Dear Gerard,
Many thanks for these useful clarifications.I see your points clearly.
Just to mention that one remark in James's posting regarding photon counting
versus read noise caught my attention. I will follow up on this ASAP , which
like fine phi slicing gets to the heart of the measurement
Dear John,
Thank you for your message. I do realise that what I wrote may
have sounded like a "categoric blanket endorsement of XDS". Perhaps I
should have slept on my draft message a little longer, but James's
long e-mail made me wake up and it seemed appropriate to say what I
wanted to say,
Dear Gerard,
Thank you for sharing these extensive details which I feel sure everyone
will appreciate.
Just one aspect I wondered about namely your categorical blanket
endorsement of XDS. Indeed a very fine program and eg most recently
evaluated and discussed at CCP4 2011 I think it was, where it e
On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:25:35 +0100, Frank von Delft
wrote:
>Dear Gerard - thanks, very informative! Two questions:
>
>1.
>Do I understand correctly, that you say XDS will throw together for
>integration counts from many images even if they're spaced widely
>throughout the dataset, i.e. through
Frank,
Kay or Wolfgang can obviously answer better, but I am pretty sure the
answer to your second question is "no". XDS does not consider images
collected at 0 and 360 to be "one image". In fact, I think the "phi
direction" is internally represented as "detector Z", where "Z" has
units of
Gerard,
Thanks!
Actually, I was sitting on that one for a while and debating the wisdom
of posting it. With multi-million-dollar equipment, people tend to get
sensitive about "opinions".
But, yes, I suppose I didn't answer Theresa's second question about
anomalous data collection and rad d
Dear Frank,
Very good question. You are right: in this statement I used "XDS"
rather metaphorically, in the sense that this grouping together of all the
counts will happen at merging time rather than at integration time. In the
end you will have a counting-statistics contribution to the varia
Dear Gerard - thanks, very informative! Two questions:
1.
Do I understand correctly, that you say XDS will throw together for
integration counts from many images even if they're spaced widely
throughout the dataset, i.e. through the various passes?
i.e. if I set up my data collection as 5 co
Dear James,
A week ago I wrote what I thought was a perhaps excessively long and
overly dense message in reply to Theresa's initial query, then I thought I
should sleep on it before sending it, and got distracted by other things.
I guess you may well have used that whole week composing
Just a few things to add:
If you have a _current_ version of ADXV, then that "disappearing sharp
spots" problem has been fixed. Try downloading a new copy. Its free.
To answer the OP's question: there was a paper written about practical
Pilatus data collection recently:
http://dx.doi.org/1
Hi all,
Graeme's message tell the core of the detector usage notes here at diamond. He
might have unearthed a can of worms or two, though ;)
CCDs still are great detectors! I am not sure about his noise comment as the
more recent CCDs (post 2000-ish) are designed to operate with anode sources
11 matches
Mail list logo
