On Apr 9, 2012, at 11:47 AM, aaleshin wrote: > Thank you Phil, for clarification of my point, but it appears as cheating in > a current situation, when an author has to fit a three dimensional statistics > into a one-dimentional table. Moreover, many of journal reviewers may never > worked with the low-resolution data and understand importance of every A^3 > counts. It is not clear to me how to report the resolution of data when it is > 3A in one direction, 3.5A in another and 5A in the third. > > Alex >
In the very low resolution world of SAXS, the whole idea of resolution is problematic. One can quote the minimum d-spacing (maximum angle) measured, but it is not a useful number to report. People are much more concerned about the quality of the data at maximum d-spacing (lowest angle). Perhaps very low-resolution crystallography is starting to enter this regime as well in which resolution concerns are turned upside down. Granted, SAXS is a heavily averaged experiment which can densely sample q space, but which does not even attempt to produce density. But the point I think that is appreciated in the SAXS community, is that the connection between extent of data in reciprocal space and model features is not simple. Richard Gillilan MacCHESS
