Le 08/11/2011 19:19, James Holton a écrit :
> At the risk of putting this thread back on-topic, my original question
> was not "should I just lossfully compress my images and throw away the
> originals". My question was:
>
> "would you download the compressed images first?"
>
> So far, noone has really answered it.
>
> I think it is obvious that of course we would RATHER have the original
> data, but if access to the original data is "slow" (by a factor of 30 at
> best) then can the "mp3 version" of diffraction data play a useful role
> in YOUR work?
>
> Taking Graeme's request from a different thread as an example, he would
> like to see stuff in P21 with a 90 degree beta angle. There are
> currently ~609 examples of this in the PDB. So, I ask again: "which one
> would you download first?". 1aip? (It is first alphabetically). Then
> again, if you just email the corresponding authors of all 609 papers,
> the response rate alone might whittle the number of datasets to deal
> with down to less than 10. Perhaps even less than 1.
>
> -James Holton
> MAD Scientist
>
Hmm, I thought I had been clear. I will try to be more direct:
Given the option, I would *only* download the original,
non-lossy-compressed data. At the expense of time, yes. I don't think
Graeme's example is very representative of our work, sorry.
As long as the option between the two is warranted, I don't care. I just
don't see the point for the very same reasons Kay has very clearly exposed.
Best regards,
--
Miguel
Architecture et Fonction des Macromolécules Biologiques (UMR6098)
CNRS, Universités d'Aix-Marseille I & II
Case 932, 163 Avenue de Luminy, 13288 Marseille cedex 9, France
Tel: +33(0) 491 82 55 93
Fax: +33(0) 491 26 67 20
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.afmb.univ-mrs.fr/Miguel-Ortiz-Lombardia
|