Does scopes have "Z" axis ?

[Icarus]

Does scopes have "Z" axis ?
Where is it ?

[Simon]

NO! The screen is a 2 dimensional space, x, y z is usually only used for the 3rd axis in a 3D environment like 3D modelling. Unless there is some obscure fucntion in a scope that I don't know about.

[tggzzz]

The only form of "Z" is brightness. Some scopes have that, some don't. The input would be on the rear panel.

[Simon]

yes i suppose the brightness could be considered the brightness as the brighter it is the further it goes in 3D space. I think someone had a bit of a complex when they called it that 

[sleemanj]

Photo of page in a manual for an old Dick Smith Electronics scope (Huang whatever it is Chung, Chang, something like that rebadge).

It's intensity.

[Psi]

maybe there is some PC based 4 channel scopes that can be setup to graph in 3D ?

[Simon]

yes if you have an actual Z input you could create a 3D image of sorts in which case the name is pretty much right I just never realized that someone would think to modulate the brightness.

[vk6zgo]

Yes,it is done to insert markers,or as a video input for a raster display,& a few other things.

[tggzzz]

yes if you have an actual Z input you could create a 3D image of sorts in which case the name is pretty much right I just never realized that someone would think to modulate the brightness.

TV/radar.
Or only want to look at part of signal, so turn beam on/off.
Or a more sophisticated form of persistence than is supplied by the phosphor.
Or given two-dimensional information, you want to display population density.

There are two meanings of "3D". The real one that has been around for >150 years, and the computer weenie one which is really 2D or, to stretch a point, 2.5D.

[electr_peter]

Older analogue scopes have Z axis to control beam intensity via external signal. "Newer" analogue scopes have only internal beam blanking signal (either on or off) for retrace. Digital scopes does not have such concept at all, it can be done via other means.

As others mentioned, ability to control beam intensity allows to show more information on the same screen.

[Icarus]

Thank you everyone. I guess I should only consider X-Y for any modern day scopes.

[Simon]

There are two meanings of "3D". The real one that has been around for >150 years, and the computer weenie one which is really 2D or, to stretch a point, 2.5D.

you use pencil and paper for 2D if your going to use a computer you might as well make the most of it. the introduction of 3D has brought an increase in productivity, why should I redraw something the manufacturer already drew ? I get no end of 3D models from suppliers of their products and it means I only worry about my bits and not theirs and they are so much more accurate than guessing and getting it wrong.

[tggzzz]

There are two meanings of "3D". The real one that has been around for >150 years, and the computer weenie one which is really 2D or, to stretch a point, 2.5D.

you use pencil and paper for 2D if your going to use a computer you might as well make the most of it. the introduction of 3D has brought an increase in productivity, why should I redraw something the manufacturer already drew ? I get no end of 3D models from suppliers of their products and it means I only worry about my bits and not theirs and they are so much more accurate than guessing and getting it wrong.

You have 3D models. How do you display them in 3D? In particular, how do you ensure each eye gets only the correct image?

The least unsatisfactory way I have come across for ordinary screens is illustrated here: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140315.html

Note, I have been taking 3D photos for 30 years (with a 1940s vintage camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_Realist ), so I have some experience of the subject.

[Simon]

actual 3D display won't come for a long time as it's complicated and costly. Artists have been using 2D display methods to represent 3D objects for hundreds of years, the same methods are used by a computer, the only difference is that in a computer because you have the 3D data input you can redraw the model in any view at will.

Working in 3D I can design with close fit tolerances that I can't in 2D so well and would take much longer. The other thing with 3D is that you don't have to redraw each view because it can be automatically generated from the computer. Back in the day, one guy had an idea (the engineer) and loads of others (draftsmen) had to put it on paper for them. Where I work I get told horror tales of the days of pencils and paper where they would spend two weeks doing a drawing and just as it's finished they get told a dimension changed. so they spend days changing the drawing. It can take me seconds to minutes to alter a 3D model and that automatically changes the views on the 2D drawings of it.

Oh and I think we have drifted somewhat off topic but meh the original one was concluded I think.

[Whales]

Thank you everyone. I guess I should only consider X-Y for any modern day scopes.

Definitely don't buy one scope over another because it lists Z as a feature.  If a modern digital scope had this functionality it would probably all be in software, with something like another normal channel input being used as the brightness/colour axis rather than the traditional rear BNC.

[tggzzz]

actual 3D display won't come for a long time as it's complicated and costly.

Not true. For a very long time there have been cheap, simple, practical, effective 3D displays - some of which are on computer displays.

3D displays have been around for exactly as long as 3D photographs, oddly enough. Since 1838, that's over 150 years. I have some from the 19th century. They even gave them away with Weetabix in the 1960s!

In some forms 3D photography is extremely simple, and in most forms it is well within the reach of amateurs. Back in the 50s it was a mass-market product advertised movie stars, e.g. https://uk.pinterest.com/brotherbish/stereo-3d-stuff/

Any colour computer display can display an anaglyph picture, such as  http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140315.html which I view using a viewer given away by The Sun newpaper in January 1992.

Working in 3D I can design with close fit tolerances that I can't in 2D so well and would take much longer. The other thing with 3D is that you don't have to redraw each view because it can be automatically generated from the computer. Back in the day, one guy had an idea (the engineer) and loads of others (draftsmen) had to put it on paper for them. Where I work I get told horror tales of the days of pencils and paper where they would spend two weeks doing a drawing and just as it's finished they get told a dimension changed. so they spend days changing the drawing. It can take me seconds to minutes to alter a 3D model and that automatically changes the views on the 2D drawings of it.

There is no choice, you always have to work in 3D. (Or maybe 4D, if you want to include time).

Often you will use 3D computer models to represent 3D objects, and see the interactions between models on a 2D screen. Sometimes people working professionally will have expensive displays that enable them to see their 3D models in 3D.

Display technologies include anaglyph, field-sequential, crossed polar, and lenticular - plus some one-off oddities.

[Simon]

Ah yes they came out with 3D cinema too, so maybe its close for the home user.

[Nerull]

Its been around for the home user for years. Any 120hz monitor can be used with lcd shutter glasses, many even have the IR sync transmitter built in. Anaglyph rendering has been around for even longer, but it doesn't look as good. Some TVs have cinema-style polarization, but that is used largely because the glasses are dirt cheap and it seems to be the most headache inducing of the technologies, because some of the image gets through to the wrong eye, depending on head position and such.

[kony]

There are two meanings of "3D". The real one that has been around for >150 years, and the computer weenie one which is really 2D or, to stretch a point, 2.5D.

Perhaps this might be of your interest https://www.oculus.com/en-us/ ? (Or any competitor in field of head mounted displays, there are plenty and consumer versions are just behind the horizon.)
No problems whatsoever, trough if you want to have full 360° image capture, you have to use lightfields (kinda ressembles hologram in quantized, low resolution form). True trough, thanks to the data troughput needed you will have to wait for lightfield videos bit longer, and till that time comes, you'd have to stick to "just" a 360° spherical videos (and guess why Dave is capturing EEVblog even in this format for some time now? ). Problem with plain spherical video is broken stereoscopy of view in just about any head position except from regular vertical, also you cannot lean in / shift and look around in the bound volume with preserved true visual representation of captured place.

Of course rendered enviroments are nonissue-ish (low-poly only on low to mid-end PC), except for that none CAD manufacturer hadn't implemented native HMD support yet! \r. There are workarounds for model and assembly previews, trough.


As for CRO's, you can make them fully valid 3D display too - only thing needed is a bit of signal preprocessing and shutter glasses, as seen in just about any 3D cinema, or Nvidia 3D technology. Limiting factors are draw speed in both axis and display/tube presistance time. If I had more spare time on my hands, I'd do a 3D asteroids, but eh - for now, it's just a pet idea. I'd love to see somebody else to do it, trough.

[tggzzz]

Ah yes they came out with 3D cinema too, so maybe its close for the home user.

Given a choice between stereoscopic (which I love) and a full 60Hz frame rate, I'd go for 60Hz. Ideally 60Hz and 70mm frame size, as in George Lucas' ShowScan.

Stunningly good 3D systems have been around for decades (and used by amateurs), but simple geometry indicates there have to be tradeoffs whatever projection/display technology is used.

[MarkF]

I have a very old B&K 10MHz analog scope.  It does have a Z-axis input.  It's on the back.
It doesn't look like the modern digital scopes have a Z input.

[HighVoltage]

The FLUKE scopes PM3394B and similar models had a rear BNC input, called Z-MOD
This was the external modulation of the CRT trace intensity.

[tggzzz]

There are two meanings of "3D". The real one that has been around for >150 years, and the computer weenie one which is really 2D or, to stretch a point, 2.5D.

Perhaps this might be of your interest https://www.oculus.com/en-us/ ? (Or any competitor in field of head mounted displays, there are plenty and consumer versions are just behind the horizon.)

In early 2013 I tried an early Oculus when they kindly brought it to show my local HackSpace and University. I spent 5/10 minutes playing a VR video game. The resolution was low, but that's not a fundamental and I believe they have already improved it. I was interested in whether it might eventually work with the Condor gliding simulator, where you spend a lot time going in circles and/or spinning towards the ground e.g. real life

or simulation
http://www.condorsoaring.com/media/movies/Discus2%20spin%20cockpit.zip

I was surprisingly impressed, with reservations....

When the Oculus headset is on, nothing other than the game scene can be seen - unlike google glasses where the image is translucent and you can see round the edge of the glasses. I was surprised that the headpiece had no adjustments, but nonetheless the optics gave a good field of view and respectable stereo effect.

The demo scene was inside a room with internal upstairs balcony and external garden with tree overlooking a lake. The resolution was just about adequate for the demo but would, IMHO, be insufficient for seeing sufficient ground/cloud detail. Given the choice between stereoscopic vision and increased resolution, I'd opt for the latter. However, it was a prototype unit, and I see no reason the resolution could not be significantly increased.

Rotating my head about all three axes allowed caused the scene to change in exactly the way I would expect. This effect was good and compelling.

The stereoscopic effect was not overdone; it looked natural so that you didn't really notice them. That's the same as in James Cameron's "Avatar", and unlike the "poke something through the screen" that you see in most stereo films.

The "avatar" could be translated through the scene using a standard "top hat" games joystick. Moving forwards rapidly towards a wall caused me to involuntarily jerk my head back to avoid hitting the wall - compelling.

Using the joystick to turn the avatar slowly clockwise or anticlockwise worked as expected. However, doing that rapidly caused me to feel instantaneously nauseous, to involuntarily rotate my head up/down and move my shoulders. Most disconcerting.

So, if my head (and therefore my labyrinths) rotated and the scene moved correspondingly, all was well. If the scene rotated and my head didn't then I had problems. I conjecture this would probably be problem when practicing spins, and possibly when thermalling.

So, overall I really liked the panning effect, but disliked the resolution and disliked the scene rotating unless caused by my head's movement.

[fcb]

I loved the PM3394B - amazing scope. If you get chance the to get one GET IT.

[HighVoltage]

I loved the PM3394B - amazing scope. If you get chance the to get one GET IT.

I know exactly what you are saying.
Over the years I have bought every single one that had a good price and was in good condition.
Right now I probably have at least 10 of them.

The specialty was with "all options" and I was lucky enough to get 6 of them in a bundle from a
government sale in the US a few years ago.

These days, people have less and less appreciation of this amazing scope.
I usually use 6 of them at once on my high voltage bench.