template mask and config files in new_beamtime

[sbillinge]

I think it is a good idea for us to create standard mask and beamtime files that can be kept under git control somewhere and have new_beamtime() move them to the relevant directories on startup.

[chiahaoliu]

Agree but from our group members, masks are mostly for 1) dead pixels on area detector, 2) shade of beam stopper which is right in front of sample 3) correct asymmetric alignment i.e. when diffraction pattern is not central symmetric

1) is mostly solved in 'averaged mask' and 'dynamic mask' options in SrXplanar 2) 3) are quite arbitrary as they highly depend on experiment setup, i.e. relative position of beam stopper, what Qmax do we want e.t.c. So our standard masks might not be general enough. Does it make sense?

[sbillinge]

Experimental setup can be standardized to a few options. But you are right, it may not be that useful depending how reproducibly that is done.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 25, 2015, at 1:10 PM, chiahaoliu notifications@github.com wrote:

Agree but from our group members, masks are mostly for 1) dead pixels on area detector, 2) shade of beam stopper which is right in front of sample 3) correct asymmetric alignment i.e. when diffraction pattern is not central symmetric

1) is mostly solved in 'averaged mask' and 'dynamic mask' options in SrXplanar 2) 3) are quite arbitrary as they highly depend on experiment setup, i.e. relative position of beam stopper, what Qmax do we want e.t.c. So our standard masks might not be general enough. Does it make sense?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[sbillinge]

Btw, of course only the geometric part of the mask is saved in the template.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 25, 2015, at 1:10 PM, chiahaoliu notifications@github.com wrote:

Agree but from our group members, masks are mostly for 1) dead pixels on area detector, 2) shade of beam stopper which is right in front of sample 3) correct asymmetric alignment i.e. when diffraction pattern is not central symmetric

1) is mostly solved in 'averaged mask' and 'dynamic mask' options in SrXplanar 2) 3) are quite arbitrary as they highly depend on experiment setup, i.e. relative position of beam stopper, what Qmax do we want e.t.c. So our standard masks might not be general enough. Does it make sense?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.