Products > Test Equipment
Ridiculously small Rigol DS1000z series font size
<< < (18/35) > >>
Mark_O:

--- Quote from: pa3bca on December 02, 2014, 09:07:47 am ---My posts to this forum were not meant to find fault(s) with the 1074Z! On the contrary, I do think the 1000Z series are a terrific value for money. Just some fact-finding abt the differences and the underlying causes.

--- End quote ---

I never perceived them that way, and felt they were an informative and enjoyable read.  So, thanks!
marmad:

--- Quote from: pa3bca on December 02, 2014, 09:07:47 am ---How true! My posts to this forum were not meant to find fault(s) with the 1074Z! On the contrary, I do think the 1000Z series are a terrific value for money. Just some fact-finding abt the differences and the underlying causes.
You want a better screen and performance? Maybe a $ 13.000 Agilent or Tek?

--- End quote ---

Absolutely agree. I wouldn't have even thought to mention anything except markone asked me for a direct comparison to the DS2000. And of course because of the price difference, it's apples to oranges. But for someone who is having some eyestrain problems with the DS1000Z, the DS2000 is definitely a bit easier on the eyes - due mainly to it's screen size, but a little bit due to slightly sharper text / colors.
nuno:
Although with a smaller screen and jagged fonts and whatever, I have to admit so far I like my DS1052E more than my DS1104Z-S. The extra screen space ended up not coming as the advantage I thought but as a disadvantage, because I find it so much more difficult to use the screen. I was using it yesterday to check a serial protocol and the vertical traces are so thin they almost disappear (and thinner than the graticule, adding more to the visual confusion), making it more difficult to visually separate the bits; I'm thinking now that maybe that improves by increasing the waveform brightness, but the noisy hi/low signal levels makes them extra bright compared to the transient parts of the wave, so not sure if that will be an improvement *. No doubt a good imitation of an analog scope, but I don't find as useful, not an analog guru. Don't bother saying I'm using the wrong tool etc etc, it's just the way I use it and it's my personal preference and how/what for I use a scope. I also have to admit, now that I can compare, I prefer and find more useful to my usage profile the "on or off" style of the older models instead of the analog scope style imitation (my 1st scope was pure analog and I still keep it, I was not "born" in the digital age). I'm starting to think I should sell the DS1104Z-S and buy one of the older 4 channel versions while they're still sold (DS1104B I think), and live with the smaller screen space; too bad about the function gen.


* I'll have to play a little with the settings, I may not be using well the available visualization adjustments on this
pa3bca:
Now that I have my camera on the tripod I made some photos of an (the!) AM waveform, just to determine the differences between the scopes. (and is the 1074Z really as bad as some think. spoiler alert: NO it is not)
Camera all manual, 100mm lens, 90 cm distance between camera and scopes. ISO 100, f/5.6, 1.0 sec shutter.
Input signal 10 MHz, 100Hz AM, 100% modulation.
Two shots of both scopes, one in running mode and one in stopped mode. 
The shots in run mode (and 1 sec shutter) agree really well with "what the eye sees".
Here are some crops of the shots. For reference and further inspection I have the original full (16 Mpx) 2MB photo's for download here:http://pa3bca.pa3bca.nl/pa3bca_2071_1074_AMsignal.zip
nb: I have not corrected white balance of the photo's, these are SOOC, only raw to jpg conversion.  The 1074Z's shots look a lot bluer than those of the 2072. The eye corrects for this (in reality the screen does not look blue). It looks like the LED's that are used for the 1074Z's back-lighting are a bit bluer, but as I said this is not visible "in real life".
2072_run:

1074Z_run:

2072_stopped:

1074Z_stopped:

Funny horizontal lines on the 1074Z's shots. No idea where these come from. They are not influenced by for instance the modulation frequency.
The waveform of the 1074Z is indeed a bit more coarse/"blocky". I assume that is because the 1074Z has a lower waveform update rate in combination with a different implementation of intensity grading (Marmad would know).
But all in all I think the 1074Z looks quite ok.
I also tried it on my DS1052E. I will not post those images here  :) useless..


marmad:

--- Quote from: nuno on December 02, 2014, 06:54:51 pm ---I'm starting to think I should sell the DS1104Z-S and buy one of the older 4 channel versions while they're still sold (DS1104B I think), and live with the smaller screen space; too bad about the function gen.

--- End quote ---

Keep in mind: the intensity-grading is not just for simulating an analog display; it's for getting more waveforms to the display in real-time. Your DS1052E (or the DS1104B) only capture a maximum of  between 50 and (maybe) 200 waveforms per second - while the DS1000Z is capturing thousands.

Here are 2 solutions you can try (or you can try a combination of both):
1) The graticule has it's own brightness control, so you can turn that down to 0% (or whatever).
2) Turn on infinite persistence.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod