JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB Archives

CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  March 2011

CCP4BB March 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: mosflm gain

From:

James Holton <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

James Holton <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 4 Mar 2011 11:47:01 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (75 lines)

I have found that the best way to get the GAIN "right" in MOSFLM is to 
have a look at the optimum "Sdfac" parameter at the end of SCALA (the 
first of the three SDCORRection values).  Specifically, if SDFac is > 1, 
then you need to increase the GAIN.  This is because SDFac>1 means that 
the spots were noisier than MOSFLM thought they should be, and if a 
given number of ADU is noisier than expected, then there must have been 
fewer photons involved in generating the signal.  This means that the 
"true gain" was higher.  Yes, there are other sources of error, like 
shutter jitter, beam flicker, calibration errors, absorption effects, 
scale factor errors, etc.  But these are all directly proportional to 
the intensity, and therefore accounted for by adjusting SDadd (the last 
of the three SDCORR values).  SDfac accounts for noise proportional to 
the square root of intensity, and only shot noise (like photon counting) 
behaves like that.

David Waterman makes an excellent point that the point-spread function 
(PSF) acts like a smoothing filter and makes the background look less 
noisy than photon-counting error permits.  This makes the 
BGRATIO-estimated GAIN lower than the "true" GAIN.  However, one can 
argue that this is not always a bad thing, since the error in measuring 
the intensity of a given area of flat background really is "better than 
photon counting".  This is because you have the smoothing effect of the 
PSF working "for you": bringing in signal from areas outside the region 
you are measuring (prior knowledge of "flatness" if you will).  However, 
this smoothing effect of the PSF does not apply to spots because spot 
photons all arrive in essentially the same place, and no "smoothing" 
will change the intrinsic noise of the total number of photons that 
actually arrived.  The upshot of this is that we really need two 
different values for GAIN, one for the background and one for the 
background-subtracted spot intensity.  The influence on sigma(I) would 
depend on the relative contributions from the spot vs the background 
under it.  I am pretty sure this is not implemented.

It is perhaps interesting that there is also a third type of noise which 
is independent of the spot intensity: "read-out noise".  This used to be 
called "fog" on film detectors.  Despite all the money we spend on 
detectors that minimize it, there is no specific accounting for read-out 
noise in MOSFLM or any other integration package I am aware of.  
However, a "trick" to account for it is to simply lower the ADCOFFSET.  
For example, using 1 A X-rays on an ADSC Q315r detector in hwbin mode, 
the true GAIN is 1.8 ADU/photon, the ADCOFFSET is 40 ADU, and the 
read-out noise is equivalent to the noise deposited by ~2 photon/pixel 
of x-ray background.  This means that a blank image has an average value 
of 40 ADU and rms variation of ~2.5 ADU, but this is equivalent to an 
image from a detector with the same gain, no read-out noise, and 
ADCOFFSET of 36 that was "fogged" by 2 photons/pixel (regardless of 
exposure time).  Yes, this is a small change in ADCOFFSET, and I doubt 
you will notice the difference.  I think this speaks to the fact that, 
on modern detectors at least, read-out noise is essentially negligible.

Another way to get the GAIN, of course, is to measure it directly.  I 
did this on an ADSC Q315 detector in swbin mode by comparison to a 
NaI:Tl scintillator (after accounting for the window and sensor 
thickness of the latter device):
http://bl831.als.lbl.gov/~jamesh/pickup/Q315_gain.png
You can see how the GAIN changes appreciably with photon energy, and 
this is largely because lower-energy photons generate less signal.  GAIN 
also changes with the detector read-out mode.  For example, this number 
is 3 times higher for a Q315r in hwbin mode.  I have listed my best 
information on the typical GAIN and read-out noise of common detectors 
on my "minimum crystal size" page here:
http://bl831.als.lbl.gov/xtalsize.html
You can extract the parameters by selecting the "detector type = " you 
want, and then switching it again to "Custom..."

-James Holton
MAD Scientist

On 3/3/2011 12:34 PM, Bryan Lepore wrote:
> wondering if mosflm can automatically estimate the gain.
>
> i.e. i gather it is still estimated the usual way.
>
> -Bryan

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager