resolution estimates differ is not surprising given that different quantities are being measured, and suggests that one should be cautious when reporting a single resolution number. The difference between values further suggests being very conservative with the precision to which resolution is quoted in publication: the mean resolution estimated above is with a standard deviation of , in which case quoting resolution to three significant figures is certainly not appropriate. One should further be careful comparing resolution between publications to make sure that the same values are being compared.

\[sec:reduction\]Results
========================

We now turn our attention to the effect of reducing the amount of data on reconstruction quality using the analysis pipeline described in Section \[sec:recon\_steps\]. Data quantity is reduced in one of two ways. Diffraction patterns can be made weaker to simulate the effect of imaging smaller particles or the effect of a lower intensity X-ray beam. This has two effects: firstly orientation determination is expected to become harder as there is less information in each pattern from which to determine the orientation, and secondly the signal-to-noise ratio of the reconstructed 3D intensities is reduced making phase retrieval more challenging. Alternatively, the number of diffraction patterns can be reduced 