[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: area detector cif definitions
- To: Multiple recipients of list <imgcif-l@bnl.gov>
- Subject: Re: area detector cif definitions
- From: Andy Hammersley <hammersl@esrf.fr>
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 13:34:24 -0500 (EST)
Hello Everyone, Here's some info and background to a proposal from David Brown on CIF definitions for area detectors. I don't feel fully qualified to give a direct answer so I prefer to open the discussion. Here I will try to describe the problem and why I feel the views of others are needed to find a good solution. Concerning CIF Definitions for Area Detectors --------------------------------------------- In finalising DDL-2 I and other members of COMCIFS have been asked to approve it. This I did, but pointed out a reservation regarding a number of definitions for area detector related data names and definitions. I proposed that it is recognised that the definitions are suitable for human interpretation e.g. details of experimental conditions to accompany a structure solution, but are not sufficiently detailed to allow automatic processing of area detector data. David and Syd Hall would still, however like to finalise the definitions for a January issue of Acta Cryst. Here I'll explain how I see the problem. Specification of Problem ------------------------ One of the major aims of "imageNCIF" is to store, in addition to the area detector data, essential information describing the experiment such that the processing software can proceed automatically without further user intervention. (Bob Sweet in particular emphasizes this point.) Requirements ------------ The above aim has obvious implications e.g. we need to store known details of the experiment including precise diffraction geometry using well defined and non-ambiguous definitions. Obvious items include sample to detector distance, and diffractometer angles. However, it needs to be considered that the diffractometer may be slightly mis-aligned relative to the X-ray beam i.e. the sample precesses in the beam rather than simply rotating. Thus it needs to be considered whether to use the diffractometer axes (or virtual axes) as the reference coordinate system and to define angles specifying the angle of the X-ray (or other radiation) beam, or vice versa. Which is the better system ? (I suppose other reference frames are also possible but probably add unnecessary complication.) (Phil Evans made these points particularly clear to me.) Similarly the detector may be nominally orthogonal to the direct beam, but in practice is often slightly mis-aligned. So three angles are needed to describe this mis-alignment, but in addition the detector may be deliberately rotated to a set "2-theta" angle. In general another 3 angles need to be defined (or could they be combined ?) Whilst various different sets of angles/distances may contain equivalent information, I feel that it is worth finding the parameterisation which is most natural and simple for the most usual circumstances, whilst of course allowing the flexibility to describe any geometry. (It should be noted that different integration programs use different definitions for sample to detector distance, and for direct beam position.) In addition to these geometrical definitions it is highly desirable to preserve information about the type of detector and even the precise model, and the experimental instrument which was used to collect the data. This is because analysis software might know about particular qualities of particular detector types and even particular instruments. e.g. Point spread function, list of hot pixels, etc. Eventually, some of this information could itself be defined in data-names, but still precise detector information will remain important. (Zbyszek Otwinoski in particular pointed out the danger of a general format lossing important information concerning the detector characteristics.) Here the main need is to define the precise data values defining the type of detector, model, and the precise experimental instrument used. e.g. Mar-Research IP Detector, Mar Image Plate Scanner, or Big MarResearch Scanner, may all convey sufficient information for a human, but will not necessarily be recognised as the same by a computer program parsing a file. Probably a register of standard detector types and data values, and experimental instruments and corresponding data values will be necessary. Solution ? ---------- Particularly the first part is beyond my experience and competence, so I prefer to leave others to give their views. Jim Pflugrath has made a proposal for defining a coordinate system, but I find it complicated and wonder whether a simpler definition could not be defined which is more natural for standard geometries. Bob Sweet has been trying to organise a workshop on "imageNCIF" where the coordinate system and geometrical definitions would be one of the main topics to be discussed. However, I presume that he is still trying to find funding for the workshop. I think a workshop would be the best way to bring together enough specialists in this area, but I doubt that this would fit in with the desire to publish in January. Regards, Andy
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Prev by Date: Re: File identifier (was Re: Seattle Discussions)
- Next by Date: Re: area detector cif definitions
- Prev by thread: Draft DDL 2.1 CIF binary file extension dictionary
- Next by thread: Re: area detector cif definitions
- Index(es):