On Wednesday 18 March 2009 09:41:59 Garib Murshudov wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Before going into and trying to find a technical solution to the
> problem it would be good if decide if we need images. As far as I know
> if we face with a problem to solve and we know that it is necessary to
> solve then we find technical solution to the problem (either from
> other fields or we find our own solution with some elements of
> reinvention of new MX wheels).
>
> Do we need images to store? What kind of information we can extract
> from images that we cannot from amplitudes, intensities (even
> unmerged)? Does anybody have a convincing argument for favour of images?
Overlooked superlattice?
Incorrect point group assignment?
Failure to recognize a non-merohedral twin?
Thermal diffuse scatter?
Subsequent improvements in integration programs?
Ethan
>
> regards
> Garib
>
>
>
> On 18 Mar 2009, at 16:32, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>
> > Actually the radiologists who manage CT and PET scans of brains do
> > have
> > a solution, called DICOM, see http://medical.nema.org/. If we work
> > together as a community we should be able to do as well as the
> > rocket scientists and the brain surgeons' radiologists, perhaps even
> > better. -- Herbert
> >
> > =====================================================
> > Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
> > Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
> > Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769
> >
> > +1-631-244-3035
> > [log in to unmask]
> > =====================================================
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Jacob Keller wrote:
> >
> >> Apparently it DOES take a rocket scientist to solve this problem.
> >> Maybe the brain surgeons also have a solution?
> >>
> >> JPK
> >>
> >> *******************************************
> >> Jacob Pearson Keller
> >> Northwestern University
> >> Medical Scientist Training Program
> >> Dallos Laboratory
> >> F. Searle 1-240
> >> 2240 Campus Drive
> >> Evanston IL 60208
> >> lab: 847.491.2438
> >> cel: 773.608.9185
> >> email: [log in to unmask]
> >> *******************************************
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Klaas Decanniere" <[log in to unmask]
> >> >
> >> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:36 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] images
> >>
> >>
> >>> Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
> >>> Other sciences have struggled with this and seem to have found an
> >>> answer.
> >>> Have e.g. a look at http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/fits.html
> >>> kind regards,
> >>> Klaas
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a good time to start a major crystallogrpahic image
> >>>> archiving effort. Money may well be available now that will not be
> >>>> avialable six month from now, and we have good, if not perfect,
> >>>> solutions available for many, if not all, of the technical issues
> >>>> involved. Is it really wise to let this opportunity pass us by?
> >>>>>> The deposition of images would be possible providing some
> >>>>>> consistent
> >>>>>> imagecif format was agreed.
> >>>>>> This would of course be of great use to developers for certain
> >>>>>> pathological cases, but not I suspect much value to the user
> >>>>>> community - I down load structure factors all the time for test
> >>>>>> purposes but I probably would not bother to go through the data
> >>>>>> processing, and unless there were extensive notes associated with
> >>>>>> each set of images I suspect it would be hard to reproduce
> >>>>>> sensible
> >>>>>> results.
> >>
> >
>
--
Ethan A Merritt
Biomolecular Structure Center
University of Washington, Seattle 98195-7742
|