Does anyone know if for cursor measurements one set of cursors can be disabled?
Does anyone know if for cursor measurements one set of cursors can be disabled?
I don't think so. You have to have all four enabled at once.
Does anyone know if for cursor measurements one set of cursors can be disabled?
I don't think so. You have to have all four enabled at once.
No X or Y, just both ?
Nice screen, but dim.
Mine seems plenty bright enough but I guess it depends on your ambient lighting.
I haven't found a brightness control anywhere.
The reflective screen makes this even more difficult for viewing. Just barely acceptable IMO, and will be a tad more difficult in a bright environment.
The front panel has some nice-but-impossible-to-photograph lighting.
I think the blue of button 4 is outside the sRGB spectrum, ie. no monitor will display it. You can sort of see it projected on the panel in the dark insert, but... not really.
The pink/magenta of button 3 doesn't really come out either. You'll just have to get your own DHO to see them in person.
Compared to our Siglent SDS2000X+, KS34465A and other instruments, the DHO814 screen is much dimmer, even in this image it shows, and it actual visual use much dimmer than on the image displayed. Trace brightness is not even close to Siglent trace brightness, which is set to just 52%.
The reflective screen makes this even more difficult for viewing. Just barely acceptable IMO, and will be a tad more difficult in a bright environment.
Compared to our Siglent SDS2000X+, KS34465A and other instruments, the DHO814 screen is much dimmer, even in this image it shows, and it actual visual use much dimmer than on the image displayed. Trace brightness is not even close to Siglent trace brightness, which is set to just 52%.
The reflective screen makes this even more difficult for viewing. Just barely acceptable IMO, and will be a tad more difficult in a bright environment.
This must somehow be rather subjective, or depend strongly on the room lighting. EDIT: Specific details of the room lighting, not just overall brightness. Because e.g.:
Dave must have shot his review video under pretty bright lights -- he did complain that the little white LED indicators (slope, button mode etc.) were hard to see, and that shows up in the video too. But he seemed totally fine with the main LCD's brightness, and it looks great to my eyes in the video.
So what gives? Dave obviously took care that no direct reflections from the studio lights were visible in the display. (Which admittedly may not always be easy, depending on a room's geometry and given the glossy display.) Are such reflections your main problem, maybe, or does the display appear too dim even when you take care to avoid them?
The answer is simple. The new DHO814 has the dimmest display (especially noticeable on actual waveform traces) of ANY instrument we have in our lab [...]
Our lab is somewhat dark, not bright, however the intended use will be in a very bright shop like environment. We are evaluating this for a client which may decide to include with their product, which will end up in bright shop environments. So use here for client is questionable [...]
The answer is simple. The new DHO814 has the dimmest display (especially noticeable on actual waveform traces) of ANY instrument we have in our lab [...]
Our lab is somewhat dark, not bright, however the intended use will be in a very bright shop like environment. We are evaluating this for a client which may decide to include with their product, which will end up in bright shop environments. So use here for client is questionable [...]
Many thanks for the additional details and color, also on the non-display-related aspects. I really appreciate how you are approaching this from an impartial viewpoint, without a personal agenda beyond finding a solution that meets your client's needs.
I still can't quite square your observations on display brightness with how the scope comes across in Dave's video (screen brightness vs. LED brightness vs. room lights). Well, as mentioned earlier -- I will look for an opportunity to see one of these hands-on. That also seems important for the other "ergonomics" aspects, like fan noise and size of the display for viewing as well as touch operation, where expectations and perception will be somewhat subjective.
Considering the already quite high idle power draw and the toastieness of the dho8xx, the dimm screen might be a "mitigation" as bright screens can increase power draw quite substantially.
Not sure what Rigol's thinking is here, seems a user would want the waveform display the brightest or at least as bright as the surrounding text and such.
Considering the already quite high idle power draw and the toastieness of the dho8xx, the dimm screen might be a "mitigation" as bright screens can increase power draw quite substantially.
Nope. The backlight won't be more than 3-5W at most.
I'm not seeing a brightness problem here.Not sure what Rigol's thinking is here, seems a user would want the waveform display the brightest or at least as bright as the surrounding text and such.
Maybe it's just that the Rigol traces are much thinner and the screen pixels are smaller.
1 pixel instead of 2 = half the perceived brightness. Smaller pixel=less light.
Here it is next to my Micsig. The Micsig is at full brightness.
Pic 1 at 5ns/div - thinner traces on the Rigol:
Pic 2 - I changed the timebases to fatten up the traces a bit.
The Rigol screen is definitely more contrasty than the Micsig.
Considering the already quite high idle power draw and the toastieness of the dho8xx, the dimm screen might be a "mitigation" as bright screens can increase power draw quite substantially.
Nope. The backlight won't be more than 3-5W at most.
I'm not seeing a brightness problem here.Not sure what Rigol's thinking is here, seems a user would want the waveform display the brightest or at least as bright as the surrounding text and such.
Maybe it's just that the Rigol traces are much thinner and the screen pixels are smaller.
1 pixel instead of 2 = half the perceived brightness. Smaller pixel=less light.
Here it is next to my Micsig. The Micsig is at full brightness.
Pic 1 at 5ns/div - thinner traces on the Rigol:
Pic 2 - I changed the timebases to fatten up the traces a bit.
The Rigol screen is definitely more contrasty than the Micsig.
I was about to ask you for a side by side photo between your Micsig and the Rigol and the effective area of the Rigol is so smallI wonder how things look like if you have 4ch active with signals, should we buy a magnifying glass? or an external monitor?
I was about to ask you for a side by side photo between your Micsig and the Rigol and the effective area of the Rigol is so smallI wonder how things look like if you have 4ch active with signals, should we buy a magnifying glass? or an external monitor?
I was about to ask you for a side by side photo between your Micsig and the Rigol and the effective area of the Rigol is so smallI wonder how things look like if you have 4ch active with signals, should we buy a magnifying glass? or an external monitor?
It is what it is.
It would be cool if you could put traces in separate windows but I can't find a way to do that. You can't create new windows of type "Signal" (or whatever it would be called).
You can use math functions to do it... but it would be nice to do it natively.
Let's be clear about this, so that potential buyers are not put off:
The brightness of the Rigol display is sufficient in any case.
It is only slightly darker in direct comparison, but that is not a flaw.
Also when booting, the large "RIGOL" shows up initially very bright and contrasty (nice!), then dims, then appears to brighten a little, then the screen appears and begins to dim again. The screen does seem to brighten some after warming up tho.
Here's images with local lab bench lights off and on, judge for yourself.