Hello > Edward A. Berry wrote: > What about collecting in the corners of a square detector? > Due to the crystal diffracting better than expected or > the need to sacrifice resolution for spot separation?
This is actually our reason that we have problem. The strategy initially suggested lower resolution, but after we shot the crystal and analyzed the data we could see diffraction way into the corners of the detector. > Ian Tickle wrote: > Instead I use the average (I / sigma(I)) for all reflections, i.e. > including unmeasured for which I take (I / sigma(I)) = 0, as the > cut-off criterion with a cut-off value of 1. Do you think that this averaged I/sig I could also be transferred to a averaged CC1/2 giving unobserved spots a CC1/2 of 0. --> <CC1/2>_all = shell_completeness * <CC1/2>_measured? Marcus On Mo, 2012-08-06 at 09:33 -0400, Edward A. Berry wrote: > Ian Tickle wrote: > > > below the noise threshold. This does make the tacit assumption that > > the unmeasured reflections are distributed randomly in reciprocal > > space, which is clearly not entirely true, but it's hard to see how > > one could account for the non-random distribution. Again, in any case > > > What about collecting in the corners of a square detector? > Due to the crystal diffracting better than expected or > the need to sacrifice resolution for spot separation? > > eab
