 |
 |
Dear Marin, I disagree. The FRC is not "a metric that measures the improvement directly" in this case. It merely shows a lack of correlation. Adding noise to the higher frequency components would have the same effect on the FRC. As Oli pointed out, substituting one aligned version of a movie for another one and repeating a few local refinement iterations wouldn't add any ambiguity. If the algorithm, indeed, "improves the data significantly", it should have a measurable effect at the end of the pipeline. Cheers, Dimitry On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:51 PM Marin van Heel <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Dear Dimitry, > > We have shown that you can perform movie alignments on a more local basis > without using very extreme low-pass filters (sometimes described as > "B-factors"). Thus you will necessarily have a larger yield of usable > particles from the same set of micrographs. That is more than sufficient > evidence of improvement! The FRC is a metric that is local to your > correction operation and that measures the improvement directly. The final > 3D map resolution only comes at the end of a long pipeline, that any two > people will perform differently and that is too indirectly related to the > very early data-set correction. Bottom line: the FRC metric is necessary > and sufficient to show the data-set improvement by the camera correction. > However it does not necessarily and sufficiently guarantee that nobody will > generate gold-standard garbage further down the pipeline. ;) > Cheers, > Marin > > On 02/10/2018 07:54, Dimitry Tegunov wrote: > > Dear Marin, > > do you have results showing that the proposed correction improves the > final map resolution vs. conventionally gain-corrected movies? I think the > FRC curves are necessary and sufficient proof , but not sufficient to prove > the advantage of your approach. > > Cheers, > Dimitry > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:23 PM Marin van Heel < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Dear Da, >> >> In IMAGIC-4D you can perform the necessary camera correction! >> (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep10317). It does it better than any >> manufactures correction and improves the data significantly even when >> performed after using the standard gain correction. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Marin >> >> >> ===================================================== >> >> On 01/10/2018 15:36, Da Cui wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > The gain reference image for one dataset was missing by accident. >> In order to achieve a more accurate motioncor result, does anyone have idea >> about how to generate a gain reference image from the dataset (around 3k >> movies)? >> > Thank you so much for your help!!! >> > ---Da >> > >> > ######################################################################## >> > >> > To unsubscribe from the CCPEM list, click the following link: >> > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCPEM&A=1 >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the CCPEM list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCPEM&A=1 > > > ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CCPEM list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCPEM&A=1