I'd just process it in iMosflm, and run the Quickscale task after integration. With almost no effort you should get a rapid visual indicator (in the graphs produced by Scala) of the discontinuities between the wedges.
If the discontinuities are too big, then you might encounter some items of interest during the integration stage...
On 31 Mar 2011, at 23:08, Patrick Loll wrote:
> We've just collected a number of inverse beam data sets. It turns out the crystals showed little radiation damage, so we have a lot of data: 2 x 360 deg for each crystal, broken up into 30 deg wedges. The collection order went like this: 0-30 deg, 180-210, 30-60, 210-240, etc.
> Now, assuming no slippage, I could simply integrate the first set of data (non-inverse?) in one run: 0-360 deg. However, since the 12 individual wedges making up this 360 deg sweep were not collected immediately one after the other, I don't expect the scale factors for individual images to vary smoothly (there should be discontinuities at the boundaries between wedges). If I do integrate the data in one fell swoop, am I in danger of introducing errors? For example, I seem to recall that denzo had built-in restraints to ensure that scale factors for adjacent images didn't vary by too much. Is there a similar restraint that in XDS that I might run afoul of?
> The alternative is to integrate each each wedge separately, but with 24 wedges per xtal, this is starting to look a little tedious.
Dr Harry Powell, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, MRC Centre, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QH