Thank you Kay!
Speaking as a beamline scientist I agree that the instrument should be
set up right and things like the distance, beam center, and various
angles should be known.
However, also speaking as a beamline scientist I feel I should point out
that EVERY instrument goes through at lea
Dear all,
a new BUILT of XDS is available for academic users at
http://xds.mpimf-heidelberg.mpg.de . This reverts to the old distance
refinement behavior with its larger radius of convergence, and is relevant for
processing data from beamlines where the header distance is not accurate.
Thanks
Dear Keitaro,
I have come to the exact same conclusions, and the next version of XDS will
revert to the old refinement behavior.
As a preview, I've uploaded a fixed Linux binary (not the whole package, just
xds_par) to
ftp://turn5.biologie.uni-konstanz.de/pub/xds/xds_par.refi_cell_position_t
Dear Kay,
I also tested this using a publicly available data of thaumatin
https://zenodo.org/record/10271
(resolution ~1.4 Å, wavelength= 0.97625 Å).
The camera distance from header is 265.27 mm. I tested this original
distance and some shifts (+1, +2, +4, ..., +32 mm) with different
versions of X
: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Issues with latest XDS (20171218)
I agree that accurate and complete image header information is useful, but not
universal. How about a routine similar to
dials.discover_better_experimental_model?
W.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Engin Özkan
mailto:eoz
==
>>PD Dr. Oliver H. Weiergräber
>>Institute of Complex Systems
>>ICS-6: Structural Biochemistry
>>Tel.: +49 2461 61-2028
>>Fax: +49 2461 61-9540
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________
>> From: CCP4 bulletin board [CCP
_
From: CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] on behalf of Clemens Vonrhein
[vonrh...@globalphasing.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:39 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Issues with latest XDS (20171218)
Dear Oliver,
yes, there are other changes to the
Dear Georg,
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:38:09 +0100, Georg Mlynek
wrote:
>Dear Kay, thank you ver much for the (as always) detailed and nicely
>explained answer.
>
>However this brings up some questions for me:
>
>1. Could you please tell me how the "correct high-resolution cutoff"
>will effect the
behalf of Clemens Vonrhein
[vonrh...@globalphasing.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:39 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Issues with latest XDS (20171218)
Dear Oliver,
yes, there are other changes to the parameter refinement procedure
within XDS as far as I understand.
;
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] on behalf of Kay Diederichs
> [kay.diederi...@uni-konstanz.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 9:16 PM
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Issues with latest XDS (20171218)
&
Dear Kay, thank you ver much for the (as always) detailed and nicely
explained answer.
However this brings up some questions for me:
1. Could you please tell me how the "correct high-resolution cutoff"
will effect the data processing in the INTEGRATE CORRECT step.
In other words what will be
ssues with latest XDS (20171218)
Dear Oliver,
sorry for the trouble!
A default should be correct in the majority of situations, but it's impossible
to have it work for _all_ situations. The XDS default for REFINE(IDXREF) was
changed (i.e. POSITION was removed) to improve the indexing for weak
Dear Oliver,
sorry for the trouble!
A default should be correct in the majority of situations, but it's impossible
to have it work for _all_ situations. The XDS default for REFINE(IDXREF) was
changed (i.e. POSITION was removed) to improve the indexing for weak and lousy
data, _and_ because the
Dear all,
After upgrading XDS from build date 20170601 to 20171218, I am experiencing
severe degradation of apparent data quality reported by CORRECT for certain
data sets. Following first indications of issues with a slightly problematic
candidate, I went back to a previously very well-behaved
14 matches
Mail list logo
