[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

CBF specification

• To: Multiple recipients of list <imgcif-l@bnl.gov>
• Subject: CBF specification
• From: J.W.Campbell@dl.ac.uk (J.Campbell)
• Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 05:16:29 -0400 (EDT)

Dear Andy,

   I am pleased to see the progress you have now made on specifying the
CBF file and thank you for all the effort you have made so far. 

I have only really provided two sets of comments during the procedure
but, looking back on these, I find that what you are proposing meets
most of the concerns I had - so basically I am happy with the way things
are going. 

Perhaps I could make just a few further comments at this stage.

1) I would very definitely like to see a means of specifying the image
   orientation with respect to some set of laboratory (e.g. MADNES)
   axes (your notes 12,17 etc.).

   I think it may be necessary to have more than one definition of
   orientation in the file. To take the case at Daresbury for example,
   we once had a FAST system here mounted on its side relative to
   the normal laboratory setup. However horizontal and vertical also
   had specific relevance for the synchrotron for such parameters as
   the horizontal and vertical beam divergence.

   I feel that the ability to get all the required orientation information
   from the file would be one of the major benefits of a common image file
   structure and so I hope we can get this right.

2) I know of at least two cases where Laue images are recorded on a cylindrical
   camera. This case should be included if possible. It should be no different
   for the storage of the image data itself but the use of a cylindrical
   detector would need to be indicated by some detector parameter(s).

3) I am not keen on the idea of allowing a manufacturer specific data
   scaling method (you already say that this is not the recommended option). 
   I think they should use one of the scaling etc. options available. If there
   is a good reason to use something else, then we should be persuaded to add 
   an another option to the CBF specification.

4) I assume that if '_image_intensities_undefined' is itself undefined, then
   all pixel values (unless flagged as overloads) will be treated as valid.

I look forward to hearing about further progress.

Good luck,  John Campbell

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• Prev by Date: Comments of prototype CBF
• Next by Date: New member
• Prev by thread: New member
• Next by thread: Comments of prototype CBF
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread