On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 08:47 -0700, Pavel Afonine wrote:
Do you have rock solid evidence that substituting missing (unmeasured) Fobs with 0 would be better than just using actual set (Fobs>0) in refinement? Or did I miss any relevant paper on this matter? I would appreciate if you point me out. Unless I see a clear evidence that this would improve things I wouldn't waste time on implementing it. Unfortunately I don't have time right now for experimenting with this myself.
Pavel, I don't think anyone (certainly not me) have ever suggested to replace *missing* reflections with zeros. On both occasions (now and last December) the issue was the Fobs=0 reflections introduced by I->F conversion of negative intensities. Ed. -- "I'd jump in myself, if I weren't so good at whistling." Julian, King of Lemurs