Hello,
I just had a look at the bruk2ucsf code shipped with Sparky and it seems
that unbelievably (unbelievably because it is more work) the block sizes
are indeed changed, and that can make things better (or worse) in
Analysis. In general the blocks are increased in size, and that is good
as long as they do not become too big. On a 3rrr I just tried it on, the
block sizes went from (64, 4, 4) to (80, 32, 2), when I ran bruk2ucsf.
The 2 in the third dimension looks bad in this case (it's usually the 3rd
dimension that you do not want too small) but from what Marie says you
might as well try the conversion.
Wayne
On Mon, 28 May 2012, Phelan, Marie wrote:
> Hi Markus
>
> For some unknown reason I find ucsf works a lot better with analysis than 3rrr format, so if you've got a choice that's what I would work with.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Marie
>
> NMR Centre
> Biological Sciences
> University of Liverpool
> Crown Street
> Liverpool
> L697ZB
> 0151 795 4398
> ________________________________________
> From: CcpNmr software mailing list [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Wayne Boucher [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 8:00 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ucsf or 3rrr
>
> Hello,
>
> They are both blocked data formats which means they both ought to be
> equally ok for Analysis. (And I've never converted one to the other but I
> imagine whatever the conversion process is used is unlikely to change the
> actual block size.)
>
> Regards, Wayne
>
> On Mon, 28 May 2012, Markus Heller wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>> Sparky user here, but I have decided to give CcpNmr Analysis a try for my next assignment
>> project, since I'm pretty impressed with its capabilities.
>>
>> What file format for the NMR data would you recommend and why? My top two options are Bruker's
>> 3rrr and sparky's ucsf. I've pretty much never used nmrpipe, which eliminates a bunch of
>> options.
>>
>> So, if you had to decided between 3rrr and ucsf, what would you pick and why?
>>
>> Thanks and Cheers
>> Markus
>>
>>
|