Hi Ed, the mosaicity is always zero after xds, because the processing is different as Graeme mentioned. If the cell refinement is unstable and mosaicity becomes zero, I estimate the mosaicity from a few pictures and write my own value in the mosaicity estimation window of the gui. Than one fixes this value in the integration step and it should work
Best Regards Christian Am Freitag 25 Mai 2012 17:12:32 schrieb Ed Pozharski: > I should do more digging, but I hope maybe there is a simple explanation > and someone has seen this before. On some datasets (collected at SSRL) > I get SCALA reporting average mosaicity of 0.0. This probably happens > at the integration stage, and for this whole set of datasets *always* > happens when I use the autoxds scripts. When I go with mosflm/scala, it > still happens for some, but not all datasets. I can process those that > fail mosflm using denzo/scalepack, but it takes a bit of tinkering with > parameters (diffraction is admittedly messy). > > Interestingly, it seems that at least in some cases all the other SCALA > statistics are perfectly fine. I haven't checked yet how these will > behave in refinement, but I suspect it will look OK too. > > I have found this by googling > > http://www.mail-archive.com/ccp4bb@dl.ac.uk/msg00422.html > > but it's from 2005 and I wonder if things changed since. Andrew > mentions the multiple close lattices as one of the possible reasons, and > it is indeed fairly common for these datasets. > > I cannot find anything in SCALA manual about mosaicity refinement, so I > assume that scala (unlike scalepack) does not do that. So if I am to > overcome the zero mosaicity issue by fixing it at mosflm stage, how > important it is to get it close to the actual value? Or is it enough to > just keep it sufficiently high to prevent rejections of legit spots? > And, if I may ask one last question, is there a way to fix mosaicity in > imosflm gui (I can *fix* it, but doesn't seem to be possible to choose a > specific value). > > Cheers, > > Ed. >
