Hi Marie,
Could you please explain what works better? That would be great...
Thanks
Markus
--
Markus Heller, Ph.D.
Scientist, NMR
Centre for Drug Research and Development (CDRD)
364--2259 Lower Mall
Vancouver, B.C.
Canada V6T 1Z4
p: 604 221 7750 ext 122
f: 604 221 7753
www.cdrd.ca
On 2012-05-28, at 1:23 AM, "Phelan, Marie" <[log in to unmask]> 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
>>
>>
|