[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
[Imgcif-l] Electron density map parameters
- To: The Crystallographic Binary File and its imgCIF application to image data <[email protected]>
- Subject: [Imgcif-l] Electron density map parameters
- From: Joe Krahn <[email protected]>
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:09:59 -0500
A few comments on the work-in-progress for density (etc.) maps.
The current spec says:
"The map sampling is being done in the middle of each grid division"
This conflicts with Fourier maps, where values are on grid vertices,
rather than the pixel/voxel centers. The reason is that Fourier maps
represent point samples, rather than the integration of a pixel/voxel,
as it is in the case of most images. Rather than making density maps
special, maybe there should be a property that distinguishes between
point samples and integrated divisions. This sort of problem is common
in graphics rasterization, and imaging/graphics APIs often have
alternate origin choices.
For grid divisions, maps have one of the following two representations,
from the examples:
loop_
_array_structure_list_axis.axis_id
_array_structure_list_axis.fract_displacement
_array_structure_list_axis.fract_displacement_increment
CELL_A_AXIS 0.01 0.02
CELL_B_AXIS 0.01 0.02
CELL_C_AXIS 0.01 0.02
loop_
_array_structure_list_axis.axis_id
_array_structure_list_axis.displacement
_array_structure_list_axis.displacement_increment
X 7.5e-8 1.5e-7
Y 7.5e-8 1.5e-7
Z 7.5e-8 1.5e-7
Both of these have the problem that the displacement increment can
produce cumulative rounding errors. It would be better to have a system
that better allows for an integer number of grid divisions per unit
cell. Detector images could benefit from this sometimes as well. One
possibility is to specify a displacement-maximum, instead of an
increment. Another possibility is to specify the inverse of the
fract_displacement parameters.
In the case of fract_displacement, is it intended that _axis.vector[*]
be the unit-cell, rather than a dimensionless unit vector?
Another thing important to electron density maps is symmetry operations,
which are already defined for structures in category _symmetry_equiv. It
might be useful to define symmetry with simply matrices/vectors instead.
Are there any ideas already being considered in this area?
Joe Krahn
_______________________________________________
imgcif-l mailing list
[email protected]
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/imgcif-l
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Imgcif-l] Electron density map parameters (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Prev by Date: Re: [Imgcif-l] Unique array id
- Next by Date: Re: [Imgcif-l] Electron density map parameters
- Prev by thread: [Imgcif-l] imgCIF workshop at BNL on 24 May 2007
- Next by thread: Re: [Imgcif-l] Electron density map parameters
- Index(es):

