Hi Sjors,
I was hoping you could answer some follow-up questions I had after reading your previous post on the related matter:
> Hi Jian,
> If you had regrouped the individual sections (using the Display GUI), they
> will all have group-names like group_1, group_2, etc.
> You could rename the group-names of the second section group2_1, group2_2,
> etc in order to prevent overlapping groups from the different sections, as
> these are not necessarily similar in the refined scale-factor (which is
> the main divider of different groups).
> HTH,
> S
It isn't uncommon after some particle filtering for me to start getting some warnings about groups that are too small. I usually use the regroup feature when opening a *_model.star file. So I have two quick questions about the behavior of this option:
1) The number entered for number of groups in the UI is not usually what the CLI app reports as the number of groups written. Is this because the group count is modified to create groups of equal size?
2) What is your current recommendation for number of groups vs. number of particles per group? The docs list 20-100 particles in a couple of places, but the latest UI seems to limit the number of groups to <1000.
3) (Small feature request if I may) If the number of particles per group is more important, could the UI option be changed to set this instead?
In the meantime I wrote a small script to parse and rewrite the particle STAR files but I did get confused about wether I should change `_rlnMicrographName` to regroup the particles, as mentioned in the CLI outputs, or wether I should change the `_rlnGroupNumber` and `_rlnGroupName` fields. I was also not sure what criterion to use- but your previous reply might suggest `_rlnNormCorrection`?
My current strategy would be to sort the entire particle set by `_rlnNormCorrection` and then split the sorted list into groups of equals size N (~50-100). Does that sound like it would work well?
Thanks!
-Craig
|