My 2 cents worth on the stereo-dependent: 1) They have carpal tunnel syndrome that makes it painful to keep the molecule in motion while rebuilding it (NOTE: enough constant mouse-wiggling and you will get carpal tunnel problems if you don't have them yet!)
2) They work on big, low-resolution structures where you need to see a bigger-picture view. I've had people tell me that can fit 3-3.5A maps just fine without stereo, but having viewed their work, I beg to differ. Phoebe ---- Original message ---- >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 22:30:54 +0000 >From: CCP4 bulletin board <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> (on behalf of Jan Löwe ><j...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk>) >Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] while on the subject of stereo >To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > >Ah! The question of to stereo or not to stereo! There has to be a >scientific reason why this question is more popular than asking for what >Linux distro is more fashionable this spring or why an Rmerge of 0.90 in >the outermost shell is good for you and your structure. > >I am offering my two (conflicting) theories (and apologies that both >seem to imply some problem): > >A) people who do use stereo have a problem with their brain because they >cannot produce three dimensional vision from depth cues alone. > >B) people who do not use stereo have a problem with their brain because >they cannot see properly in three dimensions and rely on depth cues alone. > >I personally prefer people with A) when I am their passenger in a car >since they do not need to rotate by 90° to see how far the braking >lights of the car in front are away :-) > >jan > > > >On 01/03/2011 21:35, Jim Pflugrath wrote: >> I will offer my view. >> >> I hate stereo glasses and hate stereo in general. >> >> One should be able to see 3D from the depth-cueing and by keeping the view >> in motion. For fitting, I like to flip the view by 90 degrees. I know I am >> going to move in displayX and displayY, but never in displayZ. I then >> rotate the view around the vertical axis so thatn the old displayZ becomes >> displayX. >> >> Furthermore, I don't waste too much time fitting. I know the software can >> fit the map better than me, so I let it do its job. I only need to get the >> coordinates within the radius of convergence of the refinement program. I >> also know that 9 times out of 10, the displayed electron density is probably >> suspect, so I believe in stereochemistry more than I believe in the map. >> >> The main trick is to realize that as a human being, you really are not that >> good at fitting the map or that it is unnecessary to waste your time since >> the software is really so much better than you. Refinement is quick enough >> that you can try various hypotheses as in: "If I move this here, then >> refinement will do the trick" and "Well, that didn't work, so I will move >> that over there and see if refinement will do the trick." >> >> As for stereo figures, you should be able to convey what you want to say >> from a good figure with depth-cueing, shadows, etc. Don't ever use stereo >> glasses in a public seminar. Maybe my opinion will change with better >> stereo technology. >> >> OK, I know quite a lot of people will disagree with me. :) >> >> Jim >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of David >> Roberts >> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 10:29 AM >> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK >> Subject: [ccp4bb] while on the subject of stereo >> >> Hi again, >> >> I'd like to ask a question about the pedagogy of stereo. That is, using >> stereo with students in the classroom. >> >> Do you all find that, after setting up these elaborate stereo devices, >> students really use the stereo or do they tend not to? >> >> I am a huge fan of stereo - and frankly here we have quite a few options for >> doing stereo - from the active Nvidia systems that people have recently been >> discussing to passive zalmans. ... >> >> As I mentioned, I like stereo a lot, but really projecting on a nice bright >> lcd monitor also has it's advantages, and with the ease of moving things >> using the mouse (or whatever device you use), the overall need for stereo >> seems to be decreasing. I don't know - I just wonder what peoples views are >> out there for the actual "need" for stereo. It's incredibly cool - and I >> think is a very powerful way to show things - but I'm wondering if we focus >> too much on it because it's cool and not because it's pedagogically >> necessary. >> >> Just wondering, no worries. Thanks >> >> Dave
