General > General Technical Chat

The Rigol DS1052E

<< < (11/166) > >>

armandas:
Another tip for Trent: resize the photos before putting them online. I had to download them to my web server first, resize to 25% and only then load them on my laptop. I'm using limited 3G broadband, if you're wondering :D

Dago:
Anybody else have really shady "record" functionality? When taking bitmap images to my USB stick with the record function I first create a new file in the storage -> external menu, then I go to the record function, select correct channel and press operate, scope says waveforms recorded. Then I take off my USB stick, plug it in my computer and see.... an image with either a) just noise on both channels (no signal) or b) channel number 1 signal (and just noise on channel nr2) no matter if channel nr. 1 or 2 was selected. But then somehow I managed to take one image that showed both channels (what I wanted) even though I didn't do anything different. Is there an update for the firmware or am I doing something wrong?

Edit: Seems I can capture channel 2 by disabling channel 1 totally, but I'd like to be able to capture them both at the same time...
Edit2: It seems it is somehow related to which channel is "selected" (ie. which channels V/div changes when you turn the knob) but I really don't see any logic in it. Now I had channel 1 selected and told it to capture channel 1 and I got both channels in the picture. Go figure, seems bit buggy. Haven't tried any other capture forms than bitmap though (using linux so I cant be bothered to install ultrascope in wine or virtualbox).

TrentO:

--- Quote from: armandas on November 06, 2009, 10:49:58 am ---Another tip for Trent: resize the photos before putting them online. I had to download them to my web server first, resize to 25% and only then load them on my laptop. I'm using limited 3G broadband, if you're wondering :D

--- End quote ---

I'm using 3G myself. Re-size them, for what?

Simon:
we don't really need a 6-10 Mp image for screen viewing, if you upload images for web use in 1024 X 768 pixels at most they will be nice and big on computer screens but not so large they place uneccesary strain on hosting resources and peoples connections.

3G connection speeds vary from location to location and are paid for by the KB so why upload what could be a 1+ MB photo when about  150 KB will serve the same purpose?

and not to upset anyone but its greener too ! all that data is being transmitted and received by many people, its not just a case of you putting up a 1 MB file, that 1 MB file will be downloaded (viewed) by many people.

we have a similar problem at work and are asked to keep images down to 1-200 KB, thing is I can take a few 10 Mp images on my DSLR that have a file size of 1-2.5 MB, I will then email these images to a supplier copying in other people in the company, our email accounts are stored on a central server, suddenly a few images can mean that my company alone has up to 100 MB of data stored over a few photos !

TrentO:
Per Simon's request, of which the added context was very appropriate and appreciated-- for images that don't really require it, I will try to remember to lower the res on my camera... 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod