Le 08/11/2011 19:19, James Holton a écrit : > At the risk of putting this thread back on-topic, my original question > was not "should I just lossfully compress my images and throw away the > originals". My question was: > > "would you download the compressed images first?" > > So far, noone has really answered it. > > I think it is obvious that of course we would RATHER have the original > data, but if access to the original data is "slow" (by a factor of 30 at > best) then can the "mp3 version" of diffraction data play a useful role > in YOUR work? > > Taking Graeme's request from a different thread as an example, he would > like to see stuff in P21 with a 90 degree beta angle. There are > currently ~609 examples of this in the PDB. So, I ask again: "which one > would you download first?". 1aip? (It is first alphabetically). Then > again, if you just email the corresponding authors of all 609 papers, > the response rate alone might whittle the number of datasets to deal > with down to less than 10. Perhaps even less than 1. > > -James Holton > MAD Scientist >
Hmm, I thought I had been clear. I will try to be more direct: Given the option, I would *only* download the original, non-lossy-compressed data. At the expense of time, yes. I don't think Graeme's example is very representative of our work, sorry. As long as the option between the two is warranted, I don't care. I just don't see the point for the very same reasons Kay has very clearly exposed. Best regards, -- Miguel Architecture et Fonction des Macromolécules Biologiques (UMR6098) CNRS, Universités d'Aix-Marseille I & II Case 932, 163 Avenue de Luminy, 13288 Marseille cedex 9, France Tel: +33(0) 491 82 55 93 Fax: +33(0) 491 26 67 20 mailto:miguel.ortiz-lombar...@afmb.univ-mrs.fr http://www.afmb.univ-mrs.fr/Miguel-Ortiz-Lombardia
