Ridiculously small Rigol DS1000z series font size - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2014, 01:16:46 pm
content: After some weeks waiting just received my DS1000Z series scope. Boy, what immediatelly struck me is the screen's font size: TOO DAMN SMALL!! It's barelly useable for me at an arm's length, but the measurements are so small it's the same as not being there, this text is 2mm high. WTF are they thinking?! I get a bigger screen and a much smaller text? I already miss my Rigol 1052E. I am the only one with a weak sight? At what length from you do you guys use your scopes? My "arm's length" is 69cm (~27inch).

author: shailesh3t
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 09:11:04 am
content: HI,i do agree with you tooits too small the font size , would have been nice if it was able to increase the sizeregardsshailesh

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 09:18:18 am
content: I have glasses and i'm over 50 (not by much) and I can see the screen at arms length with no problems at all.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 09:24:59 am
content: glue a fresnel lens to the front of the scope

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 09:57:28 am
content: Quote from: Psi on July 26, 2014, 09:24:59 amNiche ebay after-market product right there!

author: KedasProbe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 10:25:09 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on July 26, 2014, 09:18:18 amTry it without the glasses.....(there is no reason to think that someone with glasses can see less good, unless you have other than focal eye problems)

author: sfiber
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 10:41:28 am
content: I use this oscilloscope too but I am 22.So that is not a big deal for me but I can understand what you are thinking.Maybe 8'' is well because of 4 channel.When I opened to meause on signals are disappointed.

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 11:14:30 am
content: This is really frustrating. Doesn't seem a big deal to improve, it's mainly the measurements font size, there could be an option to display them on the signal area (heck, they even shrink that area to show the stats) and bigger. The menu descriptions use a font bigger than the measurements. Measurements always have big easy to see letters on all kind of instruments for obvious reasons. They enlarged the only and most useless item of the screen: the Rigol logo.I opened a ticket about this to Rigol, but they'll obviously couldn't care less about one complain and I'm not even be holding by breath waiting for a useless answer, so I guess I'll have to sell it and try one of the older series 4 channels one. Bahh!!for DS1000Z series screen readability.

author: mjkuwp
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 05:42:44 pm
content: Maybe you can pick up a DS2000 series Rigol from someone wishing to 'trade up' to an MSO of the same. just a thought.Can you connect it to a PC and view those measurements? just a wild guess.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 05:53:37 pm
content: Quote from: KedasProbe on July 26, 2014, 10:25:09 amI'm far sighted, so I have no problems seeing at over arms length, but I do need my glasses for anything in between. I can only squint for so long.But I have no problems with the font size. The measurements on the DS2072 use a bigger font that the one I'm using to type this on an 10.1" android tablet with keyboard (asus transformer prime tf201) even with IPS off.

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 06:37:22 pm
content: I can read the DS1074Z display just fine at normal working distance. But that said, Rigol could have made better use of the available screen estate. Oh well, give them a couple more years to hire someone for the Ergonomics & Usability department. And while that new hire is at it .... BIGGER knobs! If they could just copy/paste the jog wheels as found on some of the 90's HP gear they'd be all set.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 08:42:51 pm
content: The Hameg scopes have a small screen with little letters, too.Well, they are compact scopes.

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 12:20:38 am
content: Quote from: mjkuwpI bought the scope exclusivelly for the 4 channels (the signal gen came handy too). DS4000 is too expensive for me and, having a DS1052E, I didn't want to buy the 4 channel version because I can't imagine 4 channels crammed into that screen size (same size as the DS1052).Quote from: mjkuwpAbsolutelly not... I would have bought a PC scope if I wanted such a thing. I think people underestimate the power of a "stand-alone" instrument.I'm perfectly ok with the knobs's size but wouldn't be shocked to see them bigger.The DS2000 & DS4000 have a bigger screen Miguel, so if they used the same font size as the DS1000Z it would still look bigger.I can't be sure from the video, but the Hameg doesn't seem to have a font as small as the DS1000Z. The DS1000Z measurements' font is 2mm high (even smaller in width, of course), can you measure the font height on the Hameg?Ii get really irritated with this kind of thing, because I do sw for a living, if I had access to the code I could fix this in a few hours. Damned, this isn't a 2 buck crap!

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 12:17:26 pm
content: This is one reason, why I have the Agilent MSO7000B Series scope.I noticed this too, with many new instruments and I think it is the new generation of engineersthat have no problems looking at tiny smart phone screen and even smaller fonts. At least onmost smart phones and tablets you can set the font size.

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 12:31:43 pm
content: Funny how you can adjust the font size in a $60 "crapy" phone but not on semi-professional $900 equipment.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 04:07:27 pm
content: Quote from: nuno on July 27, 2014, 12:31:43 pmFunny how devices with different purposes have different functionality.You also can't adjust font size on Rigol's top-of-the-line, most expensive scopes, which are priced over $9,000. So it's funny you'd think it should be possible on their most inexpensive units at 1/10 the price.

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 05:13:20 pm
content: I hope (bet?) text is wide and clear on the 9K$ equipment. I see it as an ergonomics issue.

author: Orange
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 05:19:33 pm
content: Quote from: nuno on July 27, 2014, 05:13:20 pmYou need glasses, and stop moaning about it. Nobody has problem with it.

author: pascal_sweden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 08:36:54 pm
content: Maybe the support ticket will be implemented?If the support engineer is on your side, it might make it in the next firmware update.Just have patience I would say.

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 10:23:29 pm
content: Heh it's funny that your irked by the tiny font. Just the other week I was thinking that Rigol really need to clean up their UI design as far as fonts are concerned. There are way too many different ones used on the 1000Z. And the measurement font is particularly terrible. It's too small, and even worse, it's a bitmapped serif font on a low res display, which makes it extra hard to read. Rigol: use a sans serif font, pick two sizes (none smaller than 3mm), and stick with those everywhere!I also long for the firmware upgrade that cleans this up, but I fear we won't ever be so lucky.And yes I agree, the 1000E series is better in this regard. Strangely enough though, that ugly serif font shows up there too, in the language selection option. It's like a (rotten) easter egg.

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 10:40:05 pm
content: There are many things we see but we do an extra sight effort for that, which isn't good for the sight.I see 3 more people agreeing or complaining in this thread about the tiny font size. Maybe if we all complain to Rigol about it... in EUhttp://www.eu.rigolna.com/tech-support/in the UShttp://www.rigolna.com/tech-support/.

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2014, 10:11:30 am
content: Hey guys, guess what, I got an answer from Rigol. R&D promissed there will be a font size "Normal" and "Large" option on the next sw release, which "will probably come soon". The AE answering (which told me also saw this thread here, hi there!) told me the manual already mentions such option (indeed, I've just confirmed; I did a few searches on the manual before that that escaped me) but it isn't implemented on the product (yet). There should be a "Measure" -> "Font size" menu entry with "Normal" and "Large" options.Hurrey for Rigol

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2014, 02:37:41 pm
content: Good to hear Rigol is responsive to user requests.If they read this ...@Rigol person: Please read the above post by Maxlor. Becausethatis worth spending some time on. Make sure you have a single unified set of properly rendered fonts and stick with that. And as a bonus ... one unified set makes it easier for the firmware designer (aka cheaper). The firmware designer just has to consult the style guide that tells him what the proper font is for such-and-such. And this style guide should been written by someone who actually knows how to make things user friendly & optimize readability. (Which more often than not is NOT the firmware engineer).What I'm trying to say is: with the right choice of font for a given size you can get better readability for the same amount of pixels on screen.

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 10:32:16 pm
content: I can fw these comments to the AE support person, in case the person hasn't seen them and since I've already a communications channel open. Someone else cares to backup the requests? The more people asking, the higher the probability of them to implement the requests.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2014, 08:07:22 am
content: Quote from: nuno on July 29, 2014, 10:32:16 pmI totally agree with you: the font is way too small and it should be a sans serif, not that "Times" font.

author: pascal_sweden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2014, 10:28:06 pm
content: Is there any update on the font sizes which Rigol is using in the latest firmware? =)

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 03:55:32 pm
content: I can confirm, font size on my DS1074Z user interface is way too small and brings instant eye fatigue.OK, i'm near to fifty and i wear glasses, but my 5" samsung smartphone is much more readable that this.So, any update on the FW with variable font size parameter ?

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 04:33:34 pm
content: Asked last week, no update available yet. Looks like I'll have to get rid of it and buy something else

author: fpliuzzi
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 05:31:19 pm
content: I have a DS1054z with firmware version 00.04.01.SP2. I noticed on page 140 of the scope's user manual (pdf) that the measurements at the bottom of the screen can be displayed in two font sizes.The manual says to press MEASURE-->FONT SIZE to select "Normal" or "Large". This font size change helps out my vintage eyes a bit. The normal size font was a bit too small for me personally.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 11:33:48 pm
content: Yep, with this option at least measures are OK but everything else is unaffected.It's a pity because functionally speaking the instrument cover my needs, especially considering its price, but if no solutionwill be available in short time i will have to use something else to not worsen my eyes condition.Needless to say, years ago, when i had a perfect vision, this detail would not have been a deal breaker.

author: David_AVD
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2014, 02:16:51 am
content: Do you wear (or need) glasses?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2014, 03:01:20 am
content: Quote from: nuno on November 21, 2014, 04:33:34 pmEven if they decided to change the system fonts on your request you'll only wait a week for it?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2014, 08:37:16 am
content: Quote from: nuno on July 25, 2014, 01:16:46 pmNo.Hint: There are shops that sell small glass lenses for placing in front of your eyes to solve this problem (and have been selling them for a couple of centuries now).

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2014, 02:49:04 pm
content: Quote from: David_AVD on November 22, 2014, 02:16:51 amYes, i do wear glasses for presbyopia correction, +2.5 dioptres for ideal vision in a range of 40-60 cm.

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2014, 03:21:06 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on November 22, 2014, 03:01:20 amIt's been almost 4 months since I complained (to Rigol, of course) and this thread is dated from that time. At the time they said it was in the works and a new release should't take long (the support guy is excellent and even got me an R&D preview image of what was going to be final result).An OS oscilloscope, even if a 20MHz one, that would be "it".

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2014, 03:44:06 pm
content: They did partially fix it with firmware 04.*. They changed the font used for displaying measurements, it's now a sans-serif instead of a serif, which makes it easier to read, even if it is still the same size.As mentioned above, they added a "large" option for the measurements, it doubles the font size and makes it bold. Doesn't look great design wise (overlaps with the trace area), but it's useful when you're sitting at more than arms length from the scope.I wouldn't call it perfect, but it doesn't annoy me everytime I look at the measurements anymore.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2014, 04:48:19 pm
content: Quote from: nuno on November 22, 2014, 03:21:06 pmSo at the time rep support seemed promising ...If no NDA is present, could you post the preview image ?

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2014, 05:32:20 pm
content: Ok guys, thanks for the headsup on the new sw version, I asked the support directly and they said they were still on 00.04.01 (mine has 00.04.00), so maybe they didn't noticed or the 1104Z has different sw from the 1054Z (what model do you have, Maxlor?)... but I asked and they sent me a "changes" file that I haven't yet looked carefully.I guess I can show the image, there's nothing special about it, it shows the measurements in a big font, which is probably what you guys described. The second image is what I sent back with just a few suggestions (and also made and sent a short collection of the comments on this thread). I see no problem with the text going over the chart area, I preffer that and the area is big, not a big deal loosing a bit of it for a better cause.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2014, 06:05:59 pm
content: Quote from: nuno on November 22, 2014, 03:21:06 pmYou have a direct connection to the people who fix the user interface???I have a couple of suggestions...!Let's start with that damned multifunction knob that moves and makes wrong menu selections almost every time you press it.eg. To change a menu selection: Press the menu button next to it, use the blue arrow keys to move up/down the menu to the item you want, press the same menu button again to select the item and close the menu.Another way to do it would be keep everything as it is now but allow you to press the "Clear" button to select a menu itemas well aspressing the multifunction knob. That would only take about 1 extra line of code but eliminate a lot of frustration.(In fact, there's no reason why they couldn't implement both of those things....)Oh, and they could set up a system where people can make suggestions for user interface tweaks like this.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 01:14:24 am
content: @ nuno,correct me if i'm wrong : the promised modification was the measure large font option ?

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 02:41:26 am
content: Was to implement the feature in the manual, which seems to be the measurements font size (didn't check). But I took the oportunity to do the 2nd image suggestions and send the comments this thread had at the time.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 08:35:42 pm
content: Ok, just stopped to hold my breath awaitingnormalsize font UI for this scope.So now i have two possibilities :1) rejuvenate with a spell to regain perfect vision2) sell the scope an buy another one, not before checking UI legibility

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2014, 04:21:23 pm
content: Quote from: markone on November 23, 2014, 08:35:42 pmHere are the DS1000Z and DS2000 screen sizes compared. Both have been reduced to their actual real-world size - at least as measured on my desktop monitor with 0.27mm dot pitch - so the fonts, etc, are not very sharp - but at least it gives you an idea about relative sizes.

author: i4004
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2014, 08:49:15 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on July 26, 2014, 09:24:59 amterminals by the endbut tell me, what is the text size of this forum and at what distance?don't tell me you like your pc more than scope so you can't bring it a bit closer?

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2014, 10:57:59 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 25, 2014, 04:21:23 pmThank you marmad,nice comparison.Do you own both models ?

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2014, 12:06:02 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 25, 2014, 04:21:23 pmNice, thanks for the comparison. I would live pretty well with the DS2K screen size. But I need 4 channels, and can't justify the investment in a DS4K.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2014, 03:19:14 am
content: Quote from: markone on November 25, 2014, 10:57:59 pmNo, I only own the DS2000 - but I have the MSO1000Z on loan for a couple of months to make a video review.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 01:08:49 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 26, 2014, 03:19:14 amSo probably you already had the opportunity to put them side by side.What's your personal opinion about the difference in clarity of vision among above instruments ?Looking closely at my DS1074Z display, even with a magnifying lens, i have the impression that its panel exhibits quite low pixel sharpness, like a screen showing a rescaled image.Even mine "el cheapo" HDG2002B's lcd display looks A LOT sharper.This, in conjuction with small font text, brings effort to eyes, that probaly goes unnoticed to people with perfect vision.But unnoticed does not mean that it does not hurts ...

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 03:08:32 pm
content: Quote from: markone on November 28, 2014, 01:08:49 pmWell, I don't have great vision (I wear glasses) and my own personal feeling is that the DS1000Z screen is just a little too small for my comfort. It's brighter than the DS2000, but seems a little bit less sharp (although that might just be an optical illusion due to it's smaller size). I alsoreallylike the fact that you can retract the menus on the DS2000.I tried to get a good photo of both screens together - but it's difficult due to the viewing angles, etc. So the DS1000Z screen looks slightly more washed-out than normal - and the DS2000 looks slightly smaller than normal (vertically squashed). The best thing to do is todownload the original large version of the photo here- and then examine it at close range to get a better idea.

author: i4004
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 09:10:39 pm
content: a close inspection of a cellphone image?seems to me 2 scopes were not set at same 'intensity' levels....and that would interest me more than fonts

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 09:31:55 pm
content: Quote from: i4004 on November 28, 2014, 09:10:39 pmWhat are you talking about? It's a camera on a tripod - which is visible in the image. It seems as if you like to be regularly wrong about things, no?But it's difficult to take a photo with equivalent intensity when they're stacked, due to the LCD viewing angles.

author: pa3bca
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 10:49:42 pm
content: I own both a 1074 and a 2072 and although the 2072 is larger and with 4 channels on the smaller 1074 display gets crowded I am quite pleased with the latter. No problem with my 54yrs old eyes (I am nearsighted so looking at the DSO without glasses). Perfectly readable for me. Certainly does not look washed out, on the contrary, it looks crisp and sharp to me (although a bit small)I too shot some photo's with a DSLR on a tripod. Photos of the 1074 and 2072 with identical (manual) settings and exactly the same distance from the scopes. Only the ambient lighting differs unavoidably (should not influence the screen too much)See below:Also two more closeups with a 100mm macro lens (no real macro fotos btw)

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 01:21:03 am
content: Quote from: pa3bca on November 28, 2014, 10:49:42 pmI disagree. Even in your photos, I think it looks slightly less sharp and washed out compared to the DS2000 screen. But maybe I'm just more picky about my screens,

author: i4004
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 08:29:34 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 28, 2014, 09:31:55 pmwell yes, either a cellphone camera or a crappy camera <full stop>.(and i wasn't wrong about 200pixels)notice pa3bca's images are better than yours..he has better camera...one that does less of a crappy noise reduction that just smears and blurs the image....so while i was wrong you just learned something new, right?but here's a thing i see that perhaps makes you like 2k more: it has substiantially more 'vertical resolution' (hires mode on?) and there are less jaggies than in z image!this is slightly visible in pa3bca's image too, but i used yours because it's higher res image.and because it's better visible on AM signal.so yes, i would pick 2k too, but because it is less jaggy, less lores....it seems to benefit from that virtual 12bit stuff....a lot! or is z just totally broken in this respect.(notice how z has much more stairstepping on that sine outer curves)but 2k not better because z is "washed out" as you say (if anything such lower vertical resolution will appear as having more contrast/sharpness), but because it less jaggy.and higher res is always better, with slightly less contrast or not.so you're both right.and me too!btw. could you make a screenshot (not a photograph) of this waveform on both scopes with hires mode off (either here or in other thread where we discussed hires mode in more detail) so i can take a look at what exactly 2k does differently, when it comes to displaying it.(or link a post if you already did it)looking at this (and simillar screenshots i posted), resizer that maps 256 adc levels to display resolution on z is utter rubbish.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 12:53:40 pm
content: Quote from: i4004 on November 29, 2014, 08:29:34 amWell, no - sorry, I have not learned anything new from your posts - which continue to be filled with loads of incorrect speculation and bad information.QuoteThere is no "virtual 12bit stuff". It seems you still don't understand how the DSOs are working. I suggest you go back and re-read the posts in the other thread.QuoteNo, you're wrong again on multiple points. Either your eyes are bad, you don't use a color-corrected monitor, or you don't understand what you're looking at. There is no lower resolution - they are exactly the same - and the only thing that the DS1000Z has going for it is slightly more contrast (due to a brighter backlight). But it's "washed-out" and less "sharp" (this is NOT the same thing as contrast) because of it's worse sub-pixel anti-aliasing. This is apparent - even to those with poor vision- when you examine the images close-up (using pa3bca's photos) :First, here is the rendering of "black" on both DSO screens - normal and inverted to "white". If it's not obvious which one is closer to true black, then you need a new computer monitor (or you need to calibrate the one you've got):Secondly, here is an even more obvious look at the poor sub-pixel anti-aliasing (causing color fringing) on the DS1000Z screen (again, bottom image):QuoteI repeat: there is no higher res - they are both in Normal acquisition mode on displays of equivalent resolution.

author: pa3bca
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 01:42:23 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 29, 2014, 01:21:03 amWell I agree that the 2072 displayissharper than the 1074Z. But I still would not say that the 1074Z's screen looks washed out.. But that is a matter of opinion of course (Or I have an extraordinary god 1072Z specimen here)...

author: IanJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 02:03:02 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 28, 2014, 09:31:55 pmPull the camera further back, say across the room.......then use the zoom on your camera.Ian.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 02:19:27 pm
content: Quote from: pa3bca on November 29, 2014, 01:42:23 pmI guess it's how you define "washed out". For me, it means blacks that are not black and whites that are not white, which the DS1000Z clearly suffers from (as shown in my previous post).Quote from: IanJ on November 29, 2014, 02:03:02 pmYes, I know - unfortunately, I only have so much time in the day to devote to posting things here, and 5 minutes was all I had at that moment.

author: pa3bca
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 02:22:37 pm
content: Quote from: IanJ on November 29, 2014, 02:03:02 pmYou will have to use a very good (and thus expensive > 2K$) telelens an a high Mpx camera if you want the individual pixes to show up on the photo from "across the room"So, not a good idea.Better take individual pics and control all settings., positions and ambient lighting.

author: pa3bca
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 02:29:15 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 29, 2014, 02:19:27 pmBut I do not see that kind of issue on my 1074Z, the blacks and whites of the 1072Z are not very different from the 2072. Also my closeups do not show "whitened" black and "blackened" white.. At least I do not see this.What Idosee is that the pixels themselves are a bit more fuzzy on the 1072Z. But closer inspection suggests that is entirely because the pixels are smaller and thus get more blurred by the screen (in front of the pixels)The 1074Z is also a bit brighter, which may also contribute to the fuzzier look on my closeups.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 02:43:53 pm
content: Quote from: pa3bca on November 29, 2014, 02:29:15 pm?? I'm using YOUR photos of YOUR DS1000Z in my post to prove my point. Again, if you can't see the difference in 'true' black taken from your very own photos - either your eyes aren't very good or your computer monitor is not color-calibrated.QuoteAgain, I don't understand why you're having a problem seeing or understanding zoomed portions from your own images: the DS1000Z is clearly suffering from worse sub-pixel aliasing - resulting in more color-fringing; i.e. "fuzziness". It seems obvious to me.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 03:31:14 pm
content: Quote from: pa3bca on November 29, 2014, 03:18:49 pmI'm afraid zooming in even closer does not prove anything to me about how the DSO screens look at a normal distance (other than if you press your eyeball to either screen, they are equivalent)I'm done arguing this point - we just fundamentally disagree. I think I've posted enough proof so that anyone with a calibrated IPS or PLS monitor can see exactly what I'm talking about - and my position has remained consistent, whether just viewing the DSOs from a distance or examining normal close-ups of the screen.But your position went from:Quote from: pa3bca on November 28, 2014, 10:49:42 pmto:Quote from: pa3bca on November 29, 2014, 02:29:15 pmAnyway, have a good weekend!

author: pa3bca
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 03:31:50 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 29, 2014, 02:43:53 pmAttached two 1:1 macro shots of both scopes.- the intensity level of black in both shots differs indeed somewhat. Closer inspection reveals that on the 1074Z the green subpixels are brighter than on the 2072! (Red and blue are abt the same, intensity=3 according to Adobe Lightroom). Green on the 1074Z is almost 7!. The green 1074Z "black" subpixels are now quite obvious there (but I admit I had to look at the shots with another monitor)- the intensity levels of the pixels are also the same (abt 75 per color) so abt equal intensity.nb: in both shots the pixels look fuzzy. This isnotthe result of a focus issue or a bad quality lens (nothing wrong with my macro lens). It look like the fuzziness is a result of the structure of the glass in front of the pixels. This is as sharp as I can get itNow if you look at the (sub)pixels of both shot you can see (at least I think) that:- the layout of the rgb subpixels differs indeed. The subpixels on the 2072 are vertically aligned, on the 1074Z they are not. Funny that there seems to be no standard pattern, sometimes a green subpixel on the right of a red subpixels is higher, on other locations it is lower...2072:1074Z:Looking at the macro shots it still seems to me that the greater fuzziness of the 1074Z is mostly a result of the glass screen combined with the slightly smaller pixels, and not (so much) of the layout of the subpixels. I can not see a different algorithm for using subpixels in constructing the letters ??

author: pa3bca
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 03:35:21 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 29, 2014, 03:31:14 pmNot necessarily a contradiction. I still think it is sharp (enough), but not as sharp as on the 2072.Sharp and sharper.And a good weekend to you too

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 03:48:59 pm
content: Quote from: pa3bca on November 29, 2014, 03:35:21 pmPerhaps. But also perhaps picking nits.I'll remind you that my original post which prompted this round of arguing and photo investigation merely stated:Quote from: marmad on November 28, 2014, 03:08:32 pm

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 03:57:05 pm
content: If someone has a solution for the ergonomics' issues please post

author: pa3bca
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 04:02:41 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 29, 2014, 03:48:59 pmSo after much arguing and photographing we may have come to some consensus:- the 1074 is smaller (duh)- the 1074 looks (a bit more) washed out, mostly due to the green subpixels leaking- the 1074 looks a bit less sharp because of a combination of (smaller) pixelsize and distortion of the glass in front of the pixels, and _possibly_ because of the different subpixel configuration-and pa3bca is still happy with the quality of the 1074Z's screen

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 04:26:44 pm
content: Quote from: pa3bca on November 29, 2014, 04:02:41 pmAgreed

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2014, 12:55:46 am
content: I would like to thankmarmadandpa3bcafor the effort spent on lcd panels analysis.The pa3bca macros confirmed my suspicions : the DS1000Z screen pixel sharpness is quite low, in mine opinion mainly due to its odd subpixel structure, that inevitably renders a blurred pixel contour.Judging from your photos, in my opinion the overall DS2000's screen readability isa lot betterthan DS1000Z one.In the mean time i found a way to reduce a little the eye fatigue with mine DS1074Z : shed some light with a table lamp directly on its screen.Still far from what i want, but enough for brief usage.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 30, 2014, 08:00:38 am
content: Quote from: pa3bca on November 29, 2014, 01:42:23 pmFrom the images, it seems that the DS1000Z screen uses a different subpixel layout for the RGB triplets, and an alternating one at that. You can see that the thin lines appear jagged, in a regular zig-zag like pattern, while on the DS2000 screen they look straight and just dotted. This will likely contribute to the impression of a washed-out/blurry display when viewed at some normal distance, since the pixels for the lines appear to not be in the same row.Greetings,Chris

author: i4004
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2014, 08:40:21 am
content: marmad, i replied here....https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/anomalies-andor-bugs-inbetween-the-rigol-msods1000z-msods2000a-msods4000/msg560294/#msg560294as for this other things, you would need more experience with video and image processing (and how does it translate in the "quality metrics" in the brain) to understand it a bit better ie why some will prefer z to 2k, i hinted about it a but above, but it doesn't matter much....or perhaps it does because you're a nitpicker, but i like you anyway!some things you say are probably correct (different subpixel rendering), but the rest (tracking blackness of black by blowing photographs, mentioning monitor calibration) is just a method applied to the wrong spot, it can't be done in that way, it's not science, if the two scope displays are not the same size,photo will not be the same so you can't compare it well.as for your blowing image of fonts, it's wrong in may ways, because how will jpeg compression affect it?how will camera sensor (pa3bca0a camera) position affect the raster of the display, ie how will they align (scope raster and image sensor pixels) and what effects will it produce in the images?i mean i'm just now taking your stuff a bit further to prove it's not really that simple,but if you say fonts are blurrier i'll just take your word for it, with or without blown images.otoh, waveform means more to me than fonts(a bit younger and no glasses might be the reason), and on z it's crap.and that interests me even more now that i see 2k doesn't have that stairstepping effect.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2014, 12:00:21 pm
content: Quote from: i4004 on November 30, 2014, 08:40:21 amOf course it's science. But not in the way that you seem to think science works (i.e. "I have an opinion about something and so that proves I'm right.") No, my science involves observation, investigation, and confirmation.I OBSERVE that the blacks don't look like 'true' black on the DS1000Z display when compared to the DS2000 - and since I taught computer graphics in the art academy of Amsterdam for 10 years, I have a pretty good eye for images and colors on screens (BTW, what exactly is YOUR experience with image processing again?)I then INVESTIGATE by checking the photos taken by an impartial 3rd party with the same camera and the approximate same lighting - this CONFIRMS my real-world observation that the black is farther from 'true' than the DS2000.Later, pa3bca investigates further and confirms my observation that, indeed, the black is 'off'- and discovers the cause: green subpixels leaking. More CONFIRMATION. This is how science works.QuoteNothing you mentioned will affect the fringing caused by the sub-pixels, which you would know if you understood LCDs and image processing. Again, I OBSERVED that the fonts were 'fuzzier' on the DS1000Z when compared to the DS2000 - and then investigated and confirmed it (with pa3bca discovering the possible underlying causes).So my observations (and opinion) are confirmed by investigation and testing (and a 3rd party). You, OTOH, continually post unsubstantiated or incorrect opinions (for example; your belief that the DS2000 was set to High Res mode in my photo) - and then refuse to acknowledge your mistakes (or else make a snarky response to deflect).

author: pa3bca
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2014, 01:29:48 pm
content: Quote from: i4004 on November 30, 2014, 08:40:21 amMarmad has already succinctly addressed your other errors, but let me address these.jpeg compression (in my shots) has no significant effect. You will be hard pressed to find any relevant difference between the raw files and the jpg's (i use high quality/low compression to jpg). If you don't believe me I can publish the 25MB raw files.scope pixelsize versus DSLR sensor pixelsize is also a non issue here (irt the real issues). the shots are 1:1 macro, and every scope pixel covers almost 50 sensorpixels vertically. So no chance that you'd see moire patterns

author: i4004
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2014, 08:01:39 pm
content: Quotemarmad, get a grip. you're measuring black levels by inspecting photographs.THAT is not science.which is not to say your guess is wrong, but...come on....display performance are not measured in that way, other methods are used.Quotenope. i never said that.we're talking, i just had few objections to your method.but if you wanna define to me what contrast is, what "less sharp" and "washed out" means....come on....come off from that mountain you're standing on...i don't wanna discuss "true blacks" video issue with you, mostyl because i probably know more about it, but just don't think it's important here...there is no contrast or black level issue on 1000z, i think we'll agree....i would bitch about it first if i saw it!there might be small differences between the 2 scopes, but nothing to write home about.Quotei dislike "experience arguments", they mean the argument is in the toilet, once we come to that.but to answer, i did a lot of video work.experience doesn't matter but what is said.regarding sensor/raster alignment, did you know about thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kell_factoryes, it doesn't matter much, but it's an interesting concept.Quoteno. in my book you have something like thishttp://televisions.reviewed.com/how_we_test( Konica Minolta CS-200 Chroma Meter )and measure both displays. science should be DIRECT. it's simpler that way, isn't it?albeit i don't have much against your method too, but there's better way than making negative photos.i'm mostly talkign about how your discussion started.and "blackness of the black" has nothing to do with subpixel rendering anyway...black is where there are no fonts.Quoteyou're using that trash talk again: you can't trash me, ok?i understand everything you're talking about perfectly.but i have a problem with some of your original methods in this posthttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-font-size/msg559800/#msg559800in ds2k b/w image i would say it has a bit more dust on the display...or jpeg artefacts blown a lot.ok, there's some difference, but it could of been just the slightly different camera angle or scope position.to me you blowing these photos is not science. it's resizer and jpeg artefacts more than exact science.now i'm looking images a bit closer: these macro photos are piss-poor, and i see that z has more "modern" graphics, ie more shades where 2k has none.the fonts and subpixel rendering look simillar, but z uses different graphics elements.for examplehttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-font-size/msg559826/#msg559826background on the z has 3 shades, 2k just one. the border element (around word "normal") is not the same on both scopes. the contrast is too much on z images. but that couls also be camera in the auto mode making different adjustments etc.could also be that this is closest to the truthhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-font-size/msg559843/#msg559843let me reiterate again, i'm not much interested in fonts (but if anything, i would forbid cleartype technologies everywhere, and now you know i know exactly what you're talking about here., but if you want i can make a decent macro photo of this scope's fonts, if you can't pull the magnifying glass and tell us what you see on both...heh...god damn you're discussing fonts and you can't make a decent macro photo of them....Quoteno.i asked"(hires mode on?)"Quotewhat mistakes exactly?if i mentioned some ways photos can be skewed it doesn't mean i was wrong about those ways indeed can make a difference.i will repeat, images in this posthttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-font-size/msg559800/#msg559800are not science for me. it's fuzzy blowup.most of the difference you saw are different graphic elements on the z series!not fonts sub-pixel rendering and the stuff you mentioned.

author: i4004
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2014, 08:23:09 pm
content: hold on, it is different sub-pixel rendering.green is lower or higher. it's not aligned.you can't even see this without great magnification.different displays.so, do i admit mistakes?but still, forget about black levels, it's not it.

author: pa3bca
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2014, 09:18:12 pm
content: Quote from: i4004 on November 30, 2014, 08:01:39 pmNo.. all comparative shots were taken with the camera on full manual and identical settings, including focal distance and ambient lighting. The 1074Z is just brighter (as already established).

author: i4004
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2014, 09:28:39 pm
content: yeah, it's hard to focus this stuff, in the end i just put the lens on the scope without any external light....i was kinda expecting it would be like focusing pixels on lcd screen(easy), but this is much smaller.either way, scopes differ in displays, and in graphic layout (it's simpler on 2k) and this makes for those subtle differences one can see.

author: pa3bca
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2014, 09:37:37 pm
content: Quote from: i4004 on November 30, 2014, 08:01:39 pmAlthough my DSLR and macro lens are not specifically designed for these kinds of measurements I do claim that my method of comparing the screens in macro mode is scientific.Both shots were taken with identical (manual) settings, and at identical focal distance. Also ambient light was minimized. The absolute values of the intensity of the pixels (both on and off) may not be accurate (uncalibrated) but the visible and measurable difference is. And with a macrolens the 1074Z does bleed visibly in the black (mostly the green sub-pixels).BUT: is this reallyvisibleand the prime cause of the washed out display some people complain about. Here it becomes subjective, and I for one do not thinkmy1074z looks washed out. Admittedly I did en do not even notice a different blackness between my 2072 en my 1074 in normal ambient light. Either I have bad eyes or an above normal excellent 1074z specimenBut the font on the 1074Z is absolutely fuzzier than on the 2072.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 01, 2014, 09:16:02 am
content: Quote from: i4004 on November 30, 2014, 08:23:09 pmNot only green, all three colours are alternating the horizontal position in two patterns. It's quite visible in the images. Its like:| G |R B| G ||R B| G |R B|Greetings,Chris

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 04:43:14 am
content: Quote from: pa3bca on November 30, 2014, 09:37:37 pmLet's rewind for a minute. Has anyone else actually complained that the DS1000Z display is washed-out (in the classic sense of the term)? As I mentioned above, I first wrote that the display was washed out because of my camera angle to the LCD. You erroneously repeated my comment as if I was stating that the display was "washed-out" (which I wasn't). I erroneously re-used your mistaken comment to indicate the problem that I perceived with the blacks and whites (when compared to the DS2000) - although I tried to correct my misuse in a later post.The DS1000Z display is not washed out. But the blacks and whites are a little further from 'true' than the DS2000 display.QuoteNope, sorry, you don't have an above normal DS1000Z screenI saw (and continue to see) the difference in blacks between the two DSOs in your photos (just as I see it in the two DSOs in front of me). Then again, as I mentioned, I'm extremely sensitive to it (having taught in graphics for years) - so i would agree that it's not a big deal.QuoteYes. And I believe it's due to minor fringing - although it's unclear exactly what the root cause is (and not really important).

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 04:44:27 am
content: Quote from: i4004 on November 30, 2014, 08:01:39 pmHa, ha... this is truly hilarious.YOUwere the one to first bring up experience/expertise at least twice in your other posts:Quote from: i4004 on November 30, 2014, 08:40:21 amQuote from: i4004 on November 30, 2014, 08:30:46 am...and then when I respond that I've been teaching in the field of computer graphics, all of a sudden "experience doesn't matter".That is truly classic deflection... and - in terms of my responding to you - the proverbial straw.Anyway, as amusing as this has occasionally been, your posts have been - and continue to be - a massive waste of my time. So, after 3 and a half years on this forum, I've finally run into someone worthy of my"Ignore List".Congratulations... you win!And adios from my feed.

author: nixfu
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 05:44:31 am
content: Anyone complaining about the screens/fonts on the new Rigol scopes has never used an old scope like a digital analog storage scope with those horribly hard to read screens and characters, or for that matter the previous generation screens that were tiny like on the old Rigol DS1052E with their jagged fonts and all.

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 06:15:22 am
content: Quote from: nixfu on December 02, 2014, 05:44:31 amI have been following this thread and I have to agree with you. It is a great value budget scope and the display is very good for price.

author: pa3bca
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 09:07:47 am
content: Quote from: marmad on December 02, 2014, 04:43:14 amOk we agree that the 1074Z's display does not look washed out. But for instance from your replies #52 and especially #57 you might see how I got the impression that you found it is washed out (somewhat, i.e more than the 2000). All cleared up now.Quote from: marmad on December 02, 2014, 04:43:14 amSo itismy eyes... well I can live with that!Quote from: nixfu on December 02, 2014, 05:44:31 amHow true! My posts to this forum were not meant to find fault(s) with the 1074Z! On the contrary, I do think the 1000Z series are a terrific value for money. Just some fact-finding abt the differences and the underlying causes.You want a better screen and performance? Maybe a $ 13.000 Agilent or Tek?

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 09:27:41 am
content: Quote from: Towger on December 02, 2014, 06:15:22 amI agree with you both. It's all relative, so those w/o much experience may not realize just how good they've got it. And the DS1054z is so good that some folks have to put it under the microscope to find things to complain about (and I'm not referring to Marmad here). It's a superlative scope at it's price point, and phenomenally affordable. Though it's not perfect, and doesn't do everything more expensive scopes may do. 'Shortcomings' of virtually all scopes ever made.The DS1054z is a case-study in how making mostly small design decisions can retain high value/functionality, yet cut costs to the bone and maximize bang for the buck. All w/o negatively impacting the value proposition for their higher series scope lines (which is an important consideration).

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 09:29:40 am
content: Quote from: pa3bca on December 02, 2014, 09:07:47 amI never perceived them that way, and felt they were an informative and enjoyable read. So, thanks!

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 09:44:52 am
content: Quote from: pa3bca on December 02, 2014, 09:07:47 amAbsolutely agree. I wouldn't have even thought to mention anything except markone asked me for a direct comparison to the DS2000. And of course because of the price difference, it's apples to oranges. But for someone who is having some eyestrain problems with the DS1000Z, the DS2000 is definitely a bit easier on the eyes - due mainly to it's screen size, but a little bit due to slightly sharper text / colors.

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 06:54:51 pm
content: Although with a smaller screen and jagged fonts and whatever, I have to admit so far I like my DS1052E more than my DS1104Z-S. The extra screen space ended up not coming as the advantage I thought but as a disadvantage, because I find it so much more difficult to use the screen. I was using it yesterday to check a serial protocol and the vertical traces are so thin they almost disappear (and thinner than the graticule, adding more to the visual confusion), making it more difficult to visually separate the bits; I'm thinking now that maybe that improves by increasing the waveform brightness, but the noisy hi/low signal levels makes them extra bright compared to the transient parts of the wave, so not sure if that will be an improvement*. No doubt a good imitation of an analog scope, but I don't find as useful, not an analog guru. Don't bother saying I'm using the wrong tool etc etc, it's just the way I use it and it's my personal preference and how/what for I use a scope. I also have to admit, now that I can compare, I prefer and find more useful to my usage profile the "on or off" style of the older models instead of the analog scope style imitation (my 1st scope was pure analog and I still keep it, I was not "born" in the digital age). I'm starting to think I should sell the DS1104Z-S and buy one of the older 4 channel versions while they're still sold (DS1104B I think), and live with the smaller screen space; too bad about the function gen.*I'll have to play a little with the settings, I may not be using well the available visualization adjustments on this

author: pa3bca
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 07:30:41 pm
content: Now that I have my camera on the tripod I made some photos of an (the!) AM waveform, just to determine the differences between the scopes. (and is the 1074Z really as bad as some think. spoiler alert: NO it is not)Camera all manual, 100mm lens, 90 cm distance between camera and scopes. ISO 100, f/5.6, 1.0 sec shutter.Input signal 10 MHz, 100Hz AM, 100% modulation.Two shots of both scopes, one in running mode and one in stopped mode.The shots in run mode (and 1 sec shutter) agree really well with "what the eye sees".Here are some crops of the shots. For reference and further inspection I have the original full (16 Mpx) 2MB photo's for download here:http://pa3bca.pa3bca.nl/pa3bca_2071_1074_AMsignal.zipnb: I have not corrected white balance of the photo's, these are SOOC, only raw to jpg conversion. The 1074Z's shots look a lot bluer than those of the 2072. The eye corrects for this (in reality the screen does not look blue). It looks like the LED's that are used for the 1074Z's back-lighting are a bit bluer, but as I said this is not visible "in real life".2072_run:1074Z_run:2072_stopped:1074Z_stopped:Funny horizontal lines on the 1074Z's shots. No idea where these come from. They are not influenced by for instance the modulation frequency.The waveform of the 1074Z is indeed a bit more coarse/"blocky". I assume that is because the 1074Z has a lower waveform update rate in combination with a different implementation of intensity grading (Marmad would know).But all in all I think the 1074Z looks quite ok.I also tried it on my DS1052E. I will not post those images hereuseless..

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 07:32:22 pm
content: Quote from: nuno on December 02, 2014, 06:54:51 pmKeep in mind: the intensity-grading is not just for simulating an analog display; it's for getting more waveforms to the display in real-time. Your DS1052E (or the DS1104B) only capture a maximum of between 50 and (maybe) 200 waveforms per second - while the DS1000Z is capturing thousands.Here are 2 solutions you can try (or you can try a combination of both):1) The graticule has it's own brightness control, so you can turn that down to 0% (or whatever).2) Turn on infinite persistence.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 08:19:49 pm
content: Quote from: pa3bca on December 02, 2014, 07:30:41 pmThanks for these. In fact, that bluish-tint is what I see with my eyes, although not as severely as your camera records it. Maybe my vision is slightly weirdQuoteThose lines (and the coarse/"blocky" look) are caused by math scaling for the display - and this is another one of the drawbacks (cost reduction?) of the DS1000Z which we discussed a bit in an earlier thread (although I can't remember exactly which one at the moment - maybe "Rigol DS1074Z Oscillosope"?). On the DS2000, the ADC values are normally directly mapped 1:2 pixels (200:400px), except when you use the 500uV/div or a vernier setting - those are mathematically scaled. On the DS1000Z, it appears to use math scaling much more regularly at normal scale settings, although I don't think anyone has sat down and figured out exactly when and how often it's doing it (or asked Rigol for the answers).

author: pa3bca
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 09:25:04 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on December 02, 2014, 08:19:49 pmThe higher intensity horizontal bands are equidistant, 6 pixels "normal" then 2 pixels with higher intensity, for a total of 8. Very suspiciousNotice also that the blue pixels (that form the graticule with to two other colors) show much more dispersion than the other colors (i.e . look more fuzzy)

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2014, 12:31:21 pm
content: Quote from: Towger on December 02, 2014, 06:15:22 amYou guys are missing the point, this scope is very good for the price but for a farsighted user the combination of small fonts & low screen pixel sharpness is real deal breaker, something that not only shatter the experience but also leads to further vision worsening.I think that this 3ad could be a usefull warning for people with sight problem that is considering to buy a DS1xxxZ scope.I was just lookink at last great pa3bca shots, "stopped" images fully confirm the fuzziness of pixels edges for DS1xxxZ screen.With not aligned subpixels is impossible to render sharp lines, probably the lcd screen is where Rigol has focused cost reduction.Of course i agree that for normal sighted people the problem simply does not exist, probably leaving place for complaints to a not so fast UI responce.But i'm also sure that a screen like this brings premature eyes aging to everyone.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2015, 10:39:43 pm
content: I forgot this thread but I went to a trade fair and tried the DS1104Z-S. My first thoughts were like: "What a nice small scope,but what's with that tiny readouts? They are so hard to read." There are some bad fonts.Hameg HMO2000 scopes are easier to read.But the numeric keypad on DS1104Z-S screen is nice (as seen on photos). I did not know about that before.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2015, 10:41:05 pm
content: The fonts in the menu are OK.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2015, 11:09:48 pm
content: FWIW, on the last two firmware updates they added an option to change the font size.

author: bitwelder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2015, 06:15:43 am
content: On the subject of reading small text fields on a Rigol, I find a bit annoying the way Rigol keeps showing 'deleted' measurements, just in a neutral color.I wish the grey text would be in a color closer to the background, so that it almost hides and doesn't disturb the other readings.

author: i4004
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2015, 04:30:59 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on December 02, 2014, 04:44:27 ami ment that as soon as somebody disagrees, folks like you will start with displaying the diplomas instead of knowledge.i see what you say and i say some of those things are rubbish.while others are quite good.if you were teaching something, it doesn't mean you know all about it.you got that answer after you asked:Quotei didn't ask about your experience, i just said you don't seem to understand stuff i say because you're not that much into some subjects. regardless of your diploma.i don't care about your school(s) i just say some of the things you said were not right.oh yeah, i never ignore.pa3bca:Quoteno, it's just that you can scale those finite number of adc levelstofinite (but different) number of display pixelsin different ways.you will see simillar effects if you would resize some image with different resizers.(1k being an example of a crappy resizer)that's much more dissapointing about 1k series than the difference in fonts and displays.(i feel scope is not a device to read books on anyway)but waveforms are not that jaggy in reality, they are much more like waveform on rigol 2k displays.(in the end it means 1k is having less vertical resolution)these differences i would attribute to different hardware mfrs and their preferences for particular (newer) technoligies etc.i never liked cleartype and alike, so i would prefer "older" style of 2k when it comes to fonts.but again, it's doesn't matter much.i would prefer to see a better vertical resolution than a bigger fonts.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2015, 07:42:39 pm
content: Quote from: i4004 on April 30, 2015, 04:30:59 pmMate - that post you are answering to is 5 months old!How about leaving it alone?

author: pa3bca
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2015, 08:24:55 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on April 30, 2015, 07:42:39 pmYeah.. and he is still wrong

author: i4004
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2015, 09:24:13 pm
content: ebastler, do you stand in silence when somebody attacks you?i don't.(you can also go back to see who attacked who first, if you want)pa3bca, saying something is wrong without explaining what it is...is that usefull?and actually i just said the same thing as marmad, but in slightly different words, easier to digest, as you wrote "suspicious" after his reply.did you get it now? no? i'm still wrong? both me and marmad? is that even possible? i mean for marmad to be wrong?ieQuotethat would probably be aliasing artefacts, another pointer to crappy resizing.btw. you didn't say is it influenced by carrier frequency(?)i think i posted some image that didn't have them...on a much lower freq. some pix by marmad also don't show these...it's not really about bickering, i'm really surprised by such scaling, and this was the thread it was mentioned in. i also mentioned it in other threads. anytime somebody mentions jaggies on it, i agree it's poor implementation. sorry about that.(you will also notice i asked in another old thread if some of it was fixedhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/anomalies-andor-bugs-inbetween-the-rigol-msods1000z-msods2000a-msods4000/msg663516/#msg663516do you think it would make sense to start new thread about it? i don't )cheers

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2016, 02:11:22 pm
content: Sorry if i revive this dead old topic, but i'm really starting to have serious problems reading my DS1074Z panel scope, everytime i use it i get headache (due to my presbyopia) and to not let things getting worst i decided to buy another instrument, similar or superior, with a crisper LCD and bigger fonts.I use of course corrective lens, but the right tradeoff to stay on front a PC screen and table instrument prevent me to use this lovely little toy, for reference i do not have any problem with other instrument like the old DS1022C, the king of the crap HDG2002B or my spanking new SDG2042X.Not sure if the Rigol DS2000 is the right answer (never seen one live), i considered Siglent new series SDS1000x & SDS2000x with 8" screens, they seems good for the purpose but functional wise seem A LOT behind Rigol, i'm talking about Capture, Math, Decoding & Analisys capabilities.My Budget is max 1000 Euro, for a new device, EU market.Any help, especially from farsighted that owned the 1000Z series and then upgraded, woul be appreciated !

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2016, 03:13:51 pm
content: Quote from: markone on January 28, 2016, 02:11:22 pmI believe Dave has a video review of DS2000 and he puts it next to the 1000Z if I am not mistaken. I have found one next to the DS1052E.And you can clearly see even despite DS2000 having a bigger screen, the fonts on DS1052E are bigger.I have a DS2000 and I use it two arm lengths away, without issues. My vision is decent though. However the measurements are really small and I can see some people having issues reading it even on the DS2000. I think it's better than DS1000 but your mileage might vary. Maybe look at some of the other manufacturers.

author: TomThomas
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2016, 03:47:18 pm
content: Quote from: markone on January 28, 2016, 02:11:22 pmHi,the latest Firmware offers large and EXTRA large font only for Measurements but better than nothing.Measure -> 2nd Menu -> Font SizeRegardsTom

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2016, 04:16:33 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on January 28, 2016, 03:13:51 pmYour answer seems to confirm all my fears, screen reading wise DS2000 is a little better, not the best around and sure not a certain solution, of course i should have to see one "live".My vision was VERY good till forty years old, then started to slowly decrease, now that i'm almost fifty i need +3.25 diopters to look at 30cm, +2.5 diopters for 50-60cm, +1.25 diopters for far vision.Normally i keep +2.5D lens for bench work & PC use, soldering of course requires additional correctionConsidering that i started with electronic hobby when i was i child, to deal with computer when i was 14 (Sinclair ZX80 & 12" Mivar TV set) and spent gazzilions of hours with electronic bench activity, probably this is the unavoidable bill to pay.My old DS1022C has the opposite problem, very LARGE dot pixel, i can read its screen in any condition, like the other toy that i used at home, the ATTEN ADS1102CAL (Siglent SDS1102CNL).The DS1074Z was a shock at first run, fonts seems like a joke to me and the fact that the lateral menus are fixed does not help at all, obviously ten years ago It would be a complete different experience, but here we are, the clock says fifty.The other scope models that i took in consideration (within 1K euro) are :SIGLENT SDS1102XSIGLENT SDS2072/4XRIGOL DS1072AI do not like at all OWON scopes for their huge plastic feeling, i do not want to consider any Hantek product after the purchase of the HDG2002B (the Firmware is a joke) and SIGLENT ones have quite limited math, capture and decoding functional capabilities compared to Rigol.I'm not able to find SDS2000x reviews on the web, but reading the user manual and watching brand's ADs seems quite similar to SDS1102x, memory size/MSO option apart, with the very same LCD panel, but i may be wrong, of course.Sincerely i was expecting a bit more on this front with the last Siglent scope X series, it's like they do not take in account what people find as plus in competitor equip. on the same segment, like the Rigol DS2000 series (that is on the market from a while), it would be only matter to add some basic functionality in scope SW.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2016, 04:23:37 pm
content: Quote from: markone on January 28, 2016, 04:16:33 pmMy vision is similar to yours (perhaps worse) and I don't have trouble with the Rigol DS2000.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2016, 04:29:47 pm
content: Quote from: markone on January 28, 2016, 04:16:33 pmBTW, if you're any good at programming and you have a PC in your lab, it's very easy to write simple software that will grab whatever data you want from the DSO (e.g. measurements) and display them whatever size you want on a monitor. It's one of the first bits of software I wrote on my older DS1052E.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2016, 05:57:54 pm
content: Ideas:https://www.independentliving.com/products.asp?dept=12&deptname=

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2016, 05:58:07 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on January 28, 2016, 04:23:37 pmAre you are wearing progressive lenses ?I hate them, geometrical distortion everywhere, but i know there is a point beyond which they become a mustRight now i can live swapping two kind of glasses during different activities, not the best, i know.Your idea to remotely manage the scope was already applied years ago with some custom Labview program developed during the spare time with different DSO, but in a lot of cases i need a direct iteraction between board under test/development and instruments (scope, signal generator, spectrum analyzer and power supply), especially for power boards or rf devices (filter & LNA).I worked some years in ATE development sector (late 80s, till middle of 90s), the gold era of GPIB & VXI chassis, i played a lot with remote instruments management till a point i started to hate that kind of approach, returning to pleasure to deal with display, knobs & buttonsIn my previous job's lab i had access to lot of Tek & Lecroy luxury, but, as you can imagine, for home DIY's needing they are quite an overkill and largely out of budget ;-)

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2016, 06:08:01 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 28, 2016, 05:57:54 pmThey could be ok with a PC screen in some extent, where i do not have any problem, but they are useless for a scope, unless you find a proper size.Anyway, i did not see anything like that in action till now ...

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2016, 06:56:16 pm
content: Quote from: markone on January 28, 2016, 05:58:07 pmNo, inside I just wear fixed-lens glasses - mostly a pair that works fairly well for a medium distance (50cm - a few meters) or sometimes stronger for reading at night. I also use extra magnification for PCB board / precision work, etc. Like you, my vision was 20/20 until my 40's, so I didn't get used to glasses when young. It took a little while to get used to wearing a medium fixed inside, but now it's normal.But I hate carrying glasses (especially more than one pair), so I wear bifocal contacts if I go out, which work well for driving, shopping, recreation, etc. They were really a revelation after struggling with forgetting to bring glasses, etc. after my vision first started getting bad (especially when my distance vision started to go).QuoteWell, the software doesn't really have to control the scope per se (the SCPI commands are extremely easy to use), and the Rigol DS2000 (unlike the DS1000Z) doesn't allow the operation of the DSO to slow down regardless of how often you poll it for data. You only have to query variables (for example, VPP) and you get scientific notation back which can be shown on a large screen. Here is a screen cap of some simple software I wrote which displays any/all measurements of Ch1, Ch2, and Math - with as many decimal places and font size as needed.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2016, 10:59:58 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on January 28, 2016, 06:56:16 pmVery same stroy here, i also found bifocal lens good for drive & recreation during the day, quite less during the night or low light, but useless to read, to work at PC or make precision works.Quote from: marmad on January 28, 2016, 06:56:16 pmYep, i know quite well SCPI command philosophy, i wrote a lot of code using them (HP Basic first, then Quick Basic, Labview from 1993) for ATE benches mainly with HP/Agilent instruments.Just to have an idea, apart aggregate meas data query that i assume are lighting fast to accomplish, how much does it take to load the scope screen data buffer to PC memory?I mean not the whole acquisition memory buffer, only the scope's screen traces data vectors (or in alternative decimated acquisition data buffer).Is it possible to reach a remote real time (or near to) live screen on PC ?I managed to do that easily with an Hantek usb DSO but i failed miserably with the old Rigol DS1022C, the USB interface throughput was obscenely low, dunno if things are changed with modern Rigol's DSO.With "el cheapo" external DSO was possible to push its USB controller (CY7C68013A) near to the limit of 2.0 standard, obtaining also nice real time FFT graphs, with Rigol i was reeeally far from that.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2016, 11:40:32 pm
content: Quote from: markone on January 28, 2016, 10:59:58 pmWell, you certainly aren't going to get 50k wfrm/s like you do on the DSO screen.But Rigol learned their lesson after the DS1000E series - which I was able to glitch and crash spectacularly by asking for data too quickly - so the speed at which you can read the waveform is wholly dependent on the DSO - which will NEVER slow itself down or interrupt an important task to send data to the PC.So it depends what you're doing with the scope and how many channels are on. On my PC, using a USB connection with a DS2000, I'm able to get a maximum of about 30 - 40 wfrm/s with a single channel on, and about 15 - 20 wfrm/s with two channels enabled in Normal mode (although I think my code can still be optimized more). You can see in the attached screen shot of my RUU software the FPS counter - it's showing about 13 wfrm/s with a single channel on while in Delayed Sweep mode (although my software is displaying the entire 256 values of the ADC for 10 vertical divisions - unlike the DSO which only does 200 values / 8 divisions).But my tests using a DS1000Z (it was borrowed, so I don't have it anymore) showed that it was considerably slower in transferring data - in the single digit range of wfrm/s.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 12:41:56 am
content: Quote from: marmad on January 28, 2016, 11:40:32 pmOf course not30-60Fps would be enough, if achievable with most scope setting.Quote from: marmad on January 28, 2016, 11:40:32 pmAre we talking about mere DSO's screen trace's point vectors (ie 800 pt / ch with interpolation made on PC) or more complex data set ?If positive the first one, the amount of data is quite small, in the order of some hundreds of KBytes/s for a complete screen @ 30FPS, the resulting bandwidth would be achievable also with the old USB 1.0 interface standard.Of course it would be enough to implement a DSO working mode with slow (or disabled) internal screen update to achieve the task, transforming it in a luxury external USB DSO, but I can imagine that it is considered a swear word from the RIGOL's minds of marketing.Quote from: marmad on January 28, 2016, 11:40:32 pmExactly what i was expecting ....It seems that i have to take money out for a new scope with big fonts on the screenPS : Rigol Tech, if you are reading this, please implement a screen mode with NORMAL fonts for middle aged people !

author: rich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 01:22:36 am
content: Is using USB the only option or can the LAN be used and does it give better wfrms/s?I guess intercepting the LCD connector and remoting it to HDMI/VGA/... for an external monitor is a step to far as a workaround for the font size ?

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 01:48:40 am
content: Quote from: rich on January 29, 2016, 01:22:36 amI'm almost sure it's not an interface bandwidth problem, the data speed is limited by firmware policy for one (or more) of following reasons :1) the internal DSO HW resosurces are not designed to2) the code that manages the USB/LAN interface it's not optimized3) it's the result of a marketing decisionI would bet on the latter.Quote from: rich on January 29, 2016, 01:22:36 amIt's a lot far, to say the least

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 02:05:24 am
content: This doesn't directly apply to the DS1000z per se but on my quest to do a faster screen capture over LAN for my DS2000 scope, using alex.forencich's vxi11I modified the script for the DS1054z screen capture to use vxi11 and my captures took 2 minutes and 40 seconds.After modifying the code to keep the MTU at 1514 bytes I can get the capture in just 4 seconds.More info here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/python-based-instrument-control/msg676772/#msg676772Not sure if this will apply to the DS1000z series, but maybe.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 02:50:46 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on January 29, 2016, 02:05:24 amI would never have dared to transfer the whole screen image in raw format for the purpose, but even 4 seconds seems A LOT of time for transfer 1 MB nowadaysSo we have a whopping 250KB/s on the LAN interface, that would be still enough for an external live screen on PC monitor if you transfer ONLY waveforms screen dots, plus some scaling parameters, leaving the interpolation math to the personal computer cpu (a joke also for 1Ghz Atom cpu).

author: rich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 03:08:57 am
content: Quote from: markone on January 29, 2016, 01:48:40 amI was thinking along the lines of your point 2 that it might have a sensible LAN architecture vs. a pitiful USB-serial arrangement.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 03:11:23 am
content: True, still the MTU size will apply to get things speedy with the stack implementation at hand.Get the programming manual for the Rigol and implement the waveform transfer, actually someone has done that already but as far as I know it was just for the 4000 and the 2000 series, but might work on the 1000 series as well.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 05:35:51 am
content: Quote from: markone on January 29, 2016, 12:41:56 amDisplay memory = 1400 bytes on the DS2000 = 1200 bytes on the DS1000Z= 50 pixels * screen divs * 2QuoteOf course, but the point is that the DSO is a real-time instrument designed to be capturing waveforms, moving the waveforms to an intensity buffer, then decimating the contents of the buffer to it's display memory, as fast and as efficiently as possible, with as little blind time as possible. Most users that want to transfer waveform data from the DSO (and there aren't many who even want to do that) want the original deep sample memory for post-processing - not display memory - and that's not possible while running the DSO anyway. So the speed it provides - while still maintaining it's own fast capture rates - are reasonable (but not great).QuoteWell, as mentioned, I don't really have a problem with any of the text size - except occasionally measurements (and that's usually when I have all or many of them displayed at the same time). Thus my software to throw it up on a large monitor close by.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 05:37:27 am
content: Quote from: rich on January 29, 2016, 01:22:36 amLAN can be used, but the last time I checked, it was slower then USB.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 05:42:45 am
content: Quote from: markone on January 29, 2016, 01:48:40 am1 and 2.EDIT: I'm pretty sure it's mostly #2, although it's also possible they didn't design the hardware well to allow for fast, asynchronous transfers from display memory during use. Of course, they could have included a SVGA output as standard, but they're always pinching pennies on these low cost DSOs.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 05:45:52 am
content: Quote from: marmad on January 29, 2016, 05:37:27 amAs I mentioned above, if you try to read more than 1420 bytes per transfer the TCP stack has to do resends and it slows it down quite a bit. With the TCP/IP frame overhead the ideal MTU size of 1514 bytes will speed things up making the LAN faster than USB transfers.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 05:53:16 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on January 29, 2016, 05:45:52 amI read your post, but IIRC (I could be wrong, but I'm not around my scope to check at the moment) I get3-4 secondscreen captures using USB. So your rate doesn't sound any faster to me.EDIT: Actually, just double-checked and it takes ~2.5 seconds to get a screen capture to the PC and save it (using USB).

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 11:02:57 am
content: Quote from: marmad on January 29, 2016, 05:35:51 amSo actually it's even worst, heck ... i'm embarrassed, we have also a ridiculously slow interface, no sh*t !Sorry for the french, but on the base of what you report it would be enough to deal with a mere 72 KB/s data exchange to maintain a remote live screen 4 channels @30FPS (600*4*30) and as you guys have proved, the DS1054Z is actually a loooot slower!I can understand that those physical interfaces are there mainly for instrument setting, but hell, these are numbers suitable for an Arduino UNO board.The performance of the CY7C68013A USB controller that we can find in 60USD 20Mhz DSOs here seems an unbridled luxury (and they are transferring the whole acquisition buffer to PC).Year ago i hacked one external PATA HDD enclosure based on CY7C68013A (that contains a sort of 8251 mcu) and attaching a TI 14bit 80MS/s ADC evaluation board on its original IDE PATA bus i achieved sustained 16 MS/s transfers (32MB/s) at easy.Once properly programmed such controller requires only to write the 16bit word on its data bus and then put a transition on its bus clock pin (the controller code is upload from PC as soon as the device is attached, of course with proper device driver installed) so the external data source has not to be smart.Ok, as far as i understood, no remote live screen is possible with mine DSO (DS1074Z), so i'm definitively on the market to buy another one.I should have a sit in front of a real scope screen to evaluate, but right now i do not know how.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 11:40:10 am
content: Quote from: markone on January 29, 2016, 11:02:57 amNo, it's larger than the 800 bytes you mentioned (I'm assuming you're getting that figure from the old DSOs with 320x200 screen sizes). It's 1400 (or 1200) bytes per channel; display memory contains vectors for each horizontal pixel.QuoteYou're comparing apples and oranges. Those 60USD 20Mhz DSOs aren't capturing 30k wfrm/s into an intensity buffer - they are a whole different animal. You could argue that the DSO maker should allow you to choose between slower update rates / faster transfers and faster update rates / slower transfers - but that is, if not extra hardware, certainly more programming and development costs - so it would mean more expensive DSOs.QuoteOf course it's possible - you'll just have an update rate of a few waveforms per second.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 01:15:19 pm
content: Ok, so we have two bytes for a single dot and we have to multiply my numbers by two.Still i cannot justify few frames per second, it renders this function useless for a lot of purposes.I agree with you that those instruments are not natively designed for remote viewing, but if it's only matter to write some more code (and not a system limit) it could be an additional selling point and/or SW option to pay for.For sure the dirty cheap price must be taken in account, but i'm in a quite different position because i purchased the 70Mhz version.I was convinced that analog front end was different BW wise...obviously, as now everyone and their dog know (after Dave's great analysis), i was WRONG !To summarize, please correct me if i'm wrong, DS2000 series has much faster screen transfer function than DS1000Z, in the order of 10 factor.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 01:41:48 pm
content: Quote from: markone on January 29, 2016, 01:15:19 pmWell, even 30 FPS would be useless for many purposes when compared to 30,000 FPS; it depends on what you need it for. I've found many uses for the remote viewing - even when it's just doing 5 FPS. Obviously you can scale the display on a PC screen to 4x the size of the DSO screen, so you can see it from across a room. Of course, for very fast changing signals, it's less useful (although you can simulate persistence).QuoteWell, the hardware needs to be designed correctly to allow unencumbered asynchronous access to display memory, unless you don't care if the acquisition rate of the DSO is occasionally interrupted for transfers.QuoteI never had the time to test it fully (and it might have been improved in later FW), but I think it was perhaps closer to a factor of 5. The problem with the DS1000Z is that, in order to keep it very cheap, it's rather under-powered. You can see how the GUI slows down when MATH functions are enabled, etc (I believe the DS2000 has at least one extra FPGA for display processing).

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 02:08:42 pm
content: When i provide numbers like 30 or 60 for FPS i'm referring to typical lcd panels max refresh rates, every task for persistence, analog moking, rare event capture and so on are already performed by DSO on its own, where FPGA crunch all the KiloWaveforms/s, so we have to transfer the final result to PC as well the DSO LCD transfers it to your eyes, so your brain.Both of them have an actual frame BW of some tens per second, otherwise it's like to say that the scope's panel shows 30000 waveforms per second :-)

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 02:55:41 pm
content: Quote from: markone on January 29, 2016, 02:08:42 pmThe DSO uses a screen-sized intensity buffer (Z-buffer) for storing captured waveforms in, and so is able to display, for example, 30k waveforms per second with it's max. refresh rate. Of course, distinguishing the depth of overlapped waveforms is limited by gradation depth - or by the ability of our eyes to distinguish discrete shades (as in analog scopes).But when you transfer the display memory from the Rigol to the PC, you are not getting the intensity buffer (it would be much much larger in size) - you are only getting the last captured waveform - so 30 FPS is literally 30 wfrm/s.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 03:33:58 pm
content: I know this is just for a screen captureIf you look at frames 37 and 38 the time to do a raw read of 1420 bytes is:frame 37 4.85213000frame 38 4.855154003.024ms or 469,577 bytes per second or 3.756614 Mbps.My loop is not optimized so there is some time spent between requests (just 0.155ms) since the next read request happens at frame 39frame 39 4.85530900So as it is on that python script loop my effective transfer rate is:3.179ms per 1420 bytes. (3.573450 Mbps)The :DISP:DATA? on the 2000 returns a total of 1152054 bytes (800x480*3+54) plus 13 bytes overheadTMC_header_len = 11terminator_len = 2for a total of 1152067 bytes (9.216536 Mbits) so the potential to get the image at it fastest is2.58 seconds. I'm probably stalling the tcp stack or something didnt look at the full capture in detail.In any event, the hardware can transfer beyond 3 Mbps so if instead we were capturing the waveforms it should be able to update them pretty quick, but I didn't try to do that yet.Edit: of course the DISP command might be a special case because the scope might not be too busy. So depending what the scope is doing the waveforms probably hinders the transfer rate.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 03:41:51 pm
content: @marmadYou are obviously right, but the way you explain the matter may induce one to understand that the ACTUAL refresh rate of the scope screen is from 30000 different images showed distinctly per second while, as we know, we have something like 60 FPS with intensity grade integration and persistance mechanisms applied on every single dot that virtually extend the information rate to thousands per second.If no graduation data is transferred outside the DSO, i'm spot on your thinking.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 07:28:07 pm
content: Have you tried this one btw?https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/free-ds6000ds1000z-software/I haven't had a chance to use it yet, comes with full source

author: alsetalokin4017
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 07:44:51 pm
content: Yes, DSRemote works great !

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 07:45:55 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on January 29, 2016, 03:33:58 pmHonestly i never tinkered around this scope for external control, it was enough for me to take occasional snapshots on usb flash key, while i played a lot with front panel controls.I saw in other threads that lot of work has been done around DS1000Z boards by some capable guys that have already sniffed & scanned spotting lot of important things, i'm wondering if the command interface parser table is fully readable or is buried encrypted in the flash dumps.There is still margin to discover new commands ?

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 07:48:17 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on January 29, 2016, 07:28:07 pmThanks a lot for the hint, i will give a try later.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 01:39:23 am
content: Quote from: markone on January 29, 2016, 07:45:55 pmThere is a programmer manual:DS2000 series:http://assets.tequipment.net/assets/1/26/Documents/Rigol/DS2072/ds2072_doc_5.pdfMSO1000z/DS1000z series:http://www.batronix.com/pdf/Rigol/ProgrammingGuide/MSO1000Z_DS1000Z_ProgrammingGuide_EN.pdfThere might be new commands added on the firmware as they now support CAN bus on some scopes, but overall those docs have most of the commands, maybe there are others but you can look at all the Rigol threads and probably they are already found by others.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 08:21:12 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on January 30, 2016, 01:39:23 amThat one is from September 2014. Since there has been some firmware updates, the programming guide has been updated as well.The latest is from July 2015 and you can download it from the Rigol website.Technical documents should always be downloaded from the source, not from some shop.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 01:56:37 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on January 30, 2016, 01:39:23 amThose threads are so huuuge, i was hoping to gain a summary ;-)Of course i'm aware of official programming guide but i was referring to unknown commands kept "secret" by Rigol.I think that DZ1000Z scopes have enough power to be turned in a great remote USB scope, but i would bet that this is not what Rigol want.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 02:20:37 pm
content: Quote from: markone on January 30, 2016, 01:56:37 pmI don't think so. Appearantly, Rigol scopes don't have enough processing power and memory to handle USB (or LAN) in atimely matter. The results are low waveform update rates and an eternity to download the deep memory waveform data.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 02:54:13 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on January 30, 2016, 02:20:37 pmI forgot to mention "slowing or disabling LCD panel display update", as already stated in some previous post.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 04:24:57 pm
content: Quote from: markone on January 30, 2016, 02:54:13 pmDownloading the deep memory waveform data is only possible when the scope is in "Stop" mode.That means, there's no aquisition and there are no display updates. Still, it's ridiculously slow.If they should have put an extra arm controller with Linux, they could probably spit out the data 100 times faster.But, hey, you can't have it all for only 400 bucks. Keeping in mind this price, it's extremely powerfull.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 06:36:08 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on January 30, 2016, 04:24:57 pmSure i agree, the problem here is that I no longer have the perfect sight i had years ago (GUI fonts would be small anyway, in absolute, i should take it live before purchase) so i was looking for a way to continue to work with it without further degrade my eyes.The remote PC control would be one way as suggested by some other kind members.I do not know details about its internal HW architecture, but i think it would be more a problem related to CPU-FPGA interfacing system than CPU computing power limit, at least upon my personal experience of I/O management with same class embedded processor.The absence of a DMA channel like mechanism between FPGA and CPU would be a good example.I mean, if the system is designed in the rigid way that most of the data exchange happens to be between ADC->FPGA->LCD panel controller with the main processor left to work aside mostly with aggregate and pre-processed data becoming from FPGA, we have the answer for the boring slow transfer speed on USB / LAN interfaces when we require deep data set.I'm also quite sure that there is margin for improvement disabling some task but at the same time i'm also quite sure that Rigols does not will that.

author: MarkF
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2016, 04:54:11 am
content: I agree that the font is small. But, I believe the real culprit here is the font-family. If you compare the 6's and 9's in this screen capture with the 7x8 pixel Verdana font overlay, you will see that the Verdana font is easier to read even when small. Comparing their 6's, 8's and 9's, you will see that there is only one or two pixels different between them. A font-family where the characters have a larger variation, between the numbers especially, would make a big difference.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2016, 08:04:31 am
content: Quote from: MarkF on January 31, 2016, 04:54:11 amGood point. It's also true for the alphabet characters: The measurements, i.e. the smallest text that appears on the scope screen, are the only place where Rigol decided to use a serif font. The serifs waste quite a few pixels and make the main strokes of the characters even smaller and harder to read, at least for me.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2016, 09:38:38 am
content: Just to complete my lamer list, why the hell the GUI's lateral menus are fixed ? (dunno if already discussed)We are loosing a lot of screen space, in comparison my Atten ADS1102CAL (with Siglent SDS1102CNL FW) renders a much image, intensity gradient absence apart.

author: alsetalokin4017
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2016, 01:17:29 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on January 31, 2016, 08:04:31 amWell, just select "Large fonts" in the Measure menu. How often do you really need five measurements displayed on screen simultaneously?But I agree completely, using the serif font in the small measurement display is just asinine.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2016, 11:04:29 am
content: Quote from: alsetalokin4017 on February 01, 2016, 01:17:29 amwell, if the problem was only the meas text .... but with have all the rest.

author: alsetalokin4017
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2016, 11:58:22 am
content: Well, I'm losing my close-focus ability as I age too, but I can't expect everything in the world to accommodate my vision problems, so I wear glasses when I need to see up close. Pretty strong ones too, up to 3 diopters and even more when I'm doing repairs or sewing my socks or something.There is a lot of information on the Rigol screen, some of it unnecessary like the always-on left and right menus. So the fonts have to be small to display all that information. I don't think this is going to change in some "ideal" firmware revision. If you need a larger screen, like on higher-end Keysight or LeCroy scopes, you'll have to pay the price for it. But their fonts are pretty small too.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2016, 12:22:32 pm
content: Quote from: alsetalokin4017 on February 01, 2016, 11:58:22 amSame diopters, same thinkingAnd when i solder i use, in addition, a desktop magnifying lamp.Probably the vast majority of the DS1xxxZ scopes is made up of young people with perfect sight, otherwise this thread would have been longer.I sure do not expect any magical FW revision and i'm starting to wonder if the reason of the forced presence of lateral menus is due to the need to mantain a reducted Z buffer size to limit FPGA computing effort.Yesterday i was viewing the Dave's HMO1202 review (), i think that is a good example about how to organize a scope screen with a great readability and right amount of informations in a relative small size.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 01:35:09 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on January 29, 2016, 05:53:16 amI' trying right now theRigolBildschirmkopieprogram, with my DS1074Z on USB interface i'm obtaining an average screen capture rate around 3.5/s with one channel and 2.5/s with four channels turned on.It seems much faster than what you have seen, why ?

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 02:22:15 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 03, 2016, 01:35:09 pmYou're talking about the SCPI command to send a screen capture (which always operated more or less the same on both DSOs), as opposed to the commands that transfer waveform memory data.BTW, my tests were run when the DS1000Z series was relatively new. It's possible they've improved the speeds in later firmware - I have no way of checking.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 02:37:52 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on February 03, 2016, 02:22:15 pmHi marmad,i was referring to your statement : "EDIT: Actually, just double-checked and it takes ~2.5 seconds to get a screen capture to the PC and save it (using USB).", where you talk about screen capture and not waveform memory data, but to be honest i do not know what scope you was benchmarking.On the following web page :http://peter.dreisiebner.at/rigol-bildschirmkopie-lan/if you scroll down a little you can find a table with remote screen capture update rate with RigolBildschirmkopie and it seems that under USB interface the DS1104Z is a little faster than MSO2302A, that i assume to be as faster as the DSO version.I'm still considering the purchase of Rigol 2K DSO/MSO, so i would ask if you could gently check what update rate you can reach with your scope and the very same utility.Thanks in advance,Marco.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 03:00:32 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on February 03, 2016, 02:52:17 pm"Actually, just double-checked and it takes ~2.5 seconds to get a screen capture to the PC and save it (using USB)"I read 2.5 seconds in your statement, if it's the screen capture transfer time your rate is a slower (0.3 second).Is it actually 2.5 seconds ?

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 03:17:59 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 03, 2016, 03:00:32 pmSorry, I thought you meant 2.5 seconds when I read your post originally. And yes, 2.5 seconds was what it was when I last measured it (3 years ago). When I wrote I "just double-checked" above, I meant I checked this post that I wrote ~3 years ago:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/software-tips-and-tricks-for-rigol-ds200040006000-ultravision-dsos/msg171575/#msg171575The RigolBildschirmkopie program fails to identify my DS2000 on the USB connection (even though Rigol UltraSigma sees it), so I can't test the speed using that software.But I'm really not sure what getting a screen print 3 or 4 times a second has to do with the discussion we were having before. It doesn't even approach the 30FPS you claimed might be adequate before. Plus I could get all of the waveform data, plus all of the on-screen parameters - then recreate a DSO screen facsimile on a PC screen - much faster than 4 times a second.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 03:34:48 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on February 03, 2016, 03:17:59 pmYes, you are right, has not a lot to do, i was only trying to understand if the DS2072A is slower or fater for screen capture transfer.The main addition with screen capture over waveform data will be the intensity gradient (as you pointed out previously), if it would be possible to integrate it inside a remote control application like your and obtain something like 10-20 update per second would be great.RigolBildschirmkopie uses WinUsb, in order to use it with your Rigol you have to use Zadig utility (http://zadig.akeo.ie/downloads/zadig_2.2.exe) to install the support for it.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 03:43:46 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 03, 2016, 03:34:48 pmI don't know how the screen capture functions on the DS1000Z, but, IIRC, on the DS2000 it either STOPs the DSO - or it seriously slows down the DSO's operation. In other words, it interferes/interrupts the waveform capture rate.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 03:56:12 pm
content: With RigolBildschirmkopie program i get continuous screen capture transfer on pc screen and file write (if enabled) while the scope is running without any evident slow down, until i turn on the math, otherwise i get about3 FPS and i can operate freely the scope panel.I could/should be the same for DS2000.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 04:03:42 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 03, 2016, 03:56:12 pmI'm afraid just watching the DSO screen would not be enough to test this adequately. You'd have to have the DSO set to a timebase with a very fast update rate that taxes the DSOs resources (e.g. 20ns/div), while having a sufficiently fast changing signal or pulse stream that demonstrates the 30k (or whatever) wfrm/s.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 04:24:15 pm
content: I did try to measure waveforms per second on my scope.My Rigol DS2000 has a spec of 50,000 wfrms/s, I can get up to 48,000 wfrms/s, If and only If I let the automatic memory depth to be 700 points, so to achieve 48,000 wfrms/s you have to be looking at a 5ns per division and the voltage and other things seem to matter as well.If I manually select the minimal selection of 14K points I get 5,000 wfrms/s, and if I want anything with deeper memory then forget about it.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/first-personal-'scope-purchase/msg681691/#msg681691Edit: I didn't put on that post how I measured it, I did put a frequency counter on the trigger out BNC in the back.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 04:34:57 pm
content: Ok, just to give an idea, i made an animated PNG built with @ 5ns-1.00GSa/s - 12K mem captured screens, i set the frame rate in order to reproduce what i can see live on the screen.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 04:43:29 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on February 03, 2016, 04:24:15 pmI'm not sure this is the correct thread to discuss this, but virtually every DSO manufacturer always specifies maximum wfrm/s using the lowest memory depth possible with dots (not vectors) selected. Of course, it's the fastest speed - so they use the settings that would achieve the fastest speed.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 06:02:52 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on February 03, 2016, 04:43:29 pmI'm just saying that achieving 30K wfrms/s is not going to be easy unless you can make the memory dept to be around 2.5Kpts in automatic mode.Still 5,000 wfrms/s at 14Kpts is nothing to sneeze at since that is 70 million points per second, at max mem-depth it goes down to 35.5 wfrms/s but that's understandable for 56 Mega points, for 1.988 giga points per second!.At 469,577 bytes per second maximum transfer time via USB/Network to the PC you must loose about 65.5 million points per second on the best scenario.In other words, out of the 5,000 wfrms/s at 14Kpts you can only keep about 36 of those waveforms per second, being optimistic.It wouldn't look that bad, but it's never going to be as good as what you see in the scope screen.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 07:44:04 pm
content: I made some check on waveform capture rate under continuos screen transfer load, what happens is that the "blind time" sometime grows (7.5ms to 25ms) while the capture burst maintain its frequency, around 17 Khz.Useless to say, scope screen on PC monitor is waaay more clearer, not only for size but also due to pixel sharpness and you have visually lots of waveforms in it, way more than what is achievable with waveform data transfer.A pity for the slow rate (3FPS), at 20-30FPS would great.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 09:22:24 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 03, 2016, 07:44:04 pmI guess you used quotes because you know that's not really the blind time, right?QuoteI can imagine it might be good for very slow moving waveforms - since all of the waveforms you are seeing are 250 - 400ms old.EDIT: So, assuming a constant rate as shown in the screen shots, in the first example, your DSO is averaging approx. 14.6k wfrm/s - in the second example, the rate has dropped to approx. 10.6k wfrm/s (although with 25ms gaps at ~15Hz).

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 11:27:39 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on February 03, 2016, 09:22:24 pmExactly.Quote from: marmad on February 03, 2016, 09:22:24 pmNot all the gaps grow to 25ms under load, some remain almost at "unload" width, the capture rate loss is smaller (see attached image).I agree, 3 FPS are sadly not enough but now i'm starting to wonder which correlation exist between gap rate (about 20Hz) and scope lcd panel update rate (not waveform capture rate).My bet is that is on par, during the gap time interval the FPGA writes the lcd controller frame buffer, so 20Hz screen update, at least for waveform graph section.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 03:25:38 am
content: Well, i made a couple of tests in order to understand at which rate my DS1074Z refreshes the lcd screen panel waveform section content, what i found seems to confirm what i was thinking, i have around 20 FPS @ 5ns - 12K setting.First one : i recorded some short movies of the screen with my panasonic SD700 @ 1920x1080 50p, so i converted them in a png sequences then i visually checked every frame, there is one actual screen update about every 2 movie frames.Second one (unscientific & subjective) : i built some animated GIFs with sequences of screen captures (made with RigolBildschirmkopie) at difference frame rate, the ones that more replicate the real screen scope "experience" are around 20-25 FPS.It should be necessary a faster video recorder for an accurate measurement but i do not own one, anyway i feel that those number are quite correct.In attachment an animeted GIF @ 25 frame per second, visually quite similar to what i see on the scope screen refresh rate wise, obviously its content is not correct due to skipped frames.

author: aneevuser
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2022, 10:36:32 am
content: Quote from: TomThomas on January 28, 2016, 03:47:18 pmThank the Lord for the interwebs. I've been driven crazy by this font problem for ages, and finally stumbled across this response. The larger fonts are a great improvement.But given that it's taken me about 3 years to find it, it says something about the efficacy of menu driven systems compared to the old style all-on-the-front-panel setup - and what's more, I also discovered next to the Font Size menu, another menu where you can turn off display of selected measurements. I must RTFM one day.I apologise for the zombie revivification.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2022, 11:01:35 am
content: Quote from: aneevuser on July 17, 2022, 10:36:32 amTo be fair, a front panel with direct controls for all the functions of a modern digital scope would be absurdly large and expensive to make, and not all that user-friendly either. Three-position toggle switch for font size, anyone? But it would certainly be good to impress your friends with a full airplane cockpit look.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2022, 11:35:17 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 17, 2022, 11:01:35 am