| Products > Test Equipment |
| Ridiculously small Rigol DS1000z series font size |
| << < (15/35) > >> |
| i4004:
marmad, i replied here.... https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/anomalies-andor-bugs-inbetween-the-rigol-msods1000z-msods2000a-msods4000/msg560294/#msg560294 as for this other things, you would need more experience with video and image processing (and how does it translate in the "quality metrics" in the brain) to understand it a bit better ie why some will prefer z to 2k, i hinted about it a but above, but it doesn't matter much....or perhaps it does because you're a nitpicker, but i like you anyway! ;D some things you say are probably correct (different subpixel rendering), but the rest (tracking blackness of black by blowing photographs :palm: , mentioning monitor calibration) is just a method applied to the wrong spot, it can't be done in that way, it's not science, if the two scope displays are not the same size,photo will not be the same so you can't compare it well. as for your blowing image of fonts, it's wrong in may ways, because how will jpeg compression affect it? how will camera sensor (pa3bca0a camera) position affect the raster of the display, ie how will they align (scope raster and image sensor pixels) and what effects will it produce in the images? i mean i'm just now taking your stuff a bit further to prove it's not really that simple, but if you say fonts are blurrier i'll just take your word for it, with or without blown images. otoh, waveform means more to me than fonts(a bit younger and no glasses might be the reason), and on z it's crap. ;) and that interests me even more now that i see 2k doesn't have that stairstepping effect. |
| marmad:
--- Quote from: i4004 on November 30, 2014, 08:40:21 am ---some things you say are probably correct (different subpixel rendering), but the rest (tracking blackness of black by blowing photographs :palm: , mentioning monitor calibration) is just a method applied to the wrong spot, it can't be done in that way, it's not science --- End quote --- Of course it's science. But not in the way that you seem to think science works (i.e. "I have an opinion about something and so that proves I'm right.") No, my science involves observation, investigation, and confirmation. I OBSERVE that the blacks don't look like 'true' black on the DS1000Z display when compared to the DS2000 - and since I taught computer graphics in the art academy of Amsterdam for 10 years, I have a pretty good eye for images and colors on screens (BTW, what exactly is YOUR experience with image processing again?) I then INVESTIGATE by checking the photos taken by an impartial 3rd party with the same camera and the approximate same lighting - this CONFIRMS my real-world observation that the black is farther from 'true' than the DS2000. Later, pa3bca investigates further and confirms my observation that, indeed, the black is 'off'- and discovers the cause: green subpixels leaking. More CONFIRMATION. This is how science works. --- Quote ---as for your blowing image of fonts, it's wrong in may ways, because how will jpeg compression affect it? how will camera sensor (pa3bca0a camera) position affect the raster of the display, ie how will they align (scope raster and image sensor pixels) and what effects will it produce in the images? --- End quote --- Nothing you mentioned will affect the fringing caused by the sub-pixels, which you would know if you understood LCDs and image processing. Again, I OBSERVED that the fonts were 'fuzzier' on the DS1000Z when compared to the DS2000 - and then investigated and confirmed it (with pa3bca discovering the possible underlying causes). So my observations (and opinion) are confirmed by investigation and testing (and a 3rd party). You, OTOH, continually post unsubstantiated or incorrect opinions (for example; your belief that the DS2000 was set to High Res mode in my photo) - and then refuse to acknowledge your mistakes (or else make a snarky response to deflect). |
| pa3bca:
--- Quote from: i4004 on November 30, 2014, 08:40:21 am ---as for your blowing image of fonts, it's wrong in may ways, because how will jpeg compression affect it? how will camera sensor (pa3bca0a camera) position affect the raster of the display, ie how will they align (scope raster and image sensor pixels) and what effects will it produce in the images? --- End quote --- Marmad has already succinctly addressed your other errors, but let me address these. * jpeg compression (in my shots) has no significant effect. You will be hard pressed to find any relevant difference between the raw files and the jpg's (i use high quality/low compression to jpg). If you don't believe me I can publish the 25MB raw files. * scope pixelsize versus DSLR sensor pixelsize is also a non issue here (irt the real issues). the shots are 1:1 macro, and every scope pixel covers almost 50 sensorpixels vertically. So no chance that you'd see moire patterns |
| i4004:
--- Quote ---No, my science involves observation, investigation, and confirmation. --- End quote --- marmad, get a grip. you're measuring black levels by inspecting photographs. THAT is not science. which is not to say your guess is wrong, but...come on.... display performance are not measured in that way, other methods are used. --- Quote ---i.e. "I have an opinion about something and so that proves I'm right." --- End quote --- nope. i never said that. we're talking, i just had few objections to your method. but if you wanna define to me what contrast is, what "less sharp" and "washed out" means....come on.... come off from that mountain you're standing on... i don't wanna discuss "true blacks" video issue with you, mostyl because i probably know more about it, but just don't think it's important here...there is no contrast or black level issue on 1000z, i think we'll agree....i would bitch about it first if i saw it! there might be small differences between the 2 scopes, but nothing to write home about. --- Quote ---(BTW, what exactly is YOUR experience with image processing again?) --- End quote --- i dislike "experience arguments", they mean the argument is in the toilet, once we come to that. but to answer, i did a lot of video work. experience doesn't matter but what is said. regarding sensor/raster alignment, did you know about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kell_factor yes, it doesn't matter much, but it's an interesting concept. --- Quote ---Later, pa3bca investigates further and confirms my observation that, indeed, the black is 'off'- and discovers the cause: green subpixels leaking. More CONFIRMATION. This is how science works. --- End quote --- no. in my book you have something like this http://televisions.reviewed.com/how_we_test ( Konica Minolta CS-200 Chroma Meter ) and measure both displays. science should be DIRECT. it's simpler that way, isn't it? albeit i don't have much against your method too, but there's better way than making negative photos. i'm mostly talkign about how your discussion started. and "blackness of the black" has nothing to do with subpixel rendering anyway...black is where there are no fonts. --- Quote ---Nothing you mentioned will affect the fringing caused by the sub-pixels, which you would know if you understood LCDs and image processing. --- End quote --- you're using that trash talk again: you can't trash me, ok? i understand everything you're talking about perfectly. but i have a problem with some of your original methods in this post https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-font-size/msg559800/#msg559800 in ds2k b/w image i would say it has a bit more dust on the display...or jpeg artefacts blown a lot. ;D ok, there's some difference, but it could of been just the slightly different camera angle or scope position. to me you blowing these photos is not science. it's resizer and jpeg artefacts more than exact science. now i'm looking images a bit closer: these macro photos are piss-poor, and i see that z has more "modern" graphics, ie more shades where 2k has none. the fonts and subpixel rendering look simillar, but z uses different graphics elements. for example https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-font-size/msg559826/#msg559826 background on the z has 3 shades, 2k just one. the border element (around word "normal") is not the same on both scopes. the contrast is too much on z images. but that couls also be camera in the auto mode making different adjustments etc. could also be that this is closest to the truth https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-font-size/msg559843/#msg559843 let me reiterate again, i'm not much interested in fonts (but if anything, i would forbid cleartype technologies everywhere, and now you know i know exactly what you're talking about here. ;), but if you want i can make a decent macro photo of this scope's fonts, if you can't pull the magnifying glass and tell us what you see on both...heh... ;D god damn you're discussing fonts and you can't make a decent macro photo of them.... --- Quote ---(for example; your belief that the DS2000 was set to High Res mode in my photo) --- End quote --- no. i asked "(hires mode on?)" --- Quote ---and then refuse to acknowledge your mistakes (or else make a snarky response to deflect). --- End quote --- what mistakes exactly? if i mentioned some ways photos can be skewed it doesn't mean i was wrong about those ways indeed can make a difference. i will repeat, images in this post https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-font-size/msg559800/#msg559800 are not science for me. it's fuzzy blowup. most of the difference you saw are different graphic elements on the z series! not fonts sub-pixel rendering and the stuff you mentioned. |
| i4004:
hold on, it is different sub-pixel rendering. green is lower or higher. it's not aligned. you can't even see this without great magnification. different displays. so, do i admit mistakes? but still, forget about black levels, it's not it. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |