JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB Archives

CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  May 2010

CCP4BB May 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Processing compressed diffraction images?

From:

Phil Evans <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Phil Evans <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 6 May 2010 13:44:53 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (92 lines)

Compression methods such as gzip are unlikely to be optimum for diffraction images, and AFAIK the methods in CBF are better (I think Jim Pflugrath did some races a long time ago, and I guess others have too). There is no reason for data acquisition software ever to write uncompressed images (let alone having 57 different ways of doing it)

Phil

On 6 May 2010, at 13:38, Ian Tickle wrote:

> Hi Harry
> 
> Thanks for the info.  Speed of compression is not an issue I think
> since compression & backing up of the images are done asynchronously
> with data collection, and currently backing up easily keeps up, so I
> think compression straight to the backup disk would too.  As you saw
> from my reply to Tim my compression factor of 10 was a bit optimistic,
> for images with spots on them (!) it's more like 2 or 3 with gzip, as
> you say.
> 
> I found an old e-mail from James Holton where he suggested lossy
> compression for diffraction images (as long as it didn't change the
> F's significantly!) - I'm not sure whether anything came of that!
> 
> Cheers
> 
> -- Ian
> 
> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Harry Powell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi Ian
>> 
>> I've looked briefly at implementing gunzip in Mosflm  in the past, but never really pursued it. It could probably be done when I have some free time, but who knows when that will be? gzip'ing one of my standard test sets gives around a 40-50% reduction in size, bzip2 ~60-70%. The speed of doing the compression is important too, and is considerably slower than uncompressing (since  with uncompressing you know where you are going and have the instructions, whereas with compressing you have to find it all out as you proceed).
>> 
>> There are several ways of writing compressed images that (I believe) all the major processing packages have implemented - for example, Jan Pieter Abrahams has one which has been used for Mar images for a long time, and CBF has more than one. There are very good reasons for all detectors to write their images using CBFs with some kind of compression (I think that all new MX detectors at Diamond, for example, are required to be able to).
>> 
>> Pilatus images are written using a fast compressor and read (in Mosflm and XDS, anyway - I have no idea about d*Trek or HKL, but imagine they would do the job every bit as well) using a fast decompressor - so this goes some way towards dealing with that particular problem - the image files aren't as big as you'd expect from their physical size and 20-bit dynamic range (from the 6M they're roughly 6MB, rather than 6MB * 2.5). So that seems about as good as you'd get from bzip2 anyway.
>> 
>> I'd be somewhat surprised to see a non-lossy fast algorithm that could give you 10-fold compression with normal MX type images - the "empty" space between Bragg maxima is full of detail ("noise", "diffuse scatter"). If you had a truly flat background you could get much better compression, of course.
>> 
>> On 6 May 2010, at 11:24, Ian Tickle wrote:
>> 
>>> All -
>>> 
>>> No doubt this topic has come up before on the BB: I'd like to ask
>>> about the current capabilities of the various integration programs (in
>>> practice we use only MOSFLM & XDS) for reading compressed diffraction
>>> images from synchrotrons.  AFAICS XDS has limited support for reading
>>> compressed images (TIFF format from the MARCCD detector and CCP4
>>> compressed format from the Oxford Diffraction CCD); MOSFLM doesn't
>>> seem to support reading compressed images at all (I'm sure Harry will
>>> correct me if I'm wrong about this!).  I'm really thinking about
>>> gzipped files here: bzip2 no doubt gives marginally smaller files but
>>> is very slow.  Currently we bring back uncompressed images but it
>>> seems to me that this is not the most efficient way of doing things -
>>> or is it just that my expectation that it's more efficient to read
>>> compressed images and uncompress in memory not realised in practice?
>>> For example the AstexViewer molecular viewer software currently reads
>>> gzipped CCP4 maps directly and gunzips them in memory; this improves
>>> the response time by a modest factor of ~ 1.5, but this is because
>>> electron density maps are 'dense' from a compression point of view;
>>> X-ray diffraction images tend to have much more 'empty space' and the
>>> compression factor is usually considerably higher (as much as
>>> 10-fold).
>>> 
>>> On a recent trip we collected more data than we anticipated & the
>>> uncompressed data no longer fitted on our USB disk (the data is backed
>>> up to the USB disk as it's collected), so we would have definitely
>>> benefited from compression!  However file size is *not* the issue:
>>> disk space is cheap after all.  My point is that compressed images
>>> surely require much less disk I/O to read.  In this respect bringing
>>> back compressed images and then uncompressing back to a local disk
>>> completely defeats the object of compression - you actually more than
>>> double the I/O instead of reducing it!  We see this when we try to
>>> process the ~150 datasets that we bring back on our PC cluster and the
>>> disk I/O completely cripples the disk server machine (and everyone
>>> who's trying to use it at the same time!) unless we're careful to
>>> limit the number of simultaneous jobs.  When we routinely start to use
>>> the Pilatus detector on the beamlines this is going to be even more of
>>> an issue.  Basically we have plenty of processing power from the
>>> cluster: the disk I/O is the bottleneck.  Now you could argue that we
>>> should spread the load over more disks or maybe spend more on faster
>>> disk controllers, but the whole point about disks is they're cheap, we
>>> don't need the extra I/O bandwidth for anything else, and you
>>> shouldn't need to spend a fortune, particularly if there are ways of
>>> making the software more efficient, which after all will benefit
>>> everyone.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> 
>>> -- Ian
>> 
>> Harry
>> --
>> Dr Harry Powell, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, MRC Centre, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QH
>> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager