Since i got the owon vds 1022i, it, while very usable, felt very cheap. Of course, it's a cheap oscilloscope, but that was not it; i recently saw some tektronix oscilloscope reviews, and for some reason i got the same feeling, it looked very cheap, and my rigol one, while being a lot cheaper, didn't feel the same, then i realised that had to do with the graticule. For some reason the thick dotted lines for the graticule make it look very unpolished and put together in a rush (talking purely about the display), and that gave it a cheap feel. I'm wondering if anyone else has thought about that, and how do people feel about the different oscilloscope graticule styles.
Here are some screenshots of different oscilloscope displays to quickly compare. The ones i like the most, that don't feel cheap to me (again, talking about the display) are the keysight, siglent and rigol ones.
It's called a graticule, and I don't really see the issue. The dotted lines are so you can easily read a fraction of a division.
It's called a graticule, and I don't really see the issue.
Thank you, corrected to graticule.
The dotted lines are so you can easily read a fraction of a division.
I understand their purpose, but they being digital oscilloscopes with cursors, it wouldn't be an essential thing, and even old analog oscilloscopes used the solid line graticule with marked divison fractions in the center lines, like the siglent, rigol and keysight digital oscilloscopes have done it( I see they don't use solid uninterrupted lines, but the fine dots look solid from about a meter away). I also wonder why not have a couple of graticule display options. The rigol has 3 options, one which is empty, with just the borders marked, one which is only the middle lines and border lines marked with the fractions, horizontal and vertical, and one which is the default one, all the squares, middle lines and border lines marked with the fractions.
A selection of screenshots with trace hidden from SDS1104X-E and SDS2104X Plus.
Graticule brightness ~80% to show up better in screenshots whereas in normal use ~40% is quite adequate.
Menus should provide enough info about the different types and implementations.
I personally don't feel the same as you; both are different styles and I don't have a preference for one or the other.
I have a Rigol, VDS1022I as well as a Tek digitizer, and they all look alright in my opinion.
Agree that it’s a personal choice thing. I don’t mind the different graticule patterns as much as I mind the non-square aspect ratio screens. The asymmetric ones just bug me. Up until wide format lcd screens showed up, I never cared.
I hadn't even noticed the non-square divisions, that's just all kinds of wrong. I like wide displays for TVs, at least when watching widescreen content but I really dislike it on scopes. If they're not going to use a 4:3 display they should use the excess space on the side for menus and measurements.
I hadn't even noticed the non-square divisions, that's just all kinds of wrong.
So you might think however after a while you never notice it....well I don't.
If they're not going to use a 4:3 display they should use the excess space on the side for menus and measurements.
Why ?
Screen space is valuable so why use it for menus if you don't need them when they might as well be hidden and pop them only if needed. SDS2kX Plus and 5kX can have menus auto-hide after a selectable time or have them stay up until you touch or click on an unused part of the display or the menu tab to again hide them.
See screenshot below.
If you carefully inspect the screenshots above there are 2 implementations of menu management, one menu covers the edge of the display including any waveform and the other menu style compresses the display so to not cover the waveform. The clue to which is selected is the fewer graticules to the right of the 0s position.
So you might think however after a while you never notice it....well I don't.
Sorry, I can't not notice that. I can't stand to watch TV shows that are stretched out to fit the wrong aspect ratio screen either, it drives me nuts. Scope graticule divisions should be square, anything else looks like 4:3 TV stretched out on a modern widescreen set, give me black bars on the sides any day, at least I can tolerate that.
So you might think however after a while you never notice it....well I don't.
Sorry, I can't not notice that. I can't stand to watch TV shows that are stretched out to fit the wrong aspect ratio screen either, it drives me nuts. Scope graticule divisions should be square, anything else looks like 4:3 TV stretched out on a modern widescreen set, give me black bars on the sides any day, at least I can tolerate that.
Says who ? You ?
Doesn't timebase and V/div settings determine the the shape of a displayed waveform more so than graticule placement ?
Sure for those of us that first used CRO's we took all our measurements from graticules and mostly I still do however the modern DSO provides for a whole host of automatic measurements for us to not have to use graticules and these provide far greater accuracy.
Many using these DSO's don't even refer to graticules at all and instead rely on OSD measurements and for such users a graticule type like the previously posted one below is quite adequate.
Scope graticule divisions should be square
The only time the vertical and horizontal lines have any relation to one another is in XY mode, and the scopes with rectangular divisions do indeed revert to a 1:1 display for that. I would also cringe at wrong aspect ratios for TV, but rectangular scope divisions are just not an issue once you use them.
I hadn't even noticed the non-square divisions, that's just all kinds of wrong. I like wide displays for TVs, at least when watching widescreen content but I really dislike it on scopes. If they're not going to use a 4:3 display they should use the excess space on the side for menus and measurements.
Analog oscilloscopes tended to use 5:4 displays for 10 horizontal divisions and 8 vertical divisions.
Says who ? You ?
If I'm ever buying a scope, yes. I would not buy one that didn't have square divisions, if it doesn't bother other people that's fine, but I'm not obligated to buy a product that doesn't meet my preferences.
On a 16:9 screen it is kind of pointless to only have 10 division horizontally. 12 to 16 makes much more sense. With more horizontal divisions, you get more of a signal on screen without needing to use the fine adjust for the horizontal control (if the DSO even has that function).
On a 16:9 screen it is kind of pointless to only have 10 division horizontally. 12 to 16 makes much more sense. With more horizontal divisions, you get more of a signal on screen without needing to use the fine adjust for the horizontal control (if the DSO even has that function).
I'm not sure how you get 'more signal' in general, I would think it would depend on the signal. The number and spacing of divisions on DSOs appears to be a function of screen size and memory size, with neat solutions preferred. So Siglent 1xxx X-E has 14Mb of memory and 14 divisions. At 1Gsa/S, you can go down to 1ms/div at full sampling rate. With two channels sharing an ADC, you get 7Mb/per channel and 500Msa/S. It all just sort of works out.
i didn't consider the rectangular division / square division preference, now added a poll to make it easier to see what people prefer!
i didn't consider the rectangular division / square division preference, now added a poll to make it easier to see what people prefer!
In reality it doesn't matter one iota however some can't see past it like it's a naked woman in the room !
What matters more is the instruments feature set and what you can do with it.......
On a 16:9 screen it is kind of pointless to only have 10 division horizontally. 12 to 16 makes much more sense. With more horizontal divisions, you get more of a signal on screen without needing to use the fine adjust for the horizontal control (if the DSO even has that function).
Indeed this is preferred in my opinion - more divisions (my Rigol DS4014 has 14). The rectangular graticule annoys me quite a lot - that is a peeve of mine on the Keysight's DSOX3000 series.
In reality it doesn't matter one iota however some can't see past it like it's a naked woman in the room !
What matters more is the instruments feature set and what you can do with it.......
I'm aware it doesn't really matter for what one does with the oscilloscope, i just realised that for me the graticule style has some impact in how the device feels, so i wanted to know if others had some kind of preference as well. I prefer solid lines with square divisions, i would of course use without issue the dotted line/rectangular division oscilloscopes, but everything else being equal, i would very likely chose the solid line/square division one(next thing would be the color, again, specifications being equal) just cause it gives using it a much nicer feel for me personally
If x and y axis use same units, example voltage then it is good, nearly mandatory, to be square. And this is case with xy mode. Digital oscilloscope can change graticule. Most (all what I know) use square graticule when scope works in xy.
Old common analog scopes can not change graticule so it was natural to use square.
I can not see any single reason (except individual human preference or obsessive locking for square) for use square with oscilloscope time domain (yt) mode or frequency domain mode as in with FFT.
Personally, if it is not related to money, if I design oscilloscope it is not at all clear my selection for display aspect ratio is 16:9 horizontally.
The old architect told me at old days that the human eye is usually pleased with the Golden ratio. Also old photographist told same. I think everyone knows what a golden ratio is. In displays normal aspect ratios 16:10 is most nearly. (also used example in Siglent SDS6000 series. )
Analog scopes mostly have 5:4 ratio. Some times more. Reason was physical with some compromises also with tube manufacturing.
Modern displays, TFT etc do not have these same limits (Beam vertical deflection speed etc).
Modern oscilloscopes have many things what need more vertical room.
MSO example with 16 channels and simultaneously example 4 analog channels and simultaneously also digital bus data analyzing/serial decoding (perhaps multiple decoders simultaneously) also FFT when we still want look also signal in time axis or many other signals simultaneously with FFT or other math) Also including zoom window or multiple zoom windows.
16:9 display do not serve this well. Specially when we have signals with same time axis we need display these things vertically somehow separated but using same horizontal x axis. Also mostly we use measurements.
Simply, we need more vertical room. If we have multi window system we need big display and then we can move and arrange these windows how we like..
So why we have 16:9 (or other "wide" screen) horizontally mounted displays in oscilloscopes. I feel like it’s just drifted into like a driftwood, for no real compelling reason.
But, with it can live and do. Of course, a person can get used to and adapt to almost anything except the lack of water and food. Or, adaptation to it is called death.
Oh well, we can rotate this 16:9 display 90 degree... as I do many times with my PC display example for read normal pdf documents etc. So why they install it horizontally, or why we use it horizontally in cases when there is need for more vertical room)
btw, if we have enough big 5:4 monitor it can serve all needs... it is not today 16:9 TV for look movies, where I well understand wide screen, and Some film makers would like even much more wide.
Despite this thread being about scope graticules one has to question why we even need or want them for the bulk of scope use.
Despite this thread being about scope graticules one has to question why we even need or want them for the bulk of scope use.
Really?
How about giving some indication of time between edges and voltage / current between levels? Would you like to have a watch without indexes?
Despite this thread being about scope graticules one has to question why we even need or want them for the bulk of scope use.
If Apple made scopes, they would just tell us that we no longer need graticules and then eliminate them in a firmware update.
I'll keep mine, thanks! I do appreciate them being configurable, though.
Despite this thread being about scope graticules one has to question why we even need or want them for the bulk of scope use.
If Apple made scopes, they would just tell us that we no longer need graticules and then eliminate them in a firmware update.
I'll keep mine, thanks! I do appreciate them being configurable, though.
They would also invert the rotation of controls, change the panel functions, remove other, chip the probes (for security reasons), and charge 99c per trace. But I'm sure it would look good and you would be able to instant message colleges.
I wish the graticule lines on my modern scope w/LCD screen, had some number on the side. Just as a time saver, I would have no problem at all, if either the grat. lines were labeled, or if the trace had some voltage level marked next to it on the edge of the screen.
I can set the statistics on my scope and get a readout on the bottom of the screen, but when zooming in/out to view a signal, I would find labeled graticules very useful, and always quicker than counting myself