| Products > Test Equipment |
| Oscilloscope Zoom Out Quirk |
| << < (46/113) > >> |
| Wuerstchenhund:
--- Quote from: SilverSolder on May 11, 2020, 12:02:11 pm ---There is only so much real estate on the screen. If you already have 2 analog channels plus a handful of digital ones, using the zoom window becomes a bit of a pain (uses too much space) compared to just altering the timebase "post facto". --- End quote --- Nico made the same argument earlier on, and I have to say the same here: if your scope is so cramped that all the information you regularly need is difficult to read then that's a UX problem with that particular scope, and if you face this situation more often then I would seriously consider changing to a better scope. --- Quote ---Those multi-channel captures are also the kinds of scenarios where you most often end up looking for things that happened "off screen", in my experience at least. --- End quote --- As I said in my response to Dave's similar argument, this to me is more a case of bad preparation than anything else. If you think a bit about what you are going to do, what you expect to achieve and what you might encounter, it should be clear right from the start that you will very likely will need to look at signal segments other than the original point of interest. And if you make it a habit to always capture as long as sensible/possible then you are unlikely to find yourself in the situation that you need to access data which isn't instantly available and without having to stop the scope. |
| Gandalf_Sr:
This thread has been interesting and I have learned something useful about how my scopes work and how they differ in their approach to memory usage. However, we now seem to be going round and round the same point and are :horse: You guys seem to be arguing over whose method of scope usage is "right" or "better". How about of we all try to summarize our positions and then we can all get back to doing important stuff like playing Candy Crush? |
| jemangedeslolos:
--- Quote from: Gandalf_Sr on May 11, 2020, 12:44:49 pm ---This thread has been interesting and I have learned something useful about how my scopes work and how they differ in their approach to memory usage. However, we now seem to be going round and round the same point and are :horse: You guys seem to be arguing over whose method of scope usage is "right" or "better". How about of we all try to summarize our positions and then we can all get back to doing important stuff like playing Candy Crush? --- End quote --- You say that because you're the only one here who can't even see the data on your screen like you broke it during a pee break ;D |
| rsjsouza:
--- Quote from: 2N3055 on May 11, 2020, 12:41:05 pm --- --- Quote from: rsjsouza on May 11, 2020, 12:27:29 pm --- --- Quote from: 2N3055 on May 11, 2020, 12:18:16 pm --- --- Quote from: nfmax on May 11, 2020, 12:10:30 pm ---Once again, may I point out that the 'zoom window' display (the equivalent of a dual timebase on an analogue scope) is not needed to zoom & pan either in or out post acquisition: just use the ordinary horizontal scale & position controls! --- End quote --- To make sure, for 3000T and Rigol that is correct. I don't know about the others. But I LIKE zoom mode. It gives me overview where in the buffer I am. Also on 3000T, I just use touch screen to move around... I just wish that zoom window could change size (to be little smaller if I want) when it get crowded. But, that is mostly because screen on 3000T is not very big. --- End quote --- Interesting; the DS4014 has a handy top "entire buffer" view that does the same thing and uses almost zero screen realstate. (Unless you mean something else, of course) --- End quote --- Pretty much something like that. Maybe a bit bigger, just to get a glimpse of shapes.... --- End quote --- Thanks. With all the discussion about the screen realstate and the impact that multiple views and waveforms have on the usability of the scope, I can't help but wonder how the manufacturers still don't seem to take advantage of multi-display feature that exists for so long in personal computers. Sure, the ability to use an external monitor is ok, but it only expands what is shown in the screen - far from having a real method of putting different views on each screen. I was hopeful when the LeCroy guys came to do a demo of their products a few months ago and showed the nice interface, which could tile the different views and have a flexible arrangement on its large display, but only to find out not only the views couldn't be freely resized and rearranged (a feature present in any mainstream Windowed OS for the past 30 years) but also the lack of this more advanced "dual monitor" setup. Tek was the same thing, only with a much slower UI. |
| Wuerstchenhund:
--- Quote from: rsjsouza on May 11, 2020, 01:06:47 pm ---Thanks. With all the discussion about the screen realstate and the impact that multiple views and waveforms have on the usability of the scope, I can't help but wonder how the manufacturers still don't seem to take advantage of multi-display feature that exists for so long in personal computers. Sure, the ability to use an external monitor is ok, but it only expands what is shown in the screen - far from having a real method of putting different views on each screen. --- End quote --- I sometimes wondered the same, but one reason might be that, in my experience, most of the time people use the external monitor port it's because they want to replicate the internal display, be it for showing it to a larger group (i.e. bigger screen) or recording the output signal for documentation. We have a few setups where the 2nd monitor isn't mirrored, but that is for displaying external applications which run on the scope (like the KS VSA software). There's also the thing that, on simpler scopes, there isn't really *that* much to display, and more capable scopes already come with larger and higher resolution screens, sufficient to show lots of different information ergonomically. I'm not sure the demand is there to justify making the scope application multi-head capable, even on high end scopes. --- Quote ---I was hopeful when the LeCroy guys came to do a demo of their products a few months ago and showed the nice interface, which could tile the different views and have a flexible arrangement on its large display, but only to find out not only the views couldn't be freely resized and rearranged (a feature present in any mainstream Windowed OS for the past 30 years) but also the lack of this more advanced "dual monitor" setup. Tek was the same thing, only with a much slower UI. --- End quote --- Well, with an external screen you can still get more screen area by using a higher resolution display, and if the display is touch capable then you can also retain touch functionality. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |