Siglent SDS800 Zoom out question (problem?)

[frank2644]

A couple of years ago I bought a Siglent SDS1104X-e and it has performed very well for me with one notable exception. That is, the ability to zoom out to examine events that happened just prior to trigger and outside the screen view area.  Dave had a video describing this shortcoming and he seemed to think that was a significant disadvantage. Sure there are workarounds, like recapturing using a longer sweep rate, but I have found that annoying over the years.

Here’s Dave’s explanation of the problem.


I am considering buying the SDS800 but I’m wondering if it has the same zoom out problem?

Thanks,
Frank

[KungFuJosh]

Look at History mode on the Siglent. I think that applies to your old scope also.

[frank2644]

Look at History mode on the Siglent. I think that applies to your old scope also.

Yes, I have a History key but I have not been able to figure out how to use it. I think you have to start the trace and then turn on history mode. However that seems to stop the trace and that implies human detection of an event is necessary. Further when it stops if the Horiz sweep is fairly slow (>5ms) it doesn't capture  any frames. And I don't think it works at-all in single sweep mode. In summary, it seems too complicated and limited to be useful. Having a zoom out seems a lot simpler and doesn't require any setup.

If anybody knows if the SDS800 supports zoom out please advise.

Thanks for replying
Frank

[Fungus]

I am considering buying the SDS800 but I’m wondering if it has the same zoom out problem?

It's the Siglent way.

[tautech]

I am considering buying the SDS800 but I’m wondering if it has the same zoom out problem ?

Problem it isn't, it's just the way these low cost Siglents work, just as LeCroy and IIRC Pico too.

SDS800X HD to SDS2000X Plus all work the same but higher models offer a Fixed Mem Depth acquisition mode to provide the zoom out feature.

However you will find SDS800X HD Zoom mode more powerful than the earlier X-E series.

[Someone]

That is, the ability to zoom out to examine events that happened just prior to trigger and outside the screen view area.

You got trolled, it is an imaginary "problem" in some bizarre corner case that almost certainly does not apply to your use case.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-zoom-out-quirk/msg4484857/#msg4484857

[frank2644]

That is, the ability to zoom out to examine events that happened just prior to trigger and outside the screen view area.

You got trolled, it is an imaginary "problem" in some bizarre corner case that almost certainly does not apply to your use case.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-zoom-out-quirk/msg4484857/#msg4484857

I think you are saying that zooming out is a very infrequent requirement and can be easily overcome. Therefore not important. Although I am sure I have encountered this issue and admittingly I have become accustomed and it doesn't really bother me much anymore.

However, Dave Jones in the video I previously provided seems to think zoom out is valuable as well as some other Superusers that I have seen comment favorably about that capability. One poster thought it was a standard. Another poster said he thought all scopes had it.
 
Currently I'm considering buying a new scope and I gotta believe I would appreciate that zoom-out function if my new scope had it.

So if the SDS800 doesn't have it, I have to decide if having zoom-out is worth having to learn a differed manufacture's interface.

What-to-do? what-to-do? woe is me.

Thanks for the reply
Frank
 

[KungFuJosh]

To make a better informed decision, ignore that video's bias, and check out the demonstration thread: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/

There you have a superior engineer demonstrating the features (including history mode) of the scope you're interested in.

[Someone]

I think you are saying that zooming out is a very infrequent requirement and can be easily overcome. Therefore not important. Although I am sure I have encountered this issue and admittingly I have become accustomed and it doesn't really bother me much anymore.

The question for you is why do you (specifically in your circumstances) need to use the capture around the screen method rather than using a zoom window?

Every choice has downsides which the people pushing the "CANT ZOOM OUT" hysteria avoid mentioning, those downsides make the technique appear undesirable most of the time. Also noting that the SDS800 has a different interface to your current scope which changes the experience of the different ways to view the waveform.

[nctnico]

That is, the ability to zoom out to examine events that happened just prior to trigger and outside the screen view area.

You got trolled, it is an imaginary "problem" in some bizarre corner case that almost certainly does not apply to your use case.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-zoom-out-quirk/msg4484857/#msg4484857

I think you are saying that zooming out is a very infrequent requirement and can be easily overcome. Therefore not important. Although I am sure I have encountered this issue and admittingly I have become accustomed and it doesn't really bother me much anymore.

However, Dave Jones in the video I previously provided seems to think zoom out is valuable as well as some other Superusers that I have seen comment favorably about that capability. One poster thought it was a standard. Another poster said he thought all scopes had it.
 
Currently I'm considering buying a new scope and I gotta believe I would appreciate that zoom-out function if my new scope had it.

Don't get fooled by people dead-set on being right no matter what. Keep in mind there are many possible workflows depending on the problems / circuits you are working on. The best option is to just try a few scopes. As a consumer you typically have a right of return within a couple of days. That should be enough to give a DSO a try using a pre-defined test plan and see what works best for YOU.

[tautech]

That is, the ability to zoom out to examine events that happened just prior to trigger and outside the screen view area.

You got trolled, it is an imaginary "problem" in some bizarre corner case that almost certainly does not apply to your use case.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-zoom-out-quirk/msg4484857/#msg4484857

I think you are saying that zooming out is a very infrequent requirement and can be easily overcome. Therefore not important. Although I am sure I have encountered this issue and admittingly I have become accustomed and it doesn't really bother me much anymore.

However, Dave Jones in the video I previously provided seems to think zoom out is valuable as well as some other Superusers that I have seen comment favorably about that capability. One poster thought it was a standard. Another poster said he thought all scopes had it.
 
Currently I'm considering buying a new scope and I gotta believe I would appreciate that zoom-out function if my new scope had it.

Don't get fooled by people dead-set on being right no matter what. Keep in mind there are many possible workflows depending on the problems / circuits you are working on. The best option is to just try a few scopes. As a consumer you typically have a right of return within a couple of days. That should be enough to give a DSO a try using a pre-defined test plan and see what works best for YOU.

There will be no surprises for member frank2644 as right from the outset he said he already has SDS1104X-E.
Did you not spot that ? 

However he will/should/might be pleased with the easier to use Zoom mode in SDS800X HD.

[nctnico]

That is, the ability to zoom out to examine events that happened just prior to trigger and outside the screen view area.

You got trolled, it is an imaginary "problem" in some bizarre corner case that almost certainly does not apply to your use case.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-zoom-out-quirk/msg4484857/#msg4484857

I think you are saying that zooming out is a very infrequent requirement and can be easily overcome. Therefore not important. Although I am sure I have encountered this issue and admittingly I have become accustomed and it doesn't really bother me much anymore.

However, Dave Jones in the video I previously provided seems to think zoom out is valuable as well as some other Superusers that I have seen comment favorably about that capability. One poster thought it was a standard. Another poster said he thought all scopes had it.
 
Currently I'm considering buying a new scope and I gotta believe I would appreciate that zoom-out function if my new scope had it.

Don't get fooled by people dead-set on being right no matter what. Keep in mind there are many possible workflows depending on the problems / circuits you are working on. The best option is to just try a few scopes. As a consumer you typically have a right of return within a couple of days. That should be enough to give a DSO a try using a pre-defined test plan and see what works best for YOU.

There will be no surprises for member frank2644 as right from the outset he said he already has SDS1104X-E.
Did you not spot that ? 

However he will/should/might be pleased with the easier to use Zoom mode in SDS800X HD.

Well, zoom mode just isn't the universal answer and the OP is clearly looking to expand his horizon. I understand you want to try to promote Siglent as this is the brand you sell, but realistically it doesn't hurt to try / investigate various pieces of equipment from various brands to see what would be a good fit. That is exactly what I do when I look for a new piece of equipment.

[KungFuJosh]

Well, zoom mode just isn't the universal answer and the OP is clearly looking to expand his horizon. I understand you want to try to promote Siglent as this is the brand you sell, but realistically it doesn't hurt to try / investigate various pieces of equipment from various brands to see what would be a good fit. That is exactly what I do when I look for a new piece of equipment.

You're correct, but at the same time, if his budget is under $500, there's nothing better available than the 800X HD scope he's interested in.

[Fungus]

You're correct, but at the same time, if his budget is under $500, there's nothing better available than the 800X HD scope he's interested in.

The Rigol can zoom out, no problem.

[KungFuJosh]

You're correct, but at the same time, if his budget is under $500, there's nothing better available than the 800X HD scope he's interested in.

The Rigol can zoom out, no problem.

You're arguing disingenuously. The Rigol fails by comparison on every other feature (except HDMI output which is not on the Siglent), and especially on support, which barely exists, if at all.

Just because 5 brands do something one way, and another 5 brands do it slightly differently, doesn't make any of them the correct or the only way to do a thing.

[nctnico]

Siglent fanboys & girls versus Rigol fanboys  & girls.... let the mud slinging match begin 3 - 2 - 1 GO!   

Meanwhile, the OP never really stated a budget so it is premature to propose the bottom of the barrel models which are just built to a price point and are not really great at anything.

The best way is to find / compile a list with equipment which fits the bill, then start looking at price versus pros / cons. Sometimes this means budget or requirements need adjustment. And there is also a used market where you can find good equipment for reduced prices from reputable sellers.

[2N3055]

Well, zoom mode just isn't the universal answer and the OP is clearly looking to expand his horizon. I understand you want to try to promote Siglent as this is the brand you sell, but realistically it doesn't hurt to try / investigate various pieces of equipment from various brands to see what would be a good fit. That is exactly what I do when I look for a new piece of equipment.

"Zoom out" is term related to using zoom function. Nobody cares about "changing timebase after the stopped capture" except people that don't know how to set timebase right in the first place.

He can also ignore sensationalistic clickbait video and, as you point astutely, think with his own head, and decide not to use scope wrongly...
I wholeheartedly agree with you he should try and use real data and make a decision on his own.

I use several Siglent scopes and a Keysight pretty much on daily basis. Out of reasons where I use Keysight instead of my Siglents, there are some decodes and some other stuff that is more suited for the task, but relying on the scope to capture stuff outside of what I set it for by chance to cover my bad practice is not one of them.

Like I documented few times before, Keysight DOES NOT capture outside the screen. What it does is cheat. When in RUN only screen length is captured. If you then press STOP, it performs a separate, additional, new trigger where it captures long.

It performs this: it changes timebase to as long as it can (cannot say long because it has 100x less memory than this inexpensive Siglent), takes Single, waits for trigger, captures and goes back to timebase it was on.
If there is no trigger for some time (cca 200-250ms timeout), it will timeout and show you last good triggered capture, that will be only one screen wide.

That video was proven factually incorrect on many points.
Whoever uses that one to make decision is making a mistake.

This imaginary "this scope knows better than you and has captured data you would otherwise miss" was proven to be false argument.
It should not be used as a criteria to chose a scope.

If for some reason you need manual memory control, that might be valid checkpoint, OTOH. I can understand that.
But more important is manual control of sample  rate. That is used all the time. And that is there.

And as Josh rightly said, is there really anything better than SDS800xHD in that price range?

[2N3055]

Siglent fanboys & girls versus Rigol fanboys  & girls.... let the mud slinging match begin 3 - 2 - 1 GO!   

Meanwhile, the OP never really stated a budget so it is premature to propose the bottom of the barrel models which are just built to a price point and are not really great at anything.

The best way is to find / compile a list with equipment which fits the bill, then start looking at price versus pros / cons. Sometimes this means budget or requirements need adjustment. And there is also a used market where you can find good equipment for reduced prices from reputable sellers.

I am considering buying the SDS800 but I’m wondering if it has the same zoom out problem?

Thanks,
Frank

Is that not specific enough ?

[nctnico]

Well, zoom mode just isn't the universal answer and the OP is clearly looking to expand his horizon. I understand you want to try to promote Siglent as this is the brand you sell, but realistically it doesn't hurt to try / investigate various pieces of equipment from various brands to see what would be a good fit. That is exactly what I do when I look for a new piece of equipment.

"Zoom out" is term related to using zoom function. Nobody cares about "changing timebase after the stopped capture" except people that don't know how to set timebase right in the first place.

I use several Siglent scopes and a Keysight pretty much on daily basis. Out of reasons where I use Keysight instead of my Siglents, there are some decodes and some other stuff that is more suited for the task, but relying on the scope to capture stuff outside of what I set it for by chance to cover my bad practice is not one of them.

Like I documented few times before, Keysight DOES NOT capture outside the screen. What it does is cheat. When in RUN only screen length is captured. If you then press STOP, it performs a separate, additional, new trigger where it captures long.

Oh, this sillyness again.    Your statement can be translated 1 on 1 into: I'm right handed so everyone should use right handed tools. Left handed tools are for idiots who never learned to use their right hand properly. Just stop making a fool out of yourself. People in the real world know better; left handed people work more efficient with left handed tools.

[frank2644]

Thank you for of the replies, they are very helpful.

SOMEONE asked why I need that zoom function so I decided to recheck my RF sweep generator that I made a few years ago. That had some challenging waveforms. Surprisingly, the frequency steps are not measuring correctly or consistently so I have to figure out what's wrong, it's probably me. I've  tried to describe the waveform details at the end of this note, but it's probably better not to get sidetracked in those details.

Anyway, the purpose was to determine if a zoom out function would be useful. And so far I'm not sure. IOW, the off-screen capture in this case would probably not be large enough to be useful. Further, overall I'm starting to think the few times a zoom-out would be nice is not a big enough benefit to justify buying a different mfr's scope and having to learn it's operation and perhaps hit other shortcomings. If the zoom-out was a life-saver, I might thing differently, but now I don't think that's the case. I haven't reached a decision yet, but I'm leaning toward the subject Siglent scope.

BTW, the few times I needed support the vendor TEquipment was very helpful and even got answers from Siglent for me. Although I never tried to get answers directly from Siglent myself. And I have to say, the SDS1104x-e I have has been very satisfactory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waveform details: Basically I capture a 360khz wide, 27 step sweep with a 10.7mhz center frequency. The sweep takes about 1/2 second to complete the 27 steps. The 27 step marker pulses are on chan 3, with the RF on chan 1. The goal is to verify the frequency is correct at each of the 27 markers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, again, to all who contributed. Any further comments are welcome.
Frank

[nctnico]

For your particular measurement, segmented recording would be very suitable as you can likely skip a lot of irrelevant parts of the signal in the sweep (trigger on the markers). Add some measurements over the segments or just browse through the segments and measure frequency per segment would make this test quick & easy to do.

[Fungus]

"Zoom out" is term related to using zoom function. Nobody cares about "changing timebase after the stopped capture" except people that don't know how to set timebase right in the first place.

We could all learn to use left-handed scissors as well, but it's not optimal.

[2N3055]

"Zoom out" is term related to using zoom function. Nobody cares about "changing timebase after the stopped capture" except people that don't know how to set timebase right in the first place.

We could all learn to use left-handed scissors as well, but it's not optimal.

I fail to understand the comparison.

I will repeat. OP asked about video and if that video should be taken into consideration.
I said video was wrong on many facts and that that actual Keysight scope is NOT capturing "outside screen" and that this issue is not important for choice of scope. Siglent, Rigol, Keysight. On none of them it is important.
Manual control of sample rate is very important, and manual memory size might be used sometimes (which is Nico's use case).

Using scope memory to "zoom out" is actually doing it in reverse. That is non optimal, not intuitive, backwards way of doing it.
Better way is to capture long in a first place and "zoom in". That way you can clearly see and control the extent of the whole event and can then observe detail both with time base and position (Nico style) and with Zoom (everybody else).

When I'm using scope I don't just twiddle buttons without thinking, hoping, maybe, by providence, I will catch something on the screen, and that scope will magically, maybe, capture something even if I'm just guessing.
And I'm sure you don't either. You analyze and think of ways to best capture point of interest.
It is interactive though process, including operator and instrument and DUT.
Not random twiddling of knobs.

[tautech]

Any further comments are welcome.
Frank

Frank, this is current Zoom mode implementation.



Main/Zoom/2nd timebase are now at different scaling ratios where the main timebase occupies a smaller portion of the display.
Main and 2nd timebase are identified by the dotted lines around them signifying which is is active to the timebase encoder and toggling between them is done by pressing the encoder, touching the display or clicking with a mouse in the one you wish to bring to the encoders control.

As the unzoomed main timebase now occupies a smaller portion of the display where it is very possible to work entirely with the zoomed timebase and leave the main timebase to analyze captures serving as a record of what's outside the the zoomed timebase you might choose to work primarily with when that need is required.

[2N3055]

For your particular measurement, segmented recording would be very suitable as you can likely skip a lot of irrelevant parts of the signal in the sweep (trigger on the markers). Add some measurements over the segments or just browse through the segments and measure frequency per segment would make this test quick & easy to do.

I agree. That is good way to do it.

On SDS800xHD we can capture to segments, then go into history mode with measurements on.
You can measure segment by segment, resetting stats in-between, or leave  stats on and run through all segments.
You can also FFT per segment, monitoring spectrum..

[nctnico]

"Zoom out" is term related to using zoom function. Nobody cares about "changing timebase after the stopped capture" except people that don't know how to set timebase right in the first place.

We could all learn to use left-handed scissors as well, but it's not optimal.

I fail to understand the comparison.

That is indeed your problem. Now just accept that you don't understand and all is well. There is lots of stuff I don't understand but I don't go around saying people are idiots because they can't make me understand.

[2N3055]

"Zoom out" is term related to using zoom function. Nobody cares about "changing timebase after the stopped capture" except people that don't know how to set timebase right in the first place.

We could all learn to use left-handed scissors as well, but it's not optimal.

I fail to understand the comparison.

That is indeed your problem. Now just accept that you don't understand and all is well. There is lots of stuff I don't understand but I don't go around saying people are idiots because they can't make me understand.

And you do understand what scissor comparison means?

Why are you even arguing here?
This so called "zooming out" in video has nothing to do with your method of capturing long with manual memory....
Why are you triggering to something that has nothing to do with you?
OP didn't ask about that.

And you gave him very good way of measuring his problem, that I very much agreed with.
That needs no "zoom out" or even manual control of memory.

So what is the problem. Nobody called you out.

Mentioned  video is based on wrong data and should not be taken seriously.
If you think that manual control of memory is important for OP, than explain it and state your case. You have a lot of knowledge and I would rather OP gets your advice from real experience, than that clickbait video.
Even if we disagree on many things, opinion wise.
 

[Someone]

SOMEONE asked why I need that zoom function so I decided to recheck my RF sweep generator that I made a few years ago. That had some challenging waveforms. Surprisingly, the frequency steps are not measuring correctly or consistently so I have to figure out what's wrong, it's probably me. I've  tried to describe the waveform details at the end of this note, but it's probably better not to get sidetracked in those details.

Anyway, the purpose was to determine if a zoom out function would be useful. And so far I'm not sure. IOW, the off-screen capture in this case would probably not be large enough to be useful. Further, overall I'm starting to think the few times a zoom-out would be nice is not a big enough benefit to justify buying a different mfr's scope and having to learn it's operation and perhaps hit other shortcomings. If the zoom-out was a life-saver, I might thing differently, but now I don't think that's the case. I haven't reached a decision yet, but I'm leaning toward the subject Siglent scope.

BTW, the few times I needed support the vendor TEquipment was very helpful and even got answers from Siglent for me. Although I never tried to get answers directly from Siglent myself. And I have to say, the SDS1104x-e I have has been very satisfactory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waveform details: Basically I capture a 360khz wide, 27 step sweep with a 10.7mhz center frequency. The sweep takes about 1/2 second to complete the 27 steps. The 27 step marker pulses are on chan 3, with the RF on chan 1. The goal is to verify the frequency is correct at each of the 27 markers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, again, to all who contributed. Any further comments are welcome.
Frank

Do consider the other ways to capture that waveform as suggested above, and in relation to the diagram in the main thread on this topic (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-zoom-out-quirk/msg4484857/#msg4484857)
for your specific example of 500ms, the SDS800 with 50Mpts of memory allows for a sample rate of 100MS/s which might be enough to capture 10.7MHz cleanly. Depending on noise that may resolve the frequency accurately (easiest to just test, it won't be far off your current scope). Or you might find it better/quicker to use segmented capture as mentioned above to store only a short segment of each stable frequency after it has settled. Depends what you are looking at.

Rarely is capturing around the window ("zoom out") actually improving anything at all. You're still limited by the available memory either way. All it does is save a little bit of screen space by not showing the full data all the time.

THAT IS ALL IT DOES, people need to stop pretending like there is some magical unsaid benefit.

You've stepped into this bizarre exaggerated theatre of a topic, it is being pushed by some people who want attention/views and once again trigged the same old crap that comes up every single time. Plenty of misleading noise which only makes it more confusing.

[electr_peter]

On Siglent SDS800X HD there is no setting of time/div, memory size, etc. that results in possibility to zoom out, ever. Only visible screen width is captured (that can be zoomed in with long up to 50 or 100M memory) and that's it. Screen edges will be always be blank if you try to zoom out. EDIT: not all Siglent models behave this way, on some you can set fixed memory depth to capture beyond display.

On Keysight InfiniVision scopes, there are specific conditions under which zoom out is possible - fast time base at max or max/2 sample rate, screen width that does not fully fill available memory and pressing STOP/SINGLE with new trigger event. Then there is data beyond screen edges which you can zoom out and analyze in any way you like. In all other conditions zoom out is not possible, only screen width is captured (including RUN mode at fast timebases). Of course, you can zoom in as well in any mode.

Is zoom out useful? Definitely, it allows quicker understanding of signal behavior at fast time base (main focus) and at slower time base without re-capturing again. With Siglent scopes (models having no fixed memory setting), you would have to set slower timebase, capture again and zoom in - more steps and effort (not much, but still). It is kinda frustrating that Siglent scopes (models having no fixed memory setting) at fast time bases record only measly few hundred or k points on screen in STOP/SINGLE mode (with massive 50-100M in reserve) and you should be somehow happy about it -  that leaves you blind in some cases.
Is zoom out used much? In my case, sometimes. I do not really on it much, but it speedups analysis.
Is zoom out reverse of zoom in? No, it's a memory management thing mainly and usage/usefulness is a bit different than zoom in function.
Is zoom out critical to have? It is more of nice to have than must have. You can get around it with slower time base and zoom in instead, but I would prefer to have this feature in a scope.

IMO, confusion about zoom out stems from auto vs manual memory setup philosophy. Automatic memory management in Keysight scopes is very well implemented (with many "tricks" or "cheats") with no manual control given to the user and it covers >99% scope use cases (plus extra capabilities like zoom out). Some just do not like this in principle and instead prefer to have manual control to set acquisition parameters themselves (with a bit more effort and essentially the same results in the end, but with no extras like zoom out). As mentioned, zoom out capability may or may not be available in a specific timebase - this ambiguity is not liked by some.

EDIT: added clarification on Siglent models as they differ in memory management.

[Someone]

With Siglent, you would have to set slower timebase, capture again and zoom in - more steps and effort (not much, but still).

How many times does this need to be repeated?
You do not have to use that workflow, if you wish to navigate around a larger window then capture it in the first place using zoom (or whatever method you prefer). When stopped all the data is there and there is no need to recapture as you claim.

[frank2644]

Thanks, again for more good info.

I did manage to successfully confirm the marker frequencies of my sweep generator. I had impose the 20mhz bandwidth  limit and the frequency measurements became stable and correct. It was a slow process to measure each segment, but iI was able to do it. No doubt others here could have figured out a faster way.

More importantly, I don't think a zoom out capability would have helped. nctnico and 203055's recording method sounds good.

Thanks again,
Frank


 

[KungFuJosh]

20mhz bandwidth

To keep communication clear, please follow standard labeling. Hertz is Hz. Lowercase m is millihertz, uppercase M is Megahertz. That's a slightly large difference. 😉

[electr_peter]

With Siglent, you would have to set slower timebase, capture again and zoom in - more steps and effort (not much, but still).

How many times does this need to be repeated?

Full quote:

Is zoom out useful? Definitely, it allows quicker understanding of signal behavior at fast time base (main focus) and at slower time base without re-capturing again. With Siglent scopes (models having no fixed memory setting), you would have to set slower timebase, capture again and zoom in - more steps and effort (not much, but still).

How many times context of posts will be selectively ignored to discredit zoom out capability?

You do not have to use that workflow, if you wish to navigate around a larger window then capture it in the first place using zoom (or whatever method you prefer). When stopped all the data is there and there is no need to recapture as you claim.

Yeah, no need to recapture because you ignored first capture which was deemed too short/fast for some reason (how did you arrive to such conclusion without capturing, anyway?) and then recaptured on purposely slower time base. Oh, wait

Keysight can capture at fast timebase AND gets more memory (aka "zoom out") AND can do whatever analysis with this capture. OR it can capture at slower timebase and do whatever.
Siglent scopes (models having no fixed memory setting) can capture at fast timebase AND gets less memory thus FORCING you to recapture again in slower timebase if fast timebase capture memory if insufficient for analysis. Only after recapturing at slower timebase (which now gives adequate memory) you are free to do whatever.

Keysight memory management is more flexible at fast timebases (while having no downsides) compared to Siglent. On Siglent scopes (models having no fixed memory setting) you get less memory at fast timebases. On Siglent scopes (models having fixed memory setting) you get same or more memory at fast timebases, but at slower update rate.
Keysight scope gives more capture memory at fast timebases or is faster in RUN mode, obvious advantage. This fact does not change if some users do not appreciate/choose to ignore it.

Let's say you are in hypothetical T&M cafe drinking coffee. Waiter asks if you want anything else and you say: "Can I have a biscuit, please?"
If T&M cafe is run by Siglent (considering no fixed memory setting scope like SDS800HD), waiter responds: "Biscuit is not available to customers who have ordered coffee already. However, we will make biscuit if you order it with an additional coffee."
If T&M cafe is run by Keysight, waiter responds: "I will check if biscuit is available and get it for you. If not, we will make biscuit if you order it with an additional coffee."
Which cafe provides better service?
In this analogy exchange coffee to single capture and biscuit to memory beyond display limits and you will get the gist.

EDIT: added clarification on Siglent models as they differ in memory management.

[frank2644]

20mhz bandwidth

To keep communication clear, please follow standard labeling. Hertz is Hz. Lowercase m is millihertz, uppercase M is Megahertz. That's a slightly large difference. 😉

Thanks, I never knew that.

It's gonna be a challenge to remember that, I'm lucky to avoid using cps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_per_second#References

Frank (very old guy)

[Fungus]

]How many times does this need to be repeated?
You do not have to use that workflow

How many times does it need to be repeated that it's the most natural, logical, sensible workflow.

There is NO POSSIBLE EXCUSE for just taking seven samples at maximum zoom and nothing on either side.

Hence the quip about scissors. Given the wide availability of right-handed scissors, why would anybody force themselves to learn and use left-handed ones?

[2N3055]

]How many times does this need to be repeated?
You do not have to use that workflow

How many times does it need to be repeated that it's the most natural, logical, sensible workflow.

There is NO POSSIBLE EXCUSE for just taking seven samples at maximum zoom and nothing on either side.

Hence the quip about scissors. Given the wide availability of right-handed scissors, why would anybody force themselves to learn and use left-handed ones?

You can repeat false statement milion times, it is not going to be less false...

Logical to you means nothing. Logical based on what premises?
That you choose to ignore how instrument should be used?

And no, it is not sensibile workflow. It your chosen workflow.
And it makes no sense to me, for instance. Deliberately slowing down the scope all the time because I might need some more data because I twiddle the knobs randomly without thinking so basically I need all the data I can so maybe I stumble on something by sheer luck...

You want to be able to look around event that lasts 100 µs? Set time base to 10µs/div and fit it on the screen. Then choose which part you want to look into detail. That is for stopped event.

You want to look at the detail and whole picture at the same time? Set time base to 10µs/div and fit it on the screen. Then enable zoom and look at the detail while seeing overview of the whole event all the time for easy navigation.

That is simplest way of doing it. It guarantees that you will 100% be able to see what you need, and guarantees optimum work of the scope at all times.
That applies to Keysight and Rigol too.

Look, you can use scope any way you want . Even stupid way. Other people will do it their way.
If you can achieve result using your way and you are happy with process good for you.

[tautech]

With Siglent, you would have to set slower timebase, capture again and zoom in - more steps and effort (not much, but still).

How many times does this need to be repeated?

Full quote:

Is zoom out useful? Definitely, it allows quicker understanding of signal behavior at fast time base (main focus) and at slower time base without re-capturing again. With Siglent, you would have to set slower timebase, capture again and zoom in - more steps and effort (not much, but still).

How many times context of posts will be selectively ignored to discredit zoom out capability?

You do not have to use that workflow, if you wish to navigate around a larger window then capture it in the first place using zoom (or whatever method you prefer). When stopped all the data is there and there is no need to recapture as you claim.

Yeah, no need to recapture because you ignored first capture which was deemed too short/fast for some reason (how did you arrive to such conclusion without capturing, anyway?) and then recaptured on purposely slower time base. Oh, wait

Keysight can capture at fast timebase AND gets more memory (aka "zoom out") AND can do whatever analysis with this capture. OR it can capture at slower timebase and do whatever.
Siglent can capture at fast timebase AND gets less memory thus FORCING you to recapture again in slower timebase if fast timebase capture memory if insufficient for analysis. Only after recapturing at slower timebase (which now gives adequate memory) you are free to do whatever.

Keysight memory management is more flexible at fast timebases (while having no downsides) compared to Siglent. Scope gives more capture memory at fast timebases, obvious advantage. This fact does not change if some users do not appreciate/choose to ignore it.

Let's say you are in hypothetical T&M cafe drinking coffee. Waiter asks if you want anything else and you say: "Can I have a biscuit, please?"
If T&M cafe is run by Siglent, waiter responds: "Biscuit is not available to customers who have ordered coffee already. However, we will make biscuit if you order it with an additional coffee."
If T&M cafe is run by Keysight, waiter responds: "I will check if biscuit is available and get it for you. If not, we will make biscuit if you order it with an additional coffee."
Which cafe provides better service?
In this analogy exchange coffee to single capture and biscuit to memory beyond display limits and you will get the gist.

Peter, you name Siglent several times in your chapter about scope zoom use.

Respectfully I would like to inform you not all Siglent DSO's use the same zoom mechanisms and those with deep memory have a magnitude more zoom out than most on the market when set to do so.

However like 2N3055 mentions, there is a performance price to pay for this capability which is the reason why Siglent, LeCroy and others prefer not to capture off screen or employ tricks to do so.

[electr_peter]

Peter, you name Siglent several times in your chapter about scope zoom use.

Respectfully I would like to inform you not all Siglent DSO's use the same zoom mechanisms and those with deep memory have a magnitude more zoom out than most on the market when set to do so.

Fair point, I wrote with Siglent SDS800X HD model in mind (as in initial question of this topic) just not to repeat full name all the time. Some Siglent scopes can be set up to have "zoom out" behavior manually with fixed memory length setting (but slowing update rate). I will adjust post to mention this. EDIT: posts were updated

However like 2N3055 mentions, there is a performance price to pay for this capability which is the reason why Siglent, LeCroy and others prefer not to capture off screen or employ tricks to do so.

Sampling full memory all the time will slow down things, no doubt. I am familiar with Keysight memory tricks which allow both fast update in RUN mode and full memory in STOP/SINGLE mode with no downsides, which proves that auto memory management is better than manual in most cases. These points are mentioned in my posts above.

[Someone]

With Siglent, you would have to set slower timebase, capture again and zoom in - more steps and effort (not much, but still).

How many times does this need to be repeated?

Full quote:

Is zoom out useful? Definitely, it allows quicker understanding of signal behavior at fast time base (main focus) and at slower time base without re-capturing again. With Siglent scopes (models having no fixed memory setting), you would have to set slower timebase, capture again and zoom in - more steps and effort (not much, but still).

How many times context of posts will be selectively ignored to discredit zoom out capability?

You do not have to use that workflow, if you wish to navigate around a larger window then capture it in the first place using zoom (or whatever method you prefer). When stopped all the data is there and there is no need to recapture as you claim.

Yeah, no need to recapture because you ignored first capture which was deemed too short/fast for some reason (how did you arrive to such conclusion without capturing, anyway?) and then recaptured on purposely slower time base. Oh, wait

You are the one saying there is a certain number of ways to use a scope and listing them. Completely ignoring and avoiding the case of using zoom from the start:

User wants to capture a trace longer than what they are viewing on the screen (for whatever reason)
User sets their scope to capture that longer window, for "around screen" method they set a longer memory depth and adjust timebase for desired view, for zoom method they set the horizontal time base and then zoom in to the desired view
Now when the magic single capture arrives where they want to "zoom out"
"around screen" method adjusts horizontal timebase, zoom method adjusts zoom control

User did not need to recapture another trace/event/trigger. That is an imaginary problem that you invent and pretend like there is no possible way around it.

Pretty much the only difference between these is, "around screen" does not show the zoom window so the view is a little larger, zoom method has full control of where the wider capture is placed. They are barely different but we have people like you consistently adding confusion and noise and claiming there is no possible way to achieve anything like "zoom out" when that has been debunked and explained so many times it is getting silly. Differences are incredibly minor, thats all that needs to be said. Instead we seem to end up with this misdirection and shouting about "CANT ZOOM OUT" and people new to these products end up confused and mislead rather than informed and confident.

Keysight scope gives more capture memory at fast timebases or is faster in RUN mode, obvious advantage. This fact does not change if some users do not appreciate/choose to ignore it.

Expect it does NOT do that in run mode, only when you press stop and the trigger is periodic and another the trigger occurs in a brief moment after the user presses stop.

Which was explained several times in the linked mega thread on this topic. Why keep posting the same things which have been debunked and shown to be incorrect so many times before?

[Someone]

There is NO POSSIBLE EXCUSE for just taking seven samples at maximum zoom and nothing on either side.

Capturing data around the view is an important parameter which the user should be able to choose. Adding memory around the screen reduces the waveform update rate. The nonsense claims of zero downside are plainly false.

Why keep coming back with already debunked claims? Why would anyone trust your comments when these ones are so plainly lies?

edit* Here is the specific example of this specific point being explained in depth with examples and context, 4 years ago in the mega thread:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-zoom-out-quirk/msg3499730/#msg3499730

[Someone]

Look, you can use scope any way you want . Even stupid way. Other people will do it their way.
If you can achieve result using your way and you are happy with process good for you.

Yes, this is a big part of the fake argument. Continually pretending that other people wouldn't use features and capabilities available to them and not explaining why. Then turning it around and telling people there are only a limited number of ways to use a scope if you don't use my preferred method the other methods I describe have HUGE PROBLEMS.....    while failing to mention the comparable methods.

Same thing happens with the selective comparisons some users make between brands, picking some clearly poorly matched/suited example and ignoring/rejecting the more appropriate comparisons.

[thm_w]

Zoom is great but saying its optimal to use when you have a smaller 7" screen, sometimes its not. This is one trace, which is about the limit I'd want to go:

Capturing data around the view is an important parameter which the user should be able to choose. Adding memory around the screen reduces the waveform update rate. The nonsense claims of zero downside are plainly false.

So maybe an ideal would have two memory modes:
- Auto - Performance
- Auto - Capture area

[2N3055]

Zoom is great but saying its optimal to use when you have a smaller 7" screen, sometimes its not. This is one trace, which is about the limit I'd want to go:

Capturing data around the view is an important parameter which the user should be able to choose. Adding memory around the screen reduces the waveform update rate. The nonsense claims of zero downside are plainly false.

So maybe an ideal would have two memory modes:
- Auto - Performance
- Auto - Capture area

SDS800xHD has 2 memory modes: Auto and fixed sample rate.
Manual memory mode is reserved for higher models.

It is seriously inexpensive scope. With tons of capability. Can't have everything.

[tautech]

Zoom is great but saying its optimal to use when you have a smaller 7" screen, sometimes its not. This is one trace, which is about the limit I'd want to go:

Zoom this is but both Horizontal and Vertical Modes and very cool for an entry level DSO. 

[electr_peter]

@Someone, @tautech, I respectfully would like to ask to read my posts carefully. I do not claim at all that there is some best process of how to zoom in/out to view both long and short timebase events, it is up to the user entirely. All I say is that scopes with zoom out (or more precisely, memory beyond display) are more flexible in some circumstances than scopes without this feature. Especially Keysight implementation.

Yet my clear statements are ignored to push for "zoom in is better process anyway, so why care about zoom out benefits" agenda. This shifting of focus from case of "user looks at fast timebase as a MAIN focus and decides to look at slower timebase as a secondary check" to "user needs to capture slower timebase all the time and look for full details" is tiring. In former case, zoom out capability allows not to recapture again - this fact is conveniently ignored, I wonder why? Of course, user then can go to latter case (with MAIN focus on slower timebase) where zoom in can be used straight away.

That is an imaginary problem that you invent and pretend like there is no possible way around it.

That is your mental gymnastics to ignore the circumstances where "zoom out" allows more options. I do not say there is no way around it, please don't put words in my mouth.

Keysight scope gives more capture memory at fast timebases or is faster in RUN mode, obvious advantage. This fact does not change if some users do not appreciate/choose to ignore it.

Expect it does NOT do that in run mode, only when you press stop and the trigger is periodic and another the trigger occurs in a brief moment after the user presses stop.

Expect that it exactly what I am saying in quoted post (plus all explanation before which you selectively ignore). To clarify for you, "Keysight scope [gives more capture memory] at fast timebases OR [is faster in RUN mode], obvious advantage." Due to automatic memory management, in RUN mode Keysight is fast with short memory, but in STOP/SINGLE mode gives full memory. You cannot do both with Siglent without changing settings all the time.

Which was explained several times in the linked mega thread on this topic. Why keep posting the same things which have been debunked and shown to be incorrect so many times before?

I only stated facts which in no way were showed to be false or debunked. All I get is mental gymnastics to counter the facts and selective misquoting.
I do not claim there is some superior process of how to use scope. Some try to diminish Keysight scopes where they have slight advantage in auto memory management to improve look of Siglent scopes. Yes, advantage is there, it is small, but it is there which allows some extra flexibility. You don't have to change your process of using scope because of that.

[tautech]

@tautech, I respectfully would like to ask to read my posts carefully. I do not claim at all that there is some best process of how to zoom in/out to view both long and short timebase events, it is up to the user entirely. All I say is that scopes with zoom out (or more precisely, memory beyond display) are more flexible in some circumstances than scopes without this feature. Especially Keysight implementation.

Yet you keep ignoring my clear statements to push for your "zoom in is better process anyway, so why care about zoom out benefits" agenda. You simply shift goal post from case of "user looks at fast timebase as a MAIN focus and decides to look at slower timebase as a secondary check" to "user needs to capture slower timebase all the time and look for full details". In former case, zoom out capability allows not to recapture again - this fact is conveniently ignored, I wonder why? Of course, user then can go to latter case (with MAIN focus on slower timebase) where zoom in can be used straight away.

Zoom out is just one, repeat just one analysis process !

I much prefer thoughtful use of a DSO with emphasis on storage where at slow timebase settings provide the best advantage.
However, let's also not forget intelligent use of the trigger suite available, let alone the Search capability that can also be engaged in order to make the term look redundant !

Why engage the brain when the processing power in the modern DSO is far more powerful ? 

[electr_peter]

Why engage the brain when the processing power in the modern DSO is far more powerful ? 

Why put blinders on and mentally limit available options from scope suite?
Anyway, user chooses process that is most suitable for application at hand, I not arguing what one "should use".

[tautech]

Why engage the brain when the processing power in the modern DSO is far more powerful ? 

Why put blinders on and mentally limit available options from scope suite?
Anyway, user chooses process that is most suitable for application at hand, I not arguing what one "should use".

Nor am I.
A strong feature set is there to use not to ignore.

Okay, so you like the Keyshite way, I get that, so show us a $440 model with that capability ?

[2N3055]

Why engage the brain when the processing power in the modern DSO is far more powerful ? 

Why put blinders on and mentally limit available options from scope suite?
Anyway, user chooses process that is most suitable for application at hand, I not arguing what one "should use".

I agree. Let's not put blinders on.

So why are you ignoring that Keysight does not "capture outside the screen".

What you see on the screen is separate, later capture from separate trigger than the one that made you press Stop.
If you have repetitive signal, like clock or even some AWG waveform that may be complex but 100% repetitive and with stable well defined trigger, you won't know the difference.

Example 1. 
- Signal is single sine period burst repeating every 1 µs
- Normal trigger mode.
- Capture at 20ns/div.  (Image 1)
- Stop
- Change timebase (not zooming out, not using Zoom feature of 3000T) to 50µs/div.
- (Image2) We see scope actually captured cca. 40µs before and cca. 360µs after trigger.  It is 400µs total, balance before/after trigger is connected with where trigger point is.

Great. This i what you say you use and it is very useful to you.

Example 2.
- Signal is single sine period burst repeating every 500 ms
- Normal trigger mode.
- Capture at 20ns/div. (Image 1 as previously, nothing changed here)
- Stop
- Change timebase (not zooming out, not using Zoom feature of 3000T) to 100ns/div.
- (see Image 3) Wait, there are no samples outside the area defined by the screen at 20ns/div! There is only 200ns worth of data. Not 400µs.

How come?
Because scope DOES NOT capture outside the screen. Ever.

When you press stop it waits for next trigger event and captures some other, random part of waveform, uncorrelated to what was on the screen when you press Stop.
It performs following action, automatically and without warning to the user (pretending that it captures more data than it does):

- Once you press Stop, scope waits for another trigger. It can wait for as long as 200-250ms for it so that can be distance between two events.
- If there is a trigger within that timeout period, it will take one 400µs long (short?) single capture and then go to STOP state.
- If there is NO trigger within timeout period, it will simply show last captured trigger, but just screen bound 200ns

So you get something only on timebases faster than 20µs/div, you never get anything more than 400µs worth, and it some random capture up to 250ms away from where original screen was when you pressed stop.
That is not 1µs or 100µs, but a whooping quarter of a second...

So basically, to observe the neighborhood of some event of the screen, it as useful as simply changing timebase to whatever you want to look at while scope is still in the RUN mode and then STOP.
That is exactly what Keysight does, but automatically. I guess it is good if you cannot be bothered to change timebase then stop instead of just single lazy STOP.

But result is the same, you get some random uncorrelated time in signal when trigger activates. If that is OK for you because signal is monotonic and auto repetitive to such degree that it does not matter where you look, then what is the point of "looking around". It is all going to be the same. Perfect replica. Once you put whole period on screen, all others are the same.
If signal is highly agile, than Keysight is useless. Dangerous I may say. It will show you false data somewhere else than what you were looking at...
It is trick, and the scope lies to you. literally.

Also, by changing timebase, I can get ANY time period, not just puny 400µs.
Capturing long, using long memory to keep sample rate at maximum, is equivalent of 0 blind time for period captured. In the captured period nothing can hide.

Note, I have MSOX3104T for years now. I like it and think at the time it was really good scope. I know in detail how it works.
And for doing deep signal inspection of the type you are talking about I don't use it.

I use Siglent  or Picoscope. That are deep memory scope. You get long capture and STOP. Nothing can hide in there.

[nctnico]

Why engage the brain when the processing power in the modern DSO is far more powerful ? 

Why put blinders on and mentally limit available options from scope suite?
Anyway, user chooses process that is most suitable for application at hand, I not arguing what one "should use".

Indeed.   

The whole discussion reminds me of when I worked at the local chocolate factory for one day when I was a teenager. I had to pull bars of chocolate onto trays from a conveyer belt using an piece of aluminium. I had to reach out quite far so I used one hand to support myself and the other to rake in the chocolate so my back wouldn't hurt at the end of the day. Boss lady comes around and tells me to use two hands because god gave me two hands. FFS!    I guess she either never had to do this task herself or just wanted to check my ass when I bent over.

[2N3055]

Why engage the brain when the processing power in the modern DSO is far more powerful ? 

Why put blinders on and mentally limit available options from scope suite?
Anyway, user chooses process that is most suitable for application at hand, I not arguing what one "should use".

Indeed.   

The whole discussion reminds me of when I worked at the local chocolate factory for one day when I was a teenager. I had to pull bars of chocolate onto trays from a conveyer belt using an piece of aluminium. I had to reach out quite far so I used one hand to support myself and the other to rake in the chocolate so my back wouldn't hurt at the end of the day. Boss lady comes around and tells me to use two hands because god gave me two hands. FFS!    I guess she either never had to do this task herself or just wanted to check my ass when I bent over.

Read my previous post so you don't sound like that lady, talking smack about something you have no clue about.
Scope he uses has no "zoom out", not in sense you call it, not like RTM3000.

That is why I positively HATE that stupid "zoom out" phrase because it means different thing to different people.
And you keep interjecting your agenda to something unrelated, because you are trying to capitalize on something Dave made controversial by giving it undeserved infamy, but based on wrong facts.

Whether you like using manual memory mode is unrelated to fact that people keep using Keysight as an example of "zooming out" while it positively proven that scope is INCAPABLE of doing that.
It uses exactly the same strategy as Siglent, and captures only screen width.

Technically you can put 3000T in Digitizer mode and gain manual memory control.
If you ever can, try it. You will try it once and then never use it again. It is useless for general use.

[Someone]

@Someone, @tautech, I respectfully would like to ask to read my posts carefully.

If you wouldn't go back and aggressively edit them then you might have a leg to stand on. Correcting yourself and pretending like you were right all along.

[Fungus]

Yet my clear statements are ignored to push for "zoom in is better process anyway, so why care about zoom out benefits" agenda.

Welcome to EEVBLOG.

[Someone]

Zoom is great but saying its optimal to use when you have a smaller 7" screen, sometimes its not. This is one trace, which is about the limit I'd want to go:

[Image of zoom window taking up 1/3 of the screen]

Capturing data around the view is an important parameter which the user should be able to choose. Adding memory around the screen reduces the waveform update rate. The nonsense claims of zero downside are plainly false.

So maybe an ideal would have two memory modes:
- Auto - Performance
- Auto - Capture area

Yes, good points. It is entirely possible to have such civil discourse on the topic! More choices are always better but I'm not sure "auto - capture area" really addresses the need/demand/desires as there is still a sample rate vs capture period tradeoff which would be desirable to control.

I'd imagine the following acquisition menu items:
Memory Depth Max (numerical)
Sample Rate Max (numerical)
Capture Around Screen (yes/no)

and somewhere in the horizontal control/menu a control to change the ratio/position of the "capture around screen" forward/backwards

[newbrain]

I'm having a bit of déjà-vu...
I'll repeat myself, so you can enjoy that too.

This was in early June, and TBH, the more I use it, the more I find the use history or zoom on a longer timebase WoWs give me much better control than the old way - at least for my use cases, mostly looking at modulated signals, or, associated with advanced triggering, checking what happened before of after a specific event on some digital interface.

I recently sold my Rigol DS1054Z and got me a Siglent SDS804X-HD.
The first time I tried to "zoom out" (more precisely, increase the timebase) on a stopped capture I thought "Oh, nothing outside the screen, I'll set a larger memory".
Did that, and, as we know, no dice.
I RTFMed. Always on History mode - mind blown.

Literally 10 minutes after getting the scope, I adapted to the different WoW; now I would really reluctantly go back to the old one, if I had to renounce history and zoom mode versatility.
But to each their own - at least until facts are correctly explained.

[electr_peter]

Okay, so you like the Keyshite way, I get that, so show us a $440 model with that capability ?

Once again, you try to denigrate Keysight ideas. If other scope has some refined features that Siglent doesn't have, they automatically are not useful/worth the cost/redundant/etc. according to you, got it.

[electr_peter]

@2N3055, your explanation of how Keysight works is on point. However, you seem to go a bit further and imply that "proponents of zoom out" feature also suggest to incorporate it in analysis process which they do not. I am not in any way suggest you or anybody to use zoom out as a process (never had), just that in some cases this feature can be useful.

Why engage the brain when the processing power in the modern DSO is far more powerful ? 

Why put blinders on and mentally limit available options from scope suite?
Anyway, user chooses process that is most suitable for application at hand, I not arguing what one "should use".

I agree. Let's not put blinders on.
So why are you ignoring that Keysight does not "capture outside the screen".

Because it does in RUN/STOP mode under specific conditions as you described yourself (example 1). In example 2 it did try to capture outside display (as in example 2), but did not find valid trigger and reverted back to the last in display capture already in memory. Otherwise, it would have captured as in example 1.

What you see on the screen is separate, later capture from separate trigger than the one that made you press Stop.
...
When you press stop it waits for next trigger event and captures some other, random part of waveform, uncorrelated to what was on the screen when you press Stop.

Can you explain what do you expect scope to display when you press STOP? Because statement above is correct practically everytime when looking at signals in fasttime bases. With fast timebases and triggers 100s of times a second even pressing STOP button has all sorts of user/scope delays which results in something on the screen that may or may not be similar to what was on screen in RUN mode. With rare triggers it is a bit more clear what to expect to happen, but still anything can be shown depending on changes in signal.

If signal is jumping around all over the shop like crazy, separate snapshots in SINGLE/STOP mode will also jump around like crazy (and having 1 snapshot in such cases obviously is not enough). What else can scope do? I am really not sure what your angle here is 
Are you implying that more memory is better? Sure, but that is a separate thing.

So basically, to observe the neighborhood of some event of the screen, it as useful as simply changing timebase to whatever you want to look at while scope is still in the RUN mode and then STOP.
That is exactly what Keysight does, but automatically. I guess it is good if you cannot be bothered to change timebase then stop instead of just single lazy STOP.

Yes, it is equivalent. But it is improvement nonetheless compared to typical scope operation even if you think it is "lazy". Again, it is just a feature, but it is not an instruction how one should use a scope.

But result is the same, you get some random uncorrelated time in signal when trigger activates. If that is OK for you because signal is monotonic and auto repetitive to such degree that it does not matter where you look, then what is the point of "looking around". It is all going to be the same. Perfect replica. Once you put whole period on screen, all others are the same.
If signal is highly agile, than Keysight is useless. Dangerous I may say. It will show you false data somewhere else than what you were looking at...
It is trick, and the scope lies to you. literally.

Once again, I still don't understand your point. If signal is jumping around and you get single fixed capture, of course you can miss changing behavior. It is up to the user to get enough captures at proper times bases. STOP/SINGLE mode is just doing exactly what it says, there is no lying here. You can call Keysight way a trick, cunning plan or cheating, but it is not lying.
"you get some random uncorrelated time in signal when trigger activates" - this definition applies to all trigger captures as well, so

[2N3055]

Okay, so you like the Keyshite way, I get that, so show us a $440 model with that capability ?

Once again, you try to denigrate Keysight ideas. If other scope has some refined features that Siglent doesn't have, they automatically are not useful/worth the cost/redundant/etc. according to you, got it.

Keysight does NOT do what you claim it does.
After stopping, you DO NOT have insight into what was around event that was on screen when you pressed STOP.
It does not "zoom out". It takes separate, later capture, at some completely different time, and shows you what was around that later event.
It does that only on timebases less than 20µs/div and can show up to 400µs altogether. If you have MSO active, it is half of that.

Worst part is that people keep insisting it "zooms out". It does not. It simply does this: If you are at timebases of less than 20µs/div, it will keep capturing only screen width, trigger to trigger. If you then press stop, on it's own it will change timebase to equivalent of 40µ/div, wait for trigger and then take a separate Single capture and then Stop.
This is absolute functional equivalent to manually changing timebase to something else and pressing Stop.

Both ways you will get some random capture later. With exception that Keysight does that and pretend it to be something else. And you have one less step. But always only 400/200µs worth of data. While on other scopes with deep memory (which includes Keysights with deep memory, mind you) you can capture 100ms if you like.

Only way to guarantee that scope will capture definite time interval around some part of waveform is to deliberately instruct scope what, where and how much.
You can do that in two ways:
- By using Nico's method of setting manual memory length (on scopes that support it) by calculating times from combination of memory size and sample rate, and manually position screen to some detail inside that buffer. Then you do stop and by using time base and horizontal position you travel back and forth and inspect. CON is It requires mental math, but PRO, it makes good use of full screen for details.
- By using long timebase and zoom function. You setup long capture with timebase, set everything on screen, and then use zoom to travel back and forth. CON is zoom mode partitions screen and detail is not so large on screen. PRO is that setup is simple, intuitive and WISIWIG. You always have visual map of whole capture and your position where are you looking into detail.

And you are wrong. In this case it is Siglent (and LeCroy) that has sophisticated features. Like always running History mode, where you can see last 100s or 1000s triggers. With timestamp. With full analysis on each. With 4 maths channels with arbitrary formula input. And 20-125X more memory

On SDS300xHD, in history mode you can then go find one of the thousands, save that as a memory, create math channel that subtracts memory from current history capture and show you difference.

[2N3055]

@2N3055, your explanation of how Keysight works is on point. However, you seem to go a bit further and imply that "proponents of zoom out" feature also suggest to incorporate it in analysis process which they do not. I am not in any way suggest you or anybody to use zoom out as a process (never had), just that in some cases this feature can be useful.

Why engage the brain when the processing power in the modern DSO is far more powerful ? 

Why put blinders on and mentally limit available options from scope suite?
Anyway, user chooses process that is most suitable for application at hand, I not arguing what one "should use".

I agree. Let's not put blinders on.
So why are you ignoring that Keysight does not "capture outside the screen".

Because it does in RUN/STOP mode under specific conditions as you described yourself (example 1). In example 2 it did try to capture outside display (as in example 2), but did not find valid trigger and reverted back to the last in display capture already in memory. Otherwise, it would have captured as in example 1.

What you see on the screen is separate, later capture from separate trigger than the one that made you press Stop.
...
When you press stop it waits for next trigger event and captures some other, random part of waveform, uncorrelated to what was on the screen when you press Stop.

Can you explain what do you expect scope to display when you press STOP? Because statement above is correct practically everytime when looking at signals in fasttime bases. With fast timebases and triggers 100s of times a second even pressing STOP button has all sorts of user/scope delays which results in something on the screen that may or may not be similar to what was on screen in RUN mode. With rare triggers it is a bit more clear what to expect to happen, but still anything can be shown depending on changes in signal.

If signal is jumping around all over the shop like crazy, separate snapshots in SINGLE/STOP mode will also jump around like crazy (and having 1 snapshot in such cases obviously is not enough). What else can scope do? I am really not sure what your angle here is 
Are you implying that more memory is better? Sure, but that is a separate thing.

So basically, to observe the neighborhood of some event of the screen, it as useful as simply changing timebase to whatever you want to look at while scope is still in the RUN mode and then STOP.
That is exactly what Keysight does, but automatically. I guess it is good if you cannot be bothered to change timebase then stop instead of just single lazy STOP.

Yes, it is equivalent. But it is improvement nonetheless compared to typical scope operation even if you think it is "lazy". Again, it is just a feature, but it is not an instruction how one should use a scope.

But result is the same, you get some random uncorrelated time in signal when trigger activates. If that is OK for you because signal is monotonic and auto repetitive to such degree that it does not matter where you look, then what is the point of "looking around". It is all going to be the same. Perfect replica. Once you put whole period on screen, all others are the same.
If signal is highly agile, than Keysight is useless. Dangerous I may say. It will show you false data somewhere else than what you were looking at...
It is trick, and the scope lies to you. literally.

Once again, I still don't understand your point. If signal is jumping around and you get single fixed capture, of course you can miss changing behavior. It is up to the user to get enough captures at proper times bases. STOP/SINGLE mode is just doing exactly what it says, there is no lying here. You can call Keysight way a trick, cunning plan or cheating, but it is not lying.
"you get some random uncorrelated time in signal when trigger activates" - this definition applies to all trigger captures as well, so

It is simple. Only way to capture changing signal and be able to do it at least partially coherent is long memory. And that is actually not a separate issue.

Simply, you DON'T look at the signal at the fastest timebase if you want data around. On a scope with large memory you can keep fastest SAMPLE rate down to 10s of ms/div. All the details are there, same as if you were at 1 ns/div.
And use zoom mode to look at the detail. Or stop and traverse data with timebase and horizontal pos.

As you said yourself, any scope does the same if you do one more manual step. So yes it is simply a shortcut, a "lazy" way. Scopes that don't have that shortcut have same capability. It is used differently. But it is wrong to imply that by using Keysight you get something others cannot accomplish. Of course they can, by using different UI. Which on different scopes, UI and workflow differences are much greater than this detail.

[electr_peter]

Keysight does NOT do what you claim it does.
After stopping, you DO NOT have insight into what was around event that was on screen when you pressed STOP.
It does not "zoom out". It takes separate, later capture, at some completely different time, and shows you what was around that later event.

Keysight does what it claims. "last capture in RUN mode" is earlier in time than "capture in STOP mode" aspect is more or less true with all scopes in STOP mode. That may be different if scope captured everything with 0 blind time at max sample rate or have duplicated capture data path, but we are not there yet in normal scopes.
Which capture out of 1000s of traces in RUN mode does your scope STOP on? Are you really are sure which one exactly? With fast trigger events this is a pointless question. With slow trigger events it is more clear if you need this clarity.

Both ways you will get some random capture later. With exception that Keysight does that and pretend it to be something else. And you have one less step.

"random capture later" applies to all trigger captures. Also you have much faster waveform update rate while getting more memory in STOP mode.

And you are wrong. In this case it is Siglent (and LeCroy) that has sophisticated features.

I said refined features that Keysight has (and others do not have) which you did not prove wrong. Sure, modern Siglent/Lecroy are good scopes with many features and big memory, no wonder these are very popular considering cost.

As you said yourself, any scope does the same if you do one more manual step. So yes it is simply a shortcut, a "lazy" way. Scopes that don't have that shortcut have same capability. It is used differently. But it is wrong to imply that by using Keysight you get something others cannot accomplish. Of course they can, by using different UI.

Where did I say other scopes cannot accomplish something? Do you see a difference between a feature/shortcut (in a narrow sense) and ability to accomplish something (in a wider sense)? Keysight has useful feature (another way to accomplish something a bit faster) which others do not have.

I think I get it now - this Keysight "zoom out" bashing is covert criticism that Keysight InfiniVision memory is lacking compared to competition. Then just say it straight and not in these roundabout ways. "Zoom out" feature is alive and well (independent of memory size), it just has to face unfair criticism for some reason.

[2N3055]

I am not trying to disprove anything. I claim that YOU failed to prove that it is useful, sophisticated and indispensable.
It is not. It is a trick and gives you absolutely the same result as "change timebase-stop" on all other scopes.

"Zoom out" specifically means to be able to show data before and after the actual event on the screen.
Keysight implementation does not do that. It haven't got "zoom out". Period. It is misleading, QED.  There are thousands of people out that that wrongly think it does "zoom out" in definition from previous sentence. And that lie is being used by proponents of Keysight as "another proof of sophistication and advanced capabilities". While it is nothing more than snake oil.

If signal is very repetitive it doesn't matter. But then also you are not limited to anything. You simply stay in RUN mode and change timebase at will.
It is all the same.
If signal is some changing pattern, then it is also all the same to do these steps:

20ns/div -> change timebase -> STOP

gives result equivalent to

20ns/div -> STOP -> change timebase.

With both you will end up with some random part of sequence in the memory of the scope.. They both have same number of steps. Except that first one will let you extend to more time than 400µs worth of data.

At this moment I can see that you understand how it works but despite being shown the details, you refuse to accept there is more to it than you think.
Since it is not my intention to "convert" you or make you change your mind. You do you. If you are happy so am I.
My concern is only that all people involved into discussion understand exactly what actually is going on,
I think all was explained in sufficient detail, so I have nothing more to add.

[electr_peter]

I am not trying to disprove anything. I claim that YOU failed to prove that it is useful, sophisticated and indispensable.

It was showed multiple times to be useful (in some circumstances) and more sophisticated. It is not my problem that nuances are not recognized (on purpose?) by some. To every factual claim you get misdirection, misquoting, willful ignorance, mental gymnastics, term redefinitions which somehow proves zoom out is wrong. Oh, well

At this moment I can see that you understand how it works but despite being shown the details, you refuse to accept there is more to it than you think.
Since it is not my intention to "convert" you or make you change your mind. You do you. If you are happy so am I.
My concern is only that all people involved into discussion understand exactly what actually is going on,
I think all was explained in sufficient detail, so I have nothing more to add.

I can concur to every statement above in other direction Some are just willfully blind.

[Fungus]

Nobody's saying it can't be done the Siglent way, but it's not a natural workflow.

Nobody works zoomed out because you can't see anything, we all work zoomed in to see maximum detail of whatever we're looking at.

Siglent forces you to stop, zoom out, recapture, then go back in again to see if you managed to get what you wanted. Every. Single. Time.

There's no way that's generally better than just pressing "STOP" then zooming out.

Talk of "the 'scope is slower that way" is also greatly exaggerated.

[newbrain]

until facts are correctly explained

Siglent forces you to stop, zoom out, recapture, then go back in again to see if you managed to get what you wanted. Every. Single. Time.

First, I prefer to clearly say "increase/decrease timebase" rather than zoom out/in.
No, it does not (and if you think about it, it does not make sense).
If you know you have to recapture (and you have to, with Siglent/LeCroy), there's no point in stopping, just increase the timebase and stop later.
But that's not the way I do it.
You can set from the beginning a suitably long timebase and a zoom on the trigger area for details (or wherever you like).
You can stop when you like the composition and no one has their eyes closed, then you can zoom in and out (to the full capture extent) as much as you like.

Would I do differently on a "classical" scope? Probably not if I had the choice, yes if that was the only choice (as, in fact, it was for me).

The only real advantage of the "increase timebase after stop" is if I notice something (in the limited viewport of the screen) and my reflexes are fast enough to stop the capture before the next retrigger - otherwise it's just a shot in the dark (and BTW, with the Keysight trick one is SOL by design in this case).

[nctnico]

until facts are correctly explained

Siglent forces you to stop, zoom out, recapture, then go back in again to see if you managed to get what you wanted. Every. Single. Time.

First, I prefer to clearly say "increase/decrease timebase" rather than zoom out/in.
No, it does not (and if you think about it, it does not make sense).
If you know you have to recapture (and you have to, with Siglent/LeCroy), there's no point in stopping, just increase the timebase and stop later.

The thing is that if you need to go back & forth a lot between horizontal positions and timebase, being able to zoom in/out horizontally / scroll left/right after making an acquisition is just easier for people as it saves a lot of fiddling with buttons and thinking about what settings are needed exactly. When dealing with a complicated problem / circuit, the last thing you need is test equipment being more complicated to operate than necessary. You have to be carefull not to confuse your personal preference with what other people like to do. Also keep in mind that your projects / workflow may be entirely different so capturing beyond the screen is not useful for you. But that doesn't mean capturing beyond the screen is useless for everyone!

[KungFuJosh]

The thing is that if you need to go back & forth a lot between horizontal positions and timebase, being able to zoom in/out horizontally / scroll left/right after making an acquisition is just easier for people as it saves a lot of fiddling with buttons and thinking about what settings are needed exactly. When dealing with a complicated problem / circuit, the last thing you need is test equipment being more complicated to operate than necessary. You have to be carefull not to confuse your personal preference with what other people like to do. Also keep in mind that your projects / workflow may be entirely different so capturing beyond the screen is not useful for you. But that doesn't mean capturing beyond the screen is useless for everyone!

These are touchscreen scopes, you can touch the screen to change positions, and then use the knobs if you need more accuracy. It's not that much fiddling these days.

Personally, I think the whole argument is silly. If you need to capture more than what's on screen, expand what's on screen. 🤷

[nctnico]

The thing is that if you need to go back & forth a lot between horizontal positions and timebase, being able to zoom in/out horizontally / scroll left/right after making an acquisition is just easier for people as it saves a lot of fiddling with buttons and thinking about what settings are needed exactly. When dealing with a complicated problem / circuit, the last thing you need is test equipment being more complicated to operate than necessary. You have to be carefull not to confuse your personal preference with what other people like to do. Also keep in mind that your projects / workflow may be entirely different so capturing beyond the screen is not useful for you. But that doesn't mean capturing beyond the screen is useless for everyone!

These are touchscreen scopes, you can touch the screen to change positions, and then use the knobs if you need more accuracy. It's not that much fiddling these days.

The point still is that it is easier to have excess data (without having to do anything at all) versus needing extra data which isn't there. Better safe than sorry. It really is simple as that.  Having a touchscreen or not makes no difference. I don't get why people insist on wanting to take something away as if their personal preference is the golden rule.  Re-read and understand the post I wrote about left & right handed tools earlier on in this thread. There is nothing more to it but some seem to get religiously fanatic about being right.

[Someone]

Nobody's saying it can't be done the Siglent way, but it's not a natural workflow.

Nobody works zoomed out because you can't see anything, we all work zoomed in to see maximum detail of whatever we're looking at.

Siglent forces you to stop, zoom out, recapture, then go back in again to see if you managed to get what you wanted. Every. Single. Time.

Why keep bringing up this straw man argument? 

If a user is knowingly wanting to capture something outside the screen to look at later then they would set that mode regardless if they were using "capture around screen" or "zoom window". No need/obligation/requirement to capture again.

Next you'll be telling us waveform update rates don't matter because the LCD screen only updates at 60Hz.....

[Someone]

The thing is that if you need to go back & forth a lot between horizontal positions and timebase, being able to zoom in/out horizontally / scroll left/right after making an acquisition is just easier for people as it saves a lot of fiddling with buttons and thinking about what settings are needed exactly. When dealing with a complicated problem / circuit, the last thing you need is test equipment being more complicated to operate than necessary. You have to be carefull not to confuse your personal preference with what other people like to do. Also keep in mind that your projects / workflow may be entirely different so capturing beyond the screen is not useful for you. But that doesn't mean capturing beyond the screen is useless for everyone!

These are touchscreen scopes, you can touch the screen to change positions, and then use the knobs if you need more accuracy. It's not that much fiddling these days.

The point still is that it is easier to have excess data (without having to do anything at all) versus needing extra data which isn't there. Better safe than sorry. It really is simple as that.  Having a touchscreen or not makes no difference. I don't get why people insist on wanting to take something away as if their personal preference is the golden rule.  Re-read and understand the post I wrote about left & right handed tools earlier on in this thread. There is nothing more to it but some seem to get religiously fanatic about being right.

Fanatic? like you always leaving out the reasons and explanation, and pretending like no alternatives exist? Just to create the same fake argument which has been debunked over and over?

To claim that more button presses are needed is up to you to prove. Most scopes are multiplexing the zoom and horizontal controls so they are actually doing exactly the same thing with the same number of adjustments either way "capture around window" or "operate zoomed in". It is not taking something away, it is also adding (which you always dismiss/ignore).

Method	Change Timebase	Change Zoom
View of Trigger	+ Maximized	- Reduced by as much as 1/2
Memory Depth	- Limited Steps	+ Highly granular
Capture Position	- Fixed	+ Freely Adjustable

All those items are model specific, so there is value in people discussing this politely and letting people know what the tradeoffs are for specific scope models (this thread title and opening post).

Equally using either of those methods will reduce the waveform update rate, which may be important to that particular user or not.

Making decisions on others behalf without understanding the specific needs and tradeoffs they are considering important is the backwards way to approach this and perpetuates this fake argument for yet another few years now.

[electr_peter]

Why keep bringing up this straw man argument? 

Who is using straw arguments here exactly? Let's burn some straws:

@2N3055's flawed argument - Keysight's "zoom out" should do miracles to get data around already captured on screen data in RUN mode (which in this context is not possible with normal scope). Additional capture around screen occurred later in STOP mode, thus no miracle occurred, thus "zoom out" is not useful. Q.E.D.

@Someone's flawed argument - user always knows best capture settings for each possible signal in advance and can do perfect capture on 1st try. It is not possible for user to select wrong settings, have doubts, second thoughts or additional insights in the process because all is known in advance. Thus no recapture is needed, ever. Thus "zoom out" has no value and can be ignored. Q.E.D.

Keysight's argument - user should get fast update rate in RUN mode because that's useful (extra memory beyond screen slows down things). User should get maximum memory in STOP mode, because that's logical and user would want that anyway (why limit the user?). So memory settings are reconfigured from RUN to STOP mode automatically. This gives fast update rate in RUN mode & max memory in STOP mode (which also allows zoom out if needed) & user is not limited & no recapture is needed (if user would want to look at data beyond screen).

Other scope brand's argument (like Siglent) - automatic modes are too confusing for users and/or too difficult to implement, so let's fix memory to the same size in RUN/STOP modes. User obviously knows in advance what memory settings to choose. It's user fault if scope is slow (too much memory in RUN mode) or there is no data beyond display (not enough memory in STOP mode). It's user responsibility to jump around like a jackrabbit and change settings for optimal performance in RUN/STOP modes.

@Someone, you would fit in with Siglent very nicely

[eTobey]

Just dropping my signature here. 

[Someone]

Why keep bringing up this straw man argument? 

Who is using straw arguments here exactly?

There are two straight out lies which are being raised here once again:
Claiming that if you don't blindly capture around the screen then you will have to capture again. Despite that you can capture the entire interesting data without having to capture around the screen.
Saying there is no downside to capturing around the screen. When it does have significant impacts to the trigger/capture system that might cause the user to miss triggers/information.

Repeatedly, over many years. Despite them being completely incorrect. How could its not be clear what I was calling a straw man?

@Someone's flawed argument - user always knows best capture settings for each possible signal in advance and can do perfect capture on 1st try. It is not possible for user to select wrong settings, have doubts, second thoughts or additional insights in the process because all is known in advance. Thus no recapture is needed, ever. Thus "zoom out" has no value and can be ignored. Q.E.D.

If a user has set their scope to capture around the screen then they have explicitly made that choice (and the downsides it brings), which could equally capture the exact same data by using a longer horizontal sweep. Either way the user had to choose what horizontal capture period they wanted.

The comparison is what those two capture methods trade off, how they compare.

Not some imaginary boogieman/strawman argument of but if you set the scope to capture a short period then you might miss something outside that period. Which applies to either method, the same strawman is equally valid to capturing around the window: what if you didn't set the memory long enough? you'd have to capture again!

2N3055's flawed argument - Keysight's "zoom out" should do miracles to get data around already captured on screen data in RUN mode (which in this context is not possible with normal scope). Additional capture around screen occurred later in STOP mode, thus no miracle occurred, thus "zoom out" is not useful.

As explained to you multiple times, the benefit of capturing a longer period with every trigger is different to the "bonus"/extra capture when pressing stop on some of the Keysight models. They are not identical or directly comparable/ The use case which motivated capturing around the screen was the end user seeing something of interest and wanting to see the rest of that specific capture around the screen, not some new capture (which is what is collected when pressing stop).

Keysight's argument - user should get fast update rate in RUN mode because that's useful (extra memory beyond screen slows down things). User should get maximum memory in STOP mode, because that's logical and user would want that anyway (why limit the user?). So memory settings are reconfigured from RUN to STOP mode automatically. This gives fast update rate in RUN mode & max memory in STOP mode (which also allows zoom out if needed) & user is not limited & no recapture is needed (if user would want to look at data beyond screen).

This is where you keep falling down, the additional capture when pressing stop only occurs if there is another trigger after the stop button is pressed. It makes the "recapture" for you, automatic, forced, no choice.

If the user wants to capture that larger period they can do so by setting the horizontal timebase to that at the start.

Other scope brand's argument (like Siglent) - automatic modes are too confusing for users and/or too difficult to implement, so let's fix memory to the same size in RUN/STOP modes. User obviously knows in advance what memory settings to choose. It's user fault if scope is slow (too much memory in RUN mode) or there is no data beyond display (not enough memory in STOP mode). It's user responsibility to jump around like a jackrabbit and change settings for optimal performance in RUN/STOP modes.

The Siglent scope in question (in the thread title) explains how it sets the memory depth very clearly, it is the horizontal view of the screen. There is no jumping around (or other emotive nonsense) or constantly adjusting things.

If the user wants to capture a particular horizontal period they set that before capturing. Regardless if that is by capturing around the screen, or capturing within the screen. You make the plainly false strawman argument that a user capturing around the screen somehow magically does not choose to do so.

So what should be a relatively simple explanation for this new user is now buried in your massive pile of noise.

So I'll repeat the strawman that you are desperately holding onto:
A user needs to select the period they want to capture before they can reliably capture it (the Keysight "bonus" capture on stop is not going to occur in all situations). Capturing around the screen that length/size/period would have to be set in advance, just the same as if it was set by having a longer horizontal sweep time.

Not different, not some unique benefit of capturing around the screen. Exactly the same.

[2N3055]

Who is using straw arguments here exactly? Let's burn some straws:

@2N3055's flawed argument - Keysight's "zoom out" should do miracles to get data around already captured on screen data in RUN mode (which in this context is not possible with normal scope). Additional capture around screen occurred later in STOP mode, thus no miracle occurred, thus "zoom out" is not useful. Q.E.D.

This is slander and complete lie. I never said that.
You are now lying and inventing what people said to prove you are right.

I said  Keysight memory management when going into stop is not doing what most people think it does.
And it is useless to "zoom out" from an event on screen because it will show something completely different at random time later after you press stop. And you agree with that. You said it does exactly the same. And that is equivalent to simply changing timebase before pressing STOP. Therefore it is nothing special which results cannot be reproduced by other scopes that don't do that. It is simply reversing an operation: instead of pressing stop and then changing the timebase, you change the timebase and press the stop. At that moment you will have exactly same result in a scope memory.

I have MSOX3104T. For many years now. I had it before I tried any Siglents. I did try LeCroys and have Picoscopes for decades now. None of them does what Keysight does and never I failed to accomplish the task because of that.
I don't use in on Keysight either..
So no matter how much it makes YOU happy that is not something  that should go into making a choice of a scope in any significant magnitude. There are other far more important features to chose Keysight, that one is not the one.

[electr_peter]

When did you enter a cult? Do you wear funny hats in meetings? The more you repeat same BS, there more it is obvious you are from a cult for everyone. It is not possible to reason with cult members, it will go over their heads, so this is for external reader benefit only.

Let's define "zoom out" variations properly for once as actual term usage keeps shifting around too much.

"Basic zoom out" - scope's ability to capture beyond screen width in STOP/SINGLE mode when memory length allows, so that user does not get only blank edges if timebase is increased after STOP/SINGLE. This is useful by itself and can be achieved with some scopes in default mode or custom memory setup (how exactly it is achieved is not that relevant). I think this was what Dave alluded mostly in his video.

Keysight's zoom out, aka "zoom out plus" - "basic zoom out" optimized for the max performance, more useful in general. In RUN mode only display is captured, in STOP/SINGLE mode scope captures max memory with new capture or reverts to the last short RUN capture. In other words, it is automatic memory management with idea that user would do the same, as it is logical. RUN mode -> set memory to screen width, thus faster update. STOP/SINGLE -> set memory to max, so more stuff is captured. Or go to wider screen and capture then, it is equivalent. Keysight does that automatically for user.

"zoom out ultra" - same as "zoom out plus", but the very last STOP/SINGLE capture is not new, but the very last short RUN capture, extended to max memory. Extended by miracle or very extensive parallel computation in data acquire path, which is simply not possible with normal scopes in this context.

"zoom out ultra" (which does not exist in normal scopes yet) is set as a benchmark to denigrate any benefits of "basic zoom out" and "zoom out plus", because these are not up to the impossibly high standard.
Nobody is claiming that "zoom out plus" let's achieve something that is not possible by other scopes. Of course not, "zoom out plus" is just clever rearrangement of basic memory length/trigger features (i.e. not magic) to get analysis faster, any scope can achieve equivalent result in other ways.

[electr_peter]

There are two straight out lies which are being raised here once again:
Claiming that if you don't blindly capture around the screen then you will have to capture again. Despite that you can capture the entire interesting data without having to capture around the screen.

You move around the issue.
If STOP capture was made and was deemed to be too short, then with "zoom out plus" you may not need to make a new capture. With other scopes you do, there is no way out of this situation. Keysight gives you more options, how is that worse?
If STOP capture was at long timebase, no recapture is needed. You can do that with all scopes. But how do you have such insight/luck to do long capture? There we go again with your strawman of "user knows what to capture in advance, thus no need to recapture".
If you call viewing signals in RUN mode capture (or not capture?), then there is no need to recapture(?), just change timebase. Confusing wording in this case.

Saying there is no downside to capturing around the screen. When it does have significant impacts to the trigger/capture system that might cause the user to miss triggers/information.

With "zoom out plus" there are no downsides, none, compared to regular scope approach with equivalent settings. What exactly is captured/not captured depends (as even fast scope has non-zero blind time in fast timebases), but "zoom out plus" is better/comparable (but not worse) in general. "zoom out ultra" would be even better, if it existed.

These so called "lies" fall apart as strawmans/misunderstandings.

As explained to you multiple times, the benefit of capturing a longer period with every trigger is different to the "bonus"/extra capture when pressing stop on some of the Keysight models. They are not identical or directly comparable

Nobody claims that they are exactly identical. Claim is that at similar timebase settings "zoom out plus" feature adds slight advantage over other scopes with no downsides. User can just ignore that and use the scope as it didn't have "zoom out plus" without any difference/downside.

The use case which motivated capturing around the screen was the end user seeing something of interest and wanting to see the rest of that specific capture around the screen, not some new capture (which is what is collected when pressing stop).

To stake all this discussion of such rare corner case and ignore general benefit is laughable. With regular scope you are 100% SOL in this situation. With "basic zoom out" and "zoom out plus" you have very slim chance if anomaly repeats more than once or is longer in duration. With "zoom out ultra" your chances may be better, but that requires miracle functionality. On top of the fact that you somehow managed to stop acquisition at the right time in nanosecond-microsecond ranges of some random signal. Consider yourself lucky. Rethinking of approach is required on case by case basis, "zoom out" is not a magic panacea for all corner cases.

[electr_peter]

Who is using straw arguments here exactly? Let's burn some straws:

@2N3055's flawed argument - Keysight's "zoom out" should do miracles to get data around already captured on screen data in RUN mode (which in this context is not possible with normal scope). Additional capture around screen occurred later in STOP mode, thus no miracle occurred, thus "zoom out" is not useful. Q.E.D.

This is slander and complete lie. I never said that.
You are now lying and inventing what people said to prove you are right.
I said  Keysight memory management when going into stop is not doing what most people think it does.

Keysight does NOT do what you claim it does.
After stopping, you DO NOT have insight into what was around event that was on screen when you pressed STOP.
It does not "zoom out". It takes separate, later capture, at some completely different time, and shows you what was around that later event.

Both ways you will get some random capture later.

It is a trick and gives you absolutely the same result as "change timebase-stop" on all other scopes.
"Zoom out" specifically means to be able to show data before and after the actual event on the screen.
Keysight implementation does not do that. It haven't got "zoom out". Period. It is misleading, QED.

You imply multiple times that Keysight should work in "zoom out ultra" mode (as if it was advertised/guaranteed to do that, where?) but actually works in "zoom out plus" mode which is a trick/not "zoom out"/cheat/misrepresentation/lie and not even useful according to you. You always mention "capture later" thing as an extreme disadvantage. "zoom out plus" version specifics and benefits are very clear, that is exactly what Keysight does and says it should do. Yet you keep claiming otherwise.

You know much better than me that normal scope would be a molten puddle of gold (in terms of calculation power and cost) to be able to pull of "zoom out ultra" functionality. Which only differs from "zoom out plus" in corner cases, but at massive extra cost. And even if scope could do this, this zoom out thing would be on the very last page of new features, anyway.

You obviously agree there is "zoom out plus" functionality. If you say you don't use it much and or see much value in it, fine, I never had problem with this. But if you say it has no benefit at all in principle, you are blind.
Other function suite is mostly orthogonal to "zoom out plus", you can have one, other or both at the same time. But please don't spread BS as such feature has obvious value in some circumstances for other users.

[Someone]

There are two straight out lies which are being raised here once again:
Claiming that if you don't blindly capture around the screen then you will have to capture again. Despite that you can capture the entire interesting data without having to capture around the screen.

You move around the issue.
If STOP capture was made and was deemed to be too short, then with "zoom out plus" you may not need to make a new capture. With other scopes you do, there is no way out of this situation.

You can keep saying there is no possible way to achieve the same result, and we'll keep saying it is trivial.

a) Set the horizontal time base to the period you want to have captured. If you want a narrower/magnified view on the screen enable the zoom.
b) Same resulting capture as capturing around the screen (assuming they are set to the same memory depth).
c) Same resulting capture as the bonus capture some keysight models make when pressing stop (assuming they are set to the same memory depth).

If instead you have now moved the goalposts and are going to claim that this is all about the bonus (unreliable) Keysight capture on stop, then you need to say that upfront. Notice how I was not talking about c) but the comparison of a) and b).

@Someone's flawed argument - user always knows best capture settings for each possible signal in advance and can do perfect capture on 1st try. It is not possible for user to select wrong settings, have doubts, second thoughts or additional insights in the process because all is known in advance. Thus no recapture is needed, ever. Thus "zoom out" has no value and can be ignored. Q.E.D.

If a user has set their scope to capture around the screen then they have explicitly made that choice (and the downsides it brings), which could equally capture the exact same data by using a longer horizontal sweep. Either way the user had to choose what horizontal capture period they wanted.

The comparison is what those two capture methods trade off, how they compare.

The Keysight bonus capture on stop, only captures repeating triggers that occur in a tiny window of time after the user presses stop. It is not a general solution for users wanting to capture data around a (low repetition) trigger in run mode.

[electr_peter]

There are two straight out lies which are being raised here once again:
Claiming that if you don't blindly capture around the screen then you will have to capture again. Despite that you can capture the entire interesting data without having to capture around the screen.

You move around the issue.
If STOP capture was made and was deemed to be too short, then with "zoom out plus" you may not need to make a new capture. With other scopes you do, there is no way out of this situation.

You can keep saying there is no possible way to achieve the same result, and we'll keep saying it is trivial.

You are miss-reading my post and giving completely different meaning. I do not say anywhere that the is no alternative ways to achieve the same result (which should be even more clear if you read my post context with several following sentences which you didn't quote here).
I said that in specific circumstances without "zoom out" scope user is more limited than otherwise. Please read this conditional statement with clarifying comments carefully:

If[conditional] STOP [all capturing stopped] capture was made and was deemed to be too short [[1us display] only], then with "zoom out plus" you may not need to make a new capture [because there is memory beyond [1us display] and by increasing timebase you can see [100us display]]. With other scopes you do [need to enable RUN/SINGLE again and make new capture with longer timebase], there is no way out of this situation [other than new capture, because you cannot expand current [1us dislay]].

This is the main benefit. Also, if STOP happened to capture the very last occurrence of anomaly, you are SOL without "zoom out plus" (anomaly will not repeat, so you are stuck with limited [1us display] instead of full memory).

...the bonus (unreliable) Keysight capture on stop...

Keysight feature is not unreliable, that is not what the word "unreliable" means. On scope it works according to the same logic every time. Signal and trigger conditions affect final result, but that is not "unreliable". If scope BSOD'ed or showed different results for the same conditions, that would be unreliable.

The Keysight bonus capture on stop, only captures repeating triggers that occur in a tiny window of time after the user presses stop. It is not a general solution for users wanting to capture data around a (low repetition) trigger in run mode.

In such case user can press SINGLE, then scope will wait as long as needed to trigger and get full memory capture. Immediate benefit. Other ways to adjust scope settings are available, it is up to the user to find adequate setting.
Also, "zoom out plus" is not a general solution, nobody claims that. Primarily because word "solution" is not equal in meaning to "functionality". It is a bonus (your words) or a refined feature.

You seem to assign alternative meanings to words "if", "achieve", "(re)capture", "solution", "unreliable" and miss-read clear statements to give them opposite meaning. Considering your username I feel like a character in the legendary sketch "Who’s on First?" — Abbott and Costello
Maybe this leads to unfounded and incorrect assumption that Keysight functions in "zoom out ultra" mode (that would be super nice, BTW). "zoom out plus" is implemented as advertised and is a bonus nevertheless.

[KungFuJosh]

4 guys from different countries including Lithuania, Croatia, Australia, and the Netherlands walk into a forum and argue semantics in English... 

[2N3055]

 

4 guys from different countries including Lithuania, Croatia, Australia, and the Netherlands walk into a forum and argue semantics in English... 

[electr_peter]

I should really get heavy machinery operator license to use excavator instead of shovel to dig through thick layers of BS. Readers can make conclusion for themselves as a HW exercise.

There is so much both educational and entertaining material on scope technology, semantics and other relevant topics on this forum - where else would one find such a broad scope (pun intended)?

[tautech]

I should really get heavy machinery operator license to use excavator instead of shovel to dig through thick layers of BS. Readers can make conclusion for themselves as a HW exercise.

There is so much both educational and entertaining material on scope technology, semantics and other relevant topics on this forum - where else would one find such a broad scope (pun intended)?

One might suggest such investment is better spent on visionary aids.

[electr_peter]

I should really get heavy machinery operator license to use excavator instead of shovel to dig through thick layers of BS. Readers can make conclusion for themselves as a HW exercise.

There is so much both educational and entertaining material on scope technology, semantics and other relevant topics on this forum - where else would one find such a broad scope (pun intended)?

One might suggest such investment is better spent on visionary aids.

Don't forget reading aids

[Someone]

...the bonus (unreliable) Keysight capture on stop...

Keysight feature is not unreliable, that is not what the word "unreliable" means. On scope it works according to the same logic every time. Signal and trigger conditions affect final result, but that is not "unreliable". If scope BSOD'ed or showed different results for the same conditions, that would be unreliable.

If it is reliable and follows the same logic, where is this logic documented or explained? The time period that it will make the bonus capture is very small, and it relies on more triggers arriving. Same as your next "solution" you proposed. And this is only some Keysight scopes, can you name which ones do and which ones dont? I only know 3 models which do and several models which dont and am unaware of any list or clear documentation.

There are two straight out lies which are being raised here once again:
Claiming that if you don't blindly capture around the screen then you will have to capture again. Despite that you can capture the entire interesting data without having to capture around the screen.

You move around the issue.
If STOP capture was made and was deemed to be too short, then with "zoom out plus" you may not need to make a new capture. With other scopes you do, there is no way out of this situation.

You can keep saying there is no possible way to achieve the same result, and we'll keep saying it is trivial.

You are miss-reading my post and giving completely different meaning. I do not say anywhere that the is no alternative ways to achieve the same result (which should be even more clear if you read my post context with several following sentences which you didn't quote here).
I said that in specific circumstances without "zoom out" scope user is more limited than otherwise. Please read this conditional statement with clarifying comments carefully:

You added the context later and are trying to drive the conversion to one single point that is not explained or motivated, still you add more noise than explanation. Also cutting out of your quote where I separate the ideas so people can discuss it without all the confusion or the new terms you decided to "define" with bold.

a) Set the horizontal time base to the period you want to have captured. If you want a narrower/magnified view on the screen enable the zoom.
b) Same resulting capture as capturing around the screen (assuming they are set to the same memory depth).
c) Same resulting capture as the bonus capture some keysight models make when pressing stop (assuming they are set to the same memory depth).

Right now you seem stuck on c) which is ok, just say it clearly that you think the Keysight additional (possible) capture on stop is a way you think people should consider. I argue since it is undocumented and only works in narrow circumstances it is poorly comparable to a) or b) which will reliably capture a longer period around a trigger.

[electr_peter]

Descriptions are in user guides, app notes, etc. (i.e. spread in parts all over the place). To be honest, no feature of a scope is described in detailed enough way (due to many reasons) to satisfy your needs or level of this thread. If you want all the details, do research yourself.

Official list of "zoom out" scopes doesn't exist. To my knowledge, "zoom out" is available on all Keysight InfiniVision models (X1/2/3/4/6k), the new HD3 and likely all older models with MegaZoom chip (including older ones from 1990s). Other Keysight series most likely not. Some say Rigol models also have "zoom out".

You don't fully understand "zoom out" function, thus are not keen on using it. That's is fine with me. Not going to argue various quote misrepresentations.

[nctnico]

Descriptions are in user guides, app notes, etc. (i.e. spread in parts all over the place). To be honest, no feature of a scope is described in detailed enough way (due to many reasons) to satisfy your needs or level of this thread. If you want all the details, do research yourself.

Official list of "zoom out" scopes doesn't exist. To my knowledge, "zoom out" is available on all Keysight InfiniVision models (X1/2/3/4/6k), the new HD3 and likely all older models with MegaZoom chip (including older ones from 1990s). Other Keysight series most likely not. Some say Rigol models also have "zoom out".

Having had quite a few DSOs from various brands through my hands over the past decades, I can say that all DSOs made by mainstream brands except for true Lecroy models (not the rebadges from Iwatsu) and some older Siglent models, can zoom out (capture beyond the screen if memory length permits). IOW it would be an extreme rarity to find a DSO which can't zoom out as it is as standard like having a voltage meter on a bench power supply. This has been explained in great detail and length in a previous thread which seemed to have been 'forgotten' by some. So it is better to create a list with DSOs which can't zoom out. It will be pretty short.

[Someone]

Descriptions are in user guides, app notes, etc.

If the documentation does exist are and you like the Keysight bonus capture when pressing stop, then why cant you point to the documentation of it?

Actual serious question. I have made efforts to find such documentation and failed. Here is your chance to show how I'm not good at finding information and you are better at it. Share this secret knowledge for the benefit of everyone.

[Someone]

Descriptions are in user guides, app notes, etc. (i.e. spread in parts all over the place). To be honest, no feature of a scope is described in detailed enough way (due to many reasons) to satisfy your needs or level of this thread. If you want all the details, do research yourself.

Official list of "zoom out" scopes doesn't exist. To my knowledge, "zoom out" is available on all Keysight InfiniVision models (X1/2/3/4/6k), the new HD3 and likely all older models with MegaZoom chip (including older ones from 1990s). Other Keysight series most likely not. Some say Rigol models also have "zoom out".

Having had quite a few DSOs from various brands through my hands over the past decades, I can say that all DSOs made by mainstream brands except for true Lecroy models (not the rebadges from Iwatsu) and some older Siglent models, can zoom out (capture beyond the screen if memory length permits). IOW it would be an extreme rarity to find a DSO which can't zoom out as it is as standard like having a voltage meter on a bench power supply. This has been explained in great detail and length in a previous thread which seemed to have been 'forgotten' by some. So it is better to create a list with DSOs which can't zoom out. It will be pretty short.

Your own words on this from the mega thread that people seem to refuse to read/remember:

Again (4th time I'm explaining this): Keysight has changed the behaviour on the more modern models!

So no, not all scopes from all brands other than Lecroy and Siglent. Also some scopes from Keysight.

You might argue some of those Keysight models dont zoom out (fair enough if we use your consistent definition of zoom out) and simultaneously electr_peter is claiming they do the best zoom out ever.

Alternative method you both seem to get defensive about: pretty much all scopes (including the ones you separate out) can achieve a comparable result by zooming in before capturing.

Anyone trying to clearly explain this gets dumped on with the pile of noise and fake argument rather than polite discourse.

[awakephd]

SDS800xHD has 2 memory modes: Auto and fixed sample rate.

I have no dog in this fight, but did want to "zoom in" on the above comment. (Yes, dreadful pun, but I can't truly say I'm sorry!)

I am still learning my way around the SDS800X HD - enjoying the scope very much, and finding it to have capabilities comparable to the Keysights in the lab at the university where I teach (I don't teach in the engineering school, but I'm sitting in on an EE course) - so always interested when I see something I haven't yet noticed or understood in its capabilities. I confess I am still working my way through the manual ... slowly ... and through the massive performance and review thread that was referenced above ... slowly ... so likely the answer is there.

But if anyone would like to give me a quick hint or reminder - where can I select between the auto and fixed sample rate, and when would I want to?

[Someone]

But if anyone would like to give me a quick hint or reminder - where can I select between the auto and fixed sample rate, and when would I want to?

It is similar/related to setting the memory depth manually. For some captures you intentionally want fewer sample points, a common case is when offloading for later analysis. The scope can use its fast acquisition hardware to reduce the data to a suitable sample rate so that other systems downstream can operate faster.

You could also use it to manipulate the waveform update rate if that is something you care about.

[awakephd]

Thanks for the quick response! I had to chuckle - I asked if "anyone" would be willing to give me a hint ... and I got "Someone"!

[electr_peter]

Share this secret knowledge for the benefit of everyone.

Keysight documentation is not up to your standard of details (w.r.t. zoom out question) because is in pieces over multiple sources, dosed in MegaZoom marketing, etc. I am not going to do research for you to miss-interpret it. There is more than enough info in this thread.

Alternative method you both seem to get defensive about: pretty much all scopes (including the ones you separate out) can achieve a comparable result by zooming in before capturing.

You constantly move focus in other direction rather than focus on the topic matter for once. Due to interruptions you don't see the point straight.

[electr_peter]

Descriptions are in user guides, app notes, etc. (i.e. spread in parts all over the place). To be honest, no feature of a scope is described in detailed enough way (due to many reasons) to satisfy your needs or level of this thread. If you want all the details, do research yourself.

Official list of "zoom out" scopes doesn't exist. To my knowledge, "zoom out" is available on all Keysight InfiniVision models (X1/2/3/4/6k), the new HD3 and likely all older models with MegaZoom chip (including older ones from 1990s). Other Keysight series most likely not. Some say Rigol models also have "zoom out".

Having had quite a few DSOs from various brands through my hands over the past decades, I can say that all DSOs made by mainstream brands except for true Lecroy models (not the rebadges from Iwatsu) and some older Siglent models, can zoom out (capture beyond the screen if memory length permits). IOW it would be an extreme rarity to find a DSO which can't zoom out as it is as standard like having a voltage meter on a bench power supply. This has been explained in great detail and length in a previous thread which seemed to have been 'forgotten' by some. So it is better to create a list with DSOs which can't zoom out. It will be pretty short.

"zoom out" has few flavors (described here). Many scopes have "zoom out basic" by setting (in auto or manual selection) memory size to capture beyond display. For scope to not even have "zoom out basic" is mind-boggling (for example, Siglent SDS800X HD and SDS1000X HD(?)). "zoom out plus" is a refinement for max performance (found only in MegaZoom scopes AFAIK).

[electr_peter]

But if anyone would like to give me a quick hint or reminder - where can I select between the auto and fixed sample rate, and when would I want to?

It is similar/related to setting the memory depth manually. For some captures you intentionally want fewer sample points, a common case is when offloading for later analysis. The scope can use its fast acquisition hardware to reduce the data to a suitable sample rate so that other systems downstream can operate faster.

You could also use it to manipulate the waveform update rate if that is something you care about.

With Siglent SDS800X HD, press front panel button Acquire -> Memory Management settings -> [Auto] OR [Fixed Sample Rate]. [Auto] is for general use. Max Mem Depth value only matters for slow timebases - to get more data (at high sample rate) OR to speed scope (as low sample rate). [Fixed Sample Rate] is the same thing from a different angle, allowing to set sample rate directly for specific uses.

Always check bottom right corner for actual sample rate & memory status.

[Someone]

Alternative method you both seem to get defensive about: pretty much all scopes (including the ones you separate out) can achieve a comparable result by zooming in before capturing.

You constantly move focus in other direction rather than focus on the topic matter for once. Due to interruptions you don't see the point straight.

ha ha ha, OP literally asked if zoom out was some feature they would miss. How is suggesting an almost identical alternative moving the focus?

The OP repeated the misleading statement that:

Sure there are workarounds, like recapturing using a longer sweep rate, but I have found that annoying over the years.

Which is untrue, as a scope which cannot "zoom out" does not imply/mandate that the user must recapture. It is about setting the scope to capture what you want in advance. Same is true of any of the methods other than the bonus (undocumented, unreliable) feature which some Keysight models have.

[Someone]

Thanks for the quick response! I had to chuckle - I asked if "anyone" would be willing to give me a hint ... and I got "Someone"!

Brings a chuckle to me all the time too

[electr_peter]

OP literally asked if zoom out was some feature they would miss. How is suggesting an almost identical alternative moving the focus?

OP may miss feature in specific conditions. Mentioning similar (in general case) features (which are not equivalent in specific conditions) doesn't address the question properly. Saying to go around the problem is not a solution of how to solve a problem.

The OP repeated the misleading statement that:

Sure there are workarounds, like recapturing using a longer sweep rate, but I have found that annoying over the years.

Which is untrue, as a scope which cannot "zoom out" does not imply/mandate that the user must recapture. It is about setting the scope to capture what you want in advance.

OP stated clear opinion about scope features based on extensive experience and you dismiss that right away with the same misdirection as always Have you even used MegaZoom? If not, stop misrepresenting it as that's not helpful to anyone. Besides, you are flogging one week old post while saying nothing new.