SCALA doesn't do anything with the mosaicity, it just reports what was passed from the integration program.
On 25 May 2012, at 17:12, Ed Pozharski wrote: > I should do more digging, but I hope maybe there is a simple explanation > and someone has seen this before. On some datasets (collected at SSRL) > I get SCALA reporting average mosaicity of 0.0. This probably happens > at the integration stage, and for this whole set of datasets *always* > happens when I use the autoxds scripts. When I go with mosflm/scala, it > still happens for some, but not all datasets. I can process those that > fail mosflm using denzo/scalepack, but it takes a bit of tinkering with > parameters (diffraction is admittedly messy). > > Interestingly, it seems that at least in some cases all the other SCALA > statistics are perfectly fine. I haven't checked yet how these will > behave in refinement, but I suspect it will look OK too. > > I have found this by googling > > http://www.mail-archive.com/ccp4bb@dl.ac.uk/msg00422.html > > but it's from 2005 and I wonder if things changed since. Andrew > mentions the multiple close lattices as one of the possible reasons, and > it is indeed fairly common for these datasets. > > I cannot find anything in SCALA manual about mosaicity refinement, so I > assume that scala (unlike scalepack) does not do that. So if I am to > overcome the zero mosaicity issue by fixing it at mosflm stage, how > important it is to get it close to the actual value? Or is it enough to > just keep it sufficiently high to prevent rejections of legit spots? > And, if I may ask one last question, is there a way to fix mosaicity in > imosflm gui (I can *fix* it, but doesn't seem to be possible to choose a > specific value). > > Cheers, > > Ed. > > -- > After much deep and profound brain things inside my head, > I have decided to thank you for bringing peace to our home. > Julian, King of Lemurs
