| Products > Test Equipment |
| Ridiculously small Rigol DS1000z series font size |
| << < (31/35) > >> |
| markone:
--- Quote from: alsetalokin4017 on February 01, 2016, 11:58:22 am ---Well, I'm losing my close-focus ability as I age too, but I can't expect everything in the world to accommodate my vision problems, so I wear glasses when I need to see up close. Pretty strong ones too, up to 3 diopters and even more when I'm doing repairs or sewing my socks or something. There is a lot of information on the Rigol screen, some of it unnecessary like the always-on left and right menus. So the fonts have to be small to display all that information. I don't think this is going to change in some "ideal" firmware revision. If you need a larger screen, like on higher-end Keysight or LeCroy scopes, you'll have to pay the price for it. But their fonts are pretty small too. --- End quote --- Same diopters, same thinking :) And when i solder i use, in addition, a desktop magnifying lamp. Probably the vast majority of the DS1xxxZ scopes is made up of young people with perfect sight, otherwise this thread would have been longer. I sure do not expect any magical FW revision and i'm starting to wonder if the reason of the forced presence of lateral menus is due to the need to mantain a reducted Z buffer size to limit FPGA computing effort. Yesterday i was viewing the Dave's HMO1202 review (), i think that is a good example about how to organize a scope screen with a great readability and right amount of informations in a relative small size. |
| markone:
--- Quote from: marmad on January 29, 2016, 05:53:16 am --- --- Quote from: miguelvp on January 29, 2016, 05:45:52 am ---As I mentioned above, if you try to read more than 1420 bytes per transfer the TCP stack has to do resends and it slows it down quite a bit. With the TCP/IP frame overhead the ideal MTU size of 1514 bytes will speed things up making the LAN faster than USB transfers. --- End quote --- I read your post, but IIRC (I could be wrong, but I'm not around my scope to check at the moment) I get 3-4 second screen captures using USB. So your rate doesn't sound any faster to me. EDIT: Actually, just double-checked and it takes ~2.5 seconds to get a screen capture to the PC and save it (using USB). --- End quote --- I' trying right now the RigolBildschirmkopie program, with my DS1074Z on USB interface i'm obtaining an average screen capture rate around 3.5/s with one channel and 2.5/s with four channels turned on. It seems much faster than what you have seen, why ? |
| marmad:
--- Quote from: markone on February 03, 2016, 01:35:09 pm ---I' trying right now the RigolBildschirmkopie program, with my DS1074Z on USB interface i'm obtaining an average screen capture rate around 3.5/s with one channel and 2.5/s with four channels turned on. It seems much faster than what you have seen, why ? --- End quote --- You're talking about the SCPI command to send a screen capture (which always operated more or less the same on both DSOs), as opposed to the commands that transfer waveform memory data. BTW, my tests were run when the DS1000Z series was relatively new. It's possible they've improved the speeds in later firmware - I have no way of checking. |
| markone:
--- Quote from: marmad on February 03, 2016, 02:22:15 pm --- --- Quote from: markone on February 03, 2016, 01:35:09 pm ---I' trying right now the RigolBildschirmkopie program, with my DS1074Z on USB interface i'm obtaining an average screen capture rate around 3.5/s with one channel and 2.5/s with four channels turned on. It seems much faster than what you have seen, why ? --- End quote --- You're talking about the SCPI command to send a screen capture (which always operated more or less the same on both DSOs), as opposed to the commands that transfer waveform memory data. BTW, my tests were run when the DS1000Z series was relatively new. It's possible they've improved the speeds in later firmware - I have no way of checking. --- End quote --- Hi marmad, i was referring to your statement : "EDIT: Actually, just double-checked and it takes ~2.5 seconds to get a screen capture to the PC and save it (using USB).", where you talk about screen capture and not waveform memory data, but to be honest i do not know what scope you was benchmarking. On the following web page : http://peter.dreisiebner.at/rigol-bildschirmkopie-lan/ if you scroll down a little you can find a table with remote screen capture update rate with RigolBildschirmkopie and it seems that under USB interface the DS1104Z is a little faster than MSO2302A, that i assume to be as faster as the DSO version. I'm still considering the purchase of Rigol 2K DSO/MSO, so i would ask if you could gently check what update rate you can reach with your scope and the very same utility. Thanks in advance, Marco. |
| markone:
--- Quote from: marmad on February 03, 2016, 02:52:17 pm --- --- Quote from: markone on August 11, 1974, 11:03:47 am ---...and it seems that under USB interface the DS1104Z is a little faster than MSO2302A, that i assume to be as faster as the DSO version. --- End quote --- I don't understand. The speed you mentioned is exactly the same speed I mentioned, for exactly the same screen size (800x480). What is faster? --- End quote --- "Actually, just double-checked and it takes ~2.5 seconds to get a screen capture to the PC and save it (using USB)" I read 2.5 seconds in your statement, if it's the screen capture transfer time your rate is a slower (0.3 second). Is it actually 2.5 seconds ? |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |