| Products > Test Equipment |
| Oscilloscope Zoom Out Quirk |
| << < (102/113) > >> |
| nctnico:
--- Quote from: Someone on March 06, 2021, 11:58:27 pm --- --- Quote from: nctnico on March 06, 2021, 11:48:59 pm --- --- Quote from: Someone on March 06, 2021, 10:51:01 pm ---It'd be great if scopes offered the choice to set all these parameters, but absolutely none do. --- End quote --- Still there is a basic set of operating modes common amongst most brands (as Dave has demonstrated in his 'zoomout' video). This thread is about the behaviour of 2 outliers when it comes to benchtop oscilloscopes. --- End quote --- A use case which is so complex and full of gotchas that almost no-one uses it! You've been unable to clearly explain the benefits of such a workflow, hence the many users getting confused. --- End quote --- Read the comments to Dave's video; you'll see that many people are using zoom-out and consider it a standard DSO feature. All in all the reality is that your statement is the other way around; there are a limited number of people who: 1) Don't understand the benefit because they don't need it and somehow are opposed to it as a result or maybe because they want a solution which works for 10 out of 10 cases instead of one which is faster but only covers 9 out of 10 cases. 2) Have a vested interest in a brand which doesn't support 'zooming out' and keep spreading marketing wank. It is not my function to explain things in depth. I'm not getting paid for that so be happy with what I give you for free. I just point out how to do things more efficiently (less twiddling of knobs) and oppose marketing wank. The whole discussion is pretty similar to the (recurring) one in the CAD section where people don't see the usefullness of having a part database which holds the parts information instead of littering the symbol library with ordering information (etc) and on top of that are heavily opposed to this workflow beyond reasoning. Almost to the point where they claim 'everyone using a part database is an idiot' while having a seperate part database (part management) is one of the key feature in the eyes of the professional PCB CAD vendors and is also mandatory feature for many of their professional customers. Anyway, I'm going to leave this discussion as it is. It has been long enough and arguments are going in circles. |
| Martin72:
--- Quote ---It is not my function to explain things in depth. I'm not getting paid for that so be happy what I give you for free. --- End quote --- LOL. |
| 2N3055:
How is manually setting memory depth and time base every time you want to change what you're looking at less keypresses than simply set timebase, press zoom, set 2nd timebase and position. Memory settings are usually not on buttons or main menu so you at least need to press Acquistion - Record length -select length. That is 3 steps for memory set alone. Then you need to setup timebase for screen (making sure to keep sample rate in sweet spot that will guarantee your wanted full sample), and then you need to find a place in a buffer with delay command or knob, for which you don't have any visual aid, but need to find the right place blindly, pretty much zooming out to see where you are, moving displayed portion with delay, and then zooming in and keep repeating it in until you are at the right spot. You see, after this thing kept going for a while, I went and took out my Micsig (which has both auto, and manual memory management. auto is default). And I tried what you're saying and it was not less keypresses, but significantly more twiddling on average. You need to constantly twiddle back and forth with time base and position to look around. I set time base for full capture, press zoom, set secondary time base, set zoom position, and then after capture, i just move zoom position with finger on the visual map of capture. That's it. Yes it uses screen space for zoom. But it is way faster, more intuitive, WISIWIG, you literally see what you're doing. And, I didn't mention this before, you can disable zoom and move around with timebase and delays same way as you do... So you capture initial capture with zoom with all the benefits that has, and once you have your data, disable the zoom and move around as you would your way. |
| Martin72:
--- Quote ---which has both auto, and manual memory management. auto is default --- End quote --- Everyone took "Auto" as default....Why....My guess is, it´s "foolproof" meaning it´s the most usable condition at all. But not for everyone, we´ve learned here. 8) |
| Someone:
--- Quote from: nctnico on March 07, 2021, 12:16:11 am --- --- Quote from: Someone on March 06, 2021, 11:58:27 pm --- --- Quote from: nctnico on March 06, 2021, 11:48:59 pm --- --- Quote from: Someone on March 06, 2021, 10:51:01 pm ---It'd be great if scopes offered the choice to set all these parameters, but absolutely none do. --- End quote --- Still there is a basic set of operating modes common amongst most brands (as Dave has demonstrated in his 'zoomout' video). This thread is about the behaviour of 2 outliers when it comes to benchtop oscilloscopes. --- End quote --- A use case which is so complex and full of gotchas that almost no-one uses it! You've been unable to clearly explain the benefits of such a workflow, hence the many users getting confused. --- End quote --- Read the comments to Dave's video; you'll see that many people are using zoom-out and consider it a standard DSO feature. All in all the reality is that your statement is the other way around; there are a limited number of people who: 1) Don't understand the benefit because they don't need it and somehow are opposed to it as a result or maybe because they want a solution which works for 10 out of 10 cases instead of one which is faster but only covers 9 out of 10 cases. 2) Have a vested interest in a brand which doesn't support 'zooming out' and keep spreading marketing wank. It is not my function to explain things in depth. I'm not getting paid for that so be happy with what I give you for free. I just point out how to do things more efficiently (less twiddling of knobs) and oppose marketing wank. The whole discussion is pretty similar to the (recurring) one in the CAD section where people don't see the usefullness of having a part database which holds the parts information instead of littering the symbol library with ordering information (etc) and on top of that are heavily opposed to this workflow beyond reasoning. Almost to the point where they claim 'everyone using a part database is an idiot' while having a seperate part database (part management) is one of the key feature in the eyes of the professional PCB CAD vendors and is also mandatory feature for many of their professional customers. Anyway, I'm going to leave this discussion as it is. It has been long enough and arguments are going in circles. --- End quote --- Its all here in the thread, you insist that zoom windows cannot be used. Which is plainly untrue and a made up constraint of yours. I much prefer to have a zoom window set so I can see both interesting features without having to adjust or touch anything. So insisting that everyone else is just like you and the world should change for that is very much your problem that you need to come to terms with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias I have worked with a wide range of scopes and colleagues, and never seen anyone use the "zoom out" workflow or trick intentionally. We're trying to imagine how this workflow could be used practically and add value to our work, but you're had to narrow the constraints so far to such a specific point its silly. We politely explain how if any one of the synthetic constraints is removed then there is no real problem and many ways to achieve the task. Since people don't seem to read back through the thread: --- Quote from: Someone on May 10, 2020, 11:02:07 pm --- --- Quote from: nctnico on May 10, 2020, 09:16:07 pm --- --- Quote from: nfmax on May 10, 2020, 08:41:41 pm ---One way is as good as the other, maybe, but DSOs are designed, primarily, around zooming in. --- End quote --- Says who? Nobody provided any evidence that zooming out is not the way an oscilloscope works. The fact it (recording beyond the screen) is possible on many oscilloscopes suggests that those are actually designed to work this way. --- End quote --- They can work that way, yes. But you keep insisting that other ways to achieve the same result are completely irrelevant and not to be considered. That may be for you, but you keep bringing this extremely narrow and unusual workflow up as some general advice when its completely your imaginary construction. If you want to bring it up, then you'll need to actually put out the reasons, constraints, and benefits of your method. This thread is full of people completely not understanding why you keep talking about this the way you do. Smells like trolling. When put in context its an obvious obscure corner case, it requires all these simultaneously: * slow/infrequent trigger rate (compared to the detail window being viewed) * interesting detail at short time window * possibly interesting detail in the larger capture (but can't rely on another trigger arriving) * unwillingness to use a zoom windowYou just draw out the discussion endlessly with distractions and nonsense. You've got a workflow that works for you, great. You'd like to see it available on more scopes, great, write to the manufacturers. But stop arguing that this workflow is somehow important for others to consider if you can't motivate us to its benefits. --- End quote --- So lets consider your latest point by point: --- Quote from: nctnico on March 07, 2021, 12:16:11 am ---Read the comments to Dave's video; you'll see that many people are using zoom-out and consider it a standard DSO feature. --- End quote --- Some people, no measure of how significant that is. --- Quote from: nctnico on March 07, 2021, 12:16:11 am ---All in all the reality is that your statement is the other way around; there are a limited number of people who: 1) Don't understand the benefit because they don't need it and somehow are opposed to it as a result or maybe because they want a solution which works for 10 out of 10 cases instead of one which is faster but only covers 9 out of 10 cases. 2) Have a vested interest in a brand which doesn't support 'zooming out' and keep spreading marketing wank. --- End quote --- Not sure how any of that is part of the discussion and what I've been saying. You have this list of constraints (above) which are unstated but you are sure everyone else values them and has them in place. --- Quote from: nctnico on March 07, 2021, 12:16:11 am ---It is not my function to explain things in depth. I'm not getting paid for that so be happy with what I give you for free. I just point out how to do things more efficiently (less twiddling of knobs) and oppose marketing wank. --- End quote --- More efficiently? Use the zoom, zero controls to be touched or adjusted. Sounds more efficient to most people. You have these (continually unstated) constraints which are essential to make your arguments. We're pointing out how a) they are silly, b) they're a very narrow corner case rarely encountered, and c) how other options trade off different priorities/values. But sure keep, coming back with one liners about how specific brands and models cant do the job. Or we don't know anything can can't use scopes properly. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |