 24 > wedges per xtal, this is starting to look a little tedious. > > Cheers, > Pat -- Jan Abendroth Emerald BioStructures Seattle / Bainbridge Island WA, USA home: Jan.Abendroth_at_gmail.com work: JAbendroth_at_embios.com http://www.emeraldbiostructures.com
