On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 11:36:30AM +0100, Eleanor Dodson wrote:
> First suspicious feature. The cell should not change with a different
> oscillation angle..I think you need to re-examine the data processing
> carefully and try to understand why the c axis is different..
Absolutely.
That might point to spatial overlap of reflections when using the
larger image width (is the long axis parallel or perpendicular to the
spindle axis?).
If you are collecting on a PAD-detector (Dectris Pilatus or Eiger):
using 0.5 deg image width is kind of based on very old CCD-detector
characteristics (noise) and one would nearly always collect smaller
image widths anyway ("low-dose, high-multiplicity fine-slicing"
... nothing else makes much sense for the vast majority of cases I
think). See papers by Jim Pflugrath (1999,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S090744499900935X) and Marcus Mueller et al
(2012, https://doi.org/10.1107/S0907444911049833).
Cheers
Clemens
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
