<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
Dear Dimitry,<br>
<br>
We have shown that you can perform movie alignments on a more
local basis without using very extreme low-pass filters (sometimes
described as "B-factors"). Thus you will necessarily have a larger
yield of usable particles from the same set of micrographs. That
is more than sufficient evidence of improvement! The FRC is a
metric that is local to your correction operation and that
measures the improvement directly. The final 3D map resolution
only comes at the end of a long pipeline, that any two people
will perform differently and that is too indirectly related to the
very early data-set correction. Bottom line: the FRC metric is
necessary and sufficient to show the data-set improvement by the
camera correction. However it does not necessarily and
sufficiently guarantee that nobody will generate gold-standard
garbage further down the pipeline. ;)<br>
Cheers,<br>
Marin<br>
<br>
On 02/10/2018 07:54, Dimitry Tegunov wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAL7Y77OYKX+QTmavUqof6CGiVgCC1jHdh5TSue3sPrrAvkubcg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Marin,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>do you have results showing that the proposed correction
improves the final map resolution vs. conventionally
gain-corrected movies? I think the FRC curves are necessary
and sufficient proof , but not sufficient to prove the
advantage of your approach.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Dimitry</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:23 PM Marin van Heel
<<a
href="mailto:0000057a89ab08a1-dmarc-request@jiscmail.ac.uk"
moz-do-not-send="true">0000057a89ab08a1-dmarc-request@jiscmail.ac.uk</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Da,<br>
<br>
In IMAGIC-4D you can perform the necessary camera correction!
<br>
(<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/srep10317"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.nature.com/articles/srep10317</a>).
It does it better than any <br>
manufactures correction and improves the data significantly
even when <br>
performed after using the standard gain correction.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Marin<br>
<br>
<br>
=====================================================<br>
<br>
On 01/10/2018 15:36, Da Cui wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
> The gain reference image for one dataset was missing
by accident. In order to achieve a more accurate motioncor
result, does anyone have idea about how to generate a gain
reference image from the dataset (around 3k movies)?<br>
> Thank you so much for your help!!!<br>
> ---Da<br>
><br>
>
########################################################################<br>
><br>
> To unsubscribe from the CCPEM list, click the following
link:<br>
> <a
href="https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCPEM&A=1"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCPEM&A=1</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<p align="center">To unsubscribe from the CCPEM list, click the
following link:<br>
<a
href="https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCPEM&A=1"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCPEM&A=1</a>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>