On 11/10/2017 1:38 PM, Robert Sweet wrote:
> This has been a fascinating thread. Thanks.
>
> I will dip my oar in the water. Here are a couple of snippets.
>
>> Jacob: It was good of proto-crystallographers to invent diffraction as
>> a way to apply Fourier Series.
>
> and
>
>> Ethan: So here'
Dear colleagues,
Mark van Raaij and I should like to bring your attention to the special
issue with title "Crystallography of glycoproteins and protein-carbohydrate
complexes" we are co-editing for Acta Crystallographica Section F:
Structural Biology Communications.
Aside from a number of commiss
This has been a fascinating thread. Thanks.
I will dip my oar in the water. Here are a couple of snippets.
Jacob: It was good of proto-crystallographers to invent diffraction as a
way to apply Fourier Series.
and
Ethan: So here's the brain-teaser: Why does Nature use Fourier
transforms rat
Hi,
I have difficulty with the cif dictionary to connect sugars in a
tetrasaccharide. The dictionary works well in coot (regularizes as expected)
but when refined in Phenix, one connection misbehaves. Where can I find
description of the rules for creating the link? Which residue is taken as '1'
>>My understanding is that EM people will routinely switch to diffraction mode
>>when they want accurate measurements. You lose the phase information but,
>>since EM lenses tend to have imperfections, you get better measurements of
>>the intensities.
Only to my knowledge in the case of crystal
Thanks for all your replies. Have a good weekend!
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Kay Diederichs <
kay.diederi...@uni-konstanz.de> wrote:
> As Eleanor and Gerard explained - perhaps there is a reason that some
> frames are really bad.
>
> But it could just as well be that the crystal diffracts an
On 11/10/2017 7:55 AM, Keller, Jacob wrote:
> "Quality of image" has a lot of parameters, including resolution, noise,
> systematic errors, etc. I am not aware of a global "quality of image" metric.
>
> One other consideration, not related to your comment: imagine if we had an
> x-ray lens throu
A second observation of the same experimental quantity does not
double the amount of "information". We know from the many discussions
on this forum that the improvement of multiplicity is diminishing with
repetition.
Measuring "information content" is very hard. You can't just count
the by
"Quality of image" has a lot of parameters, including resolution, noise,
systematic errors, etc. I am not aware of a global "quality of image" metric.
One other consideration, not related to your comment: imagine if we had an
x-ray lens through which we could take confocal images of a protein mo
At the bottom line, it is the quality of the image, not only the amount of
pixels that counts. Adding more megapixels to a digital camera with a poor lens
(as some manufacturers did), did not result in any sharper or better images.
Herman
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: CCP4 bulletin boa
It seems, then, to be generally agreed that the conversion between voxels and
Fourier terms was valid, each containing the same amount of information, but
the problem was in the representation, and there was just trickery of the eye.
I was thinking and hoping this would be so, since it allows a
Many thanks to everyone who asked re: Brexit - of course I mean it is an **
exciting ** time :o)
... the less said about Brexit the better...
One of those moments where a spell checker is helpful but not sufficient!
Best wishes Graeme
-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mai
In line with Dale's suggestions, I would suggest that you reformat your voxel
map into the format of an electron density map and look at it with coot. I am
sure it will look much better and much more like the electron density we are
used to look at. Alternatively, you could display an bona fide
13 matches
Mail list logo
