Oscilloscope Zoom Out Quirk

[rsjsouza]

No SDS2104X Plus left ...customers have them all so out comes zoom on a SDS5104X.......
What's not to like......still an 8" display of which half is still usable.
Cluttered display ? 

In my opinion, yes. I have less screen area to what I really want to see from the waveform itself, not the entire capture. Sure, a Pico will never have this issue, but an 8'' screen (just like my DS4014) this is not good.

You may have misunderstood. 
10" native display but in Zoom mode 8" of corner to corner usable display still remains where in this image only half is used by 3
traces including the decode display.

That is surely more screen realstate than what I understood. Thanks for clarifying.
(No chance to customize this and remove the zommed out bar, I suppose? I need moar, MOAR screen! )

Rafael, it is probably me not being able to explain well. Rigol comes by default in Auto, and I met more than few people that keep using it only in Auto, because for interactive work it is better, than having to think about capture memory, and still have scope work as fast as possible. If you want to understand how Siglent memory works, put your Rigol in Auto memory and observe how it behaves.

Thank you again. You probably explained this before but I also could not understand correctly (not native as well).

[...]
The fun thing is there has been a manufacturer who radically changed their operation mode: Tek. Auto vs non auto, which is most popular? which causes more support requests?

Is there anything quite as disheartening as staring at an oscilloscope screen that refuses to display any trace? 

The latest Tek models MDO 3 and 4 felt that way for me...

[nctnico]

It'd be great if scopes offered the choice to set all these parameters, but absolutely none do.

Still there is a basic set of operating modes common amongst most brands (as Dave has demonstrated in his 'zoomout' video). This thread is about the behaviour of 2 outliers when it comes to benchtop oscilloscopes.

[Someone]

It'd be great if scopes offered the choice to set all these parameters, but absolutely none do.

Still there is a basic set of operating modes common amongst most brands (as Dave has demonstrated in his 'zoomout' video). This thread is about the behaviour of 2 outliers when it comes to benchtop oscilloscopes.

A use case which is so complex and full of gotchas that almost no-one uses it! You've been unable to clearly explain the benefits of such a workflow, hence the many users getting confused.

Its really simple, 99% of people would use a zoom window so they can see both. Zooming out is not a great idea as it lacks controls of where the capture window is located.

You didn't like that it used up some extra screen space you felt was better used on other things. Fine. Thats not a reason to change memory management, thats a motivator to improve the customisability of the traces/zoom windows. But you keep rallying against anything but your narrow solution, when for the majority there are far better ways to do it.

Adjustable memory controls, could be useful, zero manufacturers have implemented it.
Adjustable windows, probably much better, thats where newer instruments are going.

But keep going with your short one liners that miss all the nuance and details which your nonsense arguments rely on. We'll keep point out how they are silly.

[tautech]

No SDS2104X Plus left ...customers have them all so out comes zoom on a SDS5104X.......
What's not to like......still an 8" display of which half is still usable.
Cluttered display ? 

In my opinion, yes. I have less screen area to what I really want to see from the waveform itself, not the entire capture. Sure, a Pico will never have this issue, but an 8'' screen (just like my DS4014) this is not good.

You may have misunderstood. 
10" native display but in Zoom mode 8" of corner to corner usable display still remains where in this image only half is used by 3
traces including the decode display.

That is surely more screen realstate than what I understood. Thanks for clarifying.

You're welcome.
Some maintain Zoom mode is too confined to be workable yet the simple screenshot offered and measurements shown there's actually more screen real estate than some scopes offer in unzoomed mode however we only have this nice 25/75 ratio in these latest scopes with the new UI.

(No chance to customize this and remove the zommed out bar, I suppose? I need moar, MOAR screen! )

SDS6000....coming in a while .....12" display. 

But seriously we all want larger displays for some display intense jobs and most modern DSO's permit porting the display to a larger screen where that screen size itself is the only limiting factor....

[Martin72]

But seriously we all want larger displays for some display intense jobs

Where 12" (our hdo6034A) is my personal absolute limit, watching it in short distance.
We got a lecroy WR9054 also, it´s 15.4" screen reminds of sitting in the first row in a cinema...
In fact, the 10" screen of my private siglent sds2k+ is perfect for me.

[nctnico]

It'd be great if scopes offered the choice to set all these parameters, but absolutely none do.

Still there is a basic set of operating modes common amongst most brands (as Dave has demonstrated in his 'zoomout' video). This thread is about the behaviour of 2 outliers when it comes to benchtop oscilloscopes.

A use case which is so complex and full of gotchas that almost no-one uses it! You've been unable to clearly explain the benefits of such a workflow, hence the many users getting confused.

Read the comments to Dave's video; you'll see that many people are using zoom-out and consider it a standard DSO feature.

All in all the reality is that your statement is the other way around; there are a limited number of people who:
1) Don't understand the benefit because they don't need it and somehow are opposed to it as a result or maybe because they want a solution which works for 10 out of 10 cases instead of one which is faster but only covers 9 out of 10 cases.
2) Have a vested interest in a brand which doesn't support 'zooming out' and keep spreading marketing wank.

It is not my function to explain things in depth. I'm not getting paid for that so be happy with what I give you for free. I just point out how to do things more efficiently (less twiddling of knobs) and oppose marketing wank.

The whole discussion is pretty similar to the (recurring) one in the CAD section where people don't see the usefullness of having a part database which holds the parts information instead of littering the symbol library with ordering information (etc) and on top of that are heavily opposed to this workflow beyond reasoning.  Almost to the point where they claim 'everyone using a part database is an idiot' while having a seperate part database (part management) is one of the key feature in the eyes of the professional PCB CAD vendors and is also mandatory feature for many of their professional customers.

Anyway, I'm going to leave this discussion as it is. It has been long enough and arguments are going in circles.

[Martin72]

It is not my function to explain things in depth. I'm not getting paid for that so be happy what I give you for free.

LOL.

[2N3055]

How is manually setting memory depth  and time base every time you want to change what you're looking at less keypresses than simply set timebase, press zoom, set 2nd timebase and position.

Memory settings are usually not on buttons or main menu so you at least need to press Acquistion - Record length -select length. That is 3 steps for memory set alone. Then you need to setup timebase for screen (making sure to keep sample rate in sweet spot that will guarantee your wanted full sample), and then you need to find a place in a buffer with delay command or knob, for which you don't have any visual aid, but need to find the right place blindly, pretty much zooming out to see where you are, moving displayed portion with delay, and then zooming in and keep repeating it in until you are at the right spot.

You see, after this thing kept going for a while, I went and took out my Micsig (which has both auto, and manual memory management. auto is default).
And I tried what you're saying and it was not less keypresses, but significantly more twiddling on average. You need to constantly twiddle back and forth with time base and position to look around. I set time base for full capture, press zoom, set secondary time base, set zoom position, and then after capture, i just move zoom position with finger on the visual map of capture. That's it. Yes it uses screen space for zoom. But it is way faster, more intuitive, WISIWIG, you literally see what you're doing. And, I didn't mention this before, you can disable zoom and move around with  timebase and delays same way as you do... So you capture initial capture with zoom with all the benefits that has, and once you have your data, disable the zoom and move around as you would your way.

[Martin72]

which has both auto, and manual memory management. auto is default

Everyone took "Auto" as default....Why....My guess is, it´s "foolproof" meaning it´s the most usable condition at all.
But not for everyone, we´ve learned here. 

[Someone]

It'd be great if scopes offered the choice to set all these parameters, but absolutely none do.

Still there is a basic set of operating modes common amongst most brands (as Dave has demonstrated in his 'zoomout' video). This thread is about the behaviour of 2 outliers when it comes to benchtop oscilloscopes.

A use case which is so complex and full of gotchas that almost no-one uses it! You've been unable to clearly explain the benefits of such a workflow, hence the many users getting confused.

Read the comments to Dave's video; you'll see that many people are using zoom-out and consider it a standard DSO feature.

All in all the reality is that your statement is the other way around; there are a limited number of people who:
1) Don't understand the benefit because they don't need it and somehow are opposed to it as a result or maybe because they want a solution which works for 10 out of 10 cases instead of one which is faster but only covers 9 out of 10 cases.
2) Have a vested interest in a brand which doesn't support 'zooming out' and keep spreading marketing wank.

It is not my function to explain things in depth. I'm not getting paid for that so be happy with what I give you for free. I just point out how to do things more efficiently (less twiddling of knobs) and oppose marketing wank.

The whole discussion is pretty similar to the (recurring) one in the CAD section where people don't see the usefullness of having a part database which holds the parts information instead of littering the symbol library with ordering information (etc) and on top of that are heavily opposed to this workflow beyond reasoning.  Almost to the point where they claim 'everyone using a part database is an idiot' while having a seperate part database (part management) is one of the key feature in the eyes of the professional PCB CAD vendors and is also mandatory feature for many of their professional customers.

Anyway, I'm going to leave this discussion as it is. It has been long enough and arguments are going in circles.

Its all here in the thread, you insist that zoom windows cannot be used. Which is plainly untrue and a made up constraint of yours. I much prefer to have a zoom window set so I can see both interesting features without having to adjust or touch anything. So insisting that everyone else is just like you and the world should change for that is very much your problem that you need to come to terms with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
I have worked with a wide range of scopes and colleagues, and never seen anyone use the "zoom out" workflow or trick intentionally. We're trying to imagine how this workflow could be used practically and add value to our work, but you're had to narrow the constraints so far to such a specific point its silly. We politely explain how if any one of the synthetic constraints is removed then there is no real problem and many ways to achieve the task.

Since people don't seem to read back through the thread:

One way is as good as the other, maybe, but DSOs are designed, primarily, around zooming in.

Says who? Nobody provided any evidence that zooming out is not the way an oscilloscope works. The fact it (recording beyond the screen) is possible on many oscilloscopes suggests that those are actually designed to work this way.

They can work that way, yes. But you keep insisting that other ways to achieve the same result are completely irrelevant and not to be considered. That may be for you, but you keep bringing this extremely narrow and unusual workflow up as some general advice when its completely your imaginary construction.

If you want to bring it up, then you'll need to actually put out the reasons, constraints, and benefits of your method. This thread is full of people completely not understanding why you keep talking about this the way you do. Smells like trolling.

When put in context its an obvious obscure corner case, it requires all these simultaneously:

• slow/infrequent trigger rate (compared to the detail window being viewed)
• interesting detail at short time window
• possibly interesting detail in the larger capture (but can't rely on another trigger arriving)
• unwillingness to use a zoom window

You just draw out the discussion endlessly with distractions and nonsense. You've got a workflow that works for you, great. You'd like to see it available on more scopes, great, write to the manufacturers. But stop arguing that this workflow is somehow important for others to consider if you can't motivate us to its benefits.

So lets consider your latest point by point:

Read the comments to Dave's video; you'll see that many people are using zoom-out and consider it a standard DSO feature.

Some people, no measure of how significant that is.

All in all the reality is that your statement is the other way around; there are a limited number of people who:
1) Don't understand the benefit because they don't need it and somehow are opposed to it as a result or maybe because they want a solution which works for 10 out of 10 cases instead of one which is faster but only covers 9 out of 10 cases.
2) Have a vested interest in a brand which doesn't support 'zooming out' and keep spreading marketing wank.

Not sure how any of that is part of the discussion and what I've been saying. You have this list of constraints (above) which are unstated but you are sure everyone else values them and has them in place.

It is not my function to explain things in depth. I'm not getting paid for that so be happy with what I give you for free. I just point out how to do things more efficiently (less twiddling of knobs) and oppose marketing wank.

More efficiently? Use the zoom, zero controls to be touched or adjusted. Sounds more efficient to most people.

You have these (continually unstated) constraints which are essential to make your arguments. We're pointing out how a) they are silly, b) they're a very narrow corner case rarely encountered, and c) how other options trade off different priorities/values.

But sure keep, coming back with one liners about how specific brands and models cant do the job. Or we don't know anything can can't use scopes properly.

[nctnico]

But sure keep, coming back with one liners about how specific brands and models cant do the job. Or we don't know anything can can't use scopes properly.

Nice try to twist my words but I'm not going to let you bait me into endless circular discussions as you did with Wuerstchenhund.

[tautech]

But sure keep, coming back with one liners about how specific brands and models cant do the job. Or we don't know anything can can't use scopes properly.

Nice try to twist my words but I'm not going to let you bait me into endless circular discussions as you did with Wuerstchenhund.

 
And what do you call this ?

@Tautech: please stop making a fool out of yourself by pretending everyone but you is stupid. DSOs have had zoom mode and math since the late 80's. Oscilloscope users are well aware that it exists; there is nothing new or special about zoom mode and math these days.

When I give a further indepth reply to a member that was proven to help their understanding and done in a way for other readers to understand and you nitpick through it.

You my man are the incessant troll and barely worth the effort to type a reply.
Instead I suggest you direct your energies to lobby KS for far greater memory depth in their instruments so you can have the instrument you want but don't like in its current configuration.
Good luck you'll need it.

[mawyatt]

Know this isn't directly related to the Zoom topic, but think it's a worthwhile perspective.

Joined this a year ago to collect information on purchasing a new DSO, in past had only considered Tektronix, HP/AG/KS (some R&S) equipment but knew this would be out of my budjet since it was now out of my pocket (retired), not the company's. After a little time it came clear who the Fan boys/girls, unbiased, informed, uninformed, and just plain no-valued-added individuals were. Some seem to provide no worthwhile input other than criticizing everyone and everything else that doesn't fit their agenda.

Sure early on I knew tautech was a Siglent dealer, but he provided significant worthwhile information while limiting bashing others or brands unless provoked. Recently he even downplayed the new low end Siglent DSO, so not just spewing mis-informantion like many, but provided a valuable perspective especially for a newcomer interested in a low end DSO. He also provides guidance to those that want to "hack" their equipment and even provided help with a few that are trying to DIY replicate the Siglent Logic Analyzer probe.

The constant criticism and no-valued-added responses from some just take away from the excellent information and guidance from those that are informed, especially true for newcomers that haven't developed the "read-between-the-lines" skills yet!!

BTW we selected a Siglent SDS2102X Plus (4X was BO), and used the Zoom function a few times, not a Zoom connoisseur like some, but worked fine for we've needed.

Best,

[Fungus]

Thats a Rigol (the specific brand you asked for) causing aliasing or slow update rates if the user selects an inappropriate memory depth.

Any 'scope can have pathologically slow combinations of memory depth/sample rate.

eg. If you tell a Rigol DS1054Z to use 24Mb memory with 25kSamples/sec. sample rate then yes, it takes 10 seconds to refresh the screen. It's math.

This isn't what's being discussed here though so let's not pretend that it is. If I tell a Siglent to use all the memory then it should use it.

[SilverSolder]

Know this isn't directly related to the Zoom topic, but think it's a worthwhile perspective.

Joined this a year ago to collect information on purchasing a new DSO, in past had only considered Tektronix, HP/AG/KS (some R&S) equipment but knew this would be out of my budjet since it was now out of my pocket (retired), not the company's. After a little time it came clear who the Fan boys/girls, unbiased, informed, uninformed, and just plain no-valued-added individuals were. Some seem to provide no worthwhile input other than criticizing everyone and everything else that doesn't fit their agenda.

Sure early on I knew tautech was a Siglent dealer, but he provided significant worthwhile information while limiting bashing others or brands unless provoked. Recently he even downplayed the new low end Siglent DSO, so not just spewing mis-informantion like many, but provided a valuable perspective especially for a newcomer interested in a low end DSO. He also provides guidance to those that want to "hack" their equipment and even provided help with a few that are trying to DIY replicate the Siglent Logic Analyzer probe.

The constant criticism and no-valued-added responses from some just take away from the excellent information and guidance from those that are informed, especially true for newcomers that haven't developed the "read-between-the-lines" skills yet!!

BTW we selected a Siglent SDS2102X Plus (4X was BO), and used the Zoom function a few times, not a Zoom connoisseur like some, but worked fine for we've needed.

Best,

Thank you for attempting to keep a positive tone -  it is entirely possible to disagree while still being civil about it...   it is just so bloody HARD when there are so many idiots in the world who won't see things your way! 

[mawyatt]

Thank you for attempting to keep a positive tone -  it is entirely possible to disagree while still being civil about it...   it is just so bloody HARD when there are so many idiots in the world who won't see things your way! 

Someone once said "You can't win an argument with an idiot, they have more ammunition!" 

Best,

[Someone]

Thats a Rigol (the specific brand you asked for) causing aliasing or slow update rates if the user selects an inappropriate memory depth.

Any 'scope can have pathologically slow combinations of memory depth/sample rate.

eg. If you tell a Rigol DS1054Z to use 24Mb memory with 25kSamples/sec. sample rate then yes, it takes 10 seconds to refresh the screen. It's math.

This isn't what's being discussed here though so let's not pretend that it is. If I tell a Siglent to use all the memory then it should use it.

Read your own words, that I quoted in full, and will do so again with the expanded context 2N3055 very clearly explained:

LeCroy, Siglent, Picoscope, Rigol (by default AUTO strategy), R&S (by default AUTO strategy), Keysight Infiniivision (Run mode), Micsig (by default AUTO strategy) and all others that have AUTO memory mode use that same method of only grabbing only amount of data that is equivalent to length of screen in current timebase. They all do it to minimize amount of data taken in every trigger to get faster reacting scope and keep sampling rate high to avoid aliasing.   It is like analog scope, you see what you see. There is NO data before or after screen, and there is no need to. If you want to see more, you put more time ON the screen. Benefit of digital scope is that you can stop it and then zoom in and still see details.

Are you saying Keysights are slowed down and/or suffer aliasing because of this? My Rigol certainly wasn't.

Two entirely different behaviours of aliasing and update rate, joined together into a barely coherent point. Lets take them all apart since you don't seem to understand the underlying behaviours.

Aliasing does occur if you don't leave the memory on auto (and sometimes even if you do), on the Rigol scope. Its extremely hard to get aliasing artefacts to show on the Keysight Infiniivision (mega-zoom) scopes, switching from normal to high-res mode makes it worse but still very minor.

You joined a Rigol scope (that does suffer aliasing) in with a scope that effectively doesn't. No differentiation, just trying to say they are the same. They are different there. They are also different that the Keysight mega-zoom scopes don't offer the manual memory settings to create long captures outside the visible window (that reduces update rates).

So trying to say they are the same on either of these points is completely untrue. I pointed that out and showed previous examples of the Rigols behaviour.

Note that the keysight mega-zoom can't have pathologically slow combinations as they don't offer the controls to set that (and the other scopes that refuse to leave memory outside the visible window). So you're still pushing further misleading information, trying to make a generalisation that all scopes are impacted the same when they aren't.

There are a group of scopes which force the user to maximise information reaching the screen, and there are a group of scopes which let the user capture data outside the screen. This entire thread. But you seem to get it disastrously wrong and add yet more noise to whats rapidly becoming a dumpster fire (people don't bother to read the content and keep bringing up the same questions/wrong information over and over, suggesting the correct/accurate information is buried).

[Fungus]

There are a group of scopes which force the user to maximise information reaching the screen, and there are a group of scopes which let the user capture data outside the screen. This entire thread.

The ONLY point I'm making is that the two aren't exclusive.

The argument being made in this entire is that the Siglent doesn't allow zoom out because it would slow down disastrously. That's not true, and that's the point I was trying to make by example. Keysights don't slow down, Rigols don't slow down... not unless you pick a pathological combination of sample rate and buffer size. Both Keysights and Rigols allow zoom out (among others).

That's it. That's the total of what I'm trying to say.

If this thread is a "dumpster fire" it's because the Siglent people refuse to accept the simple facts and are trying to deflect the plain truth via. hand waving.

[Someone]

There are a group of scopes which force the user to maximise information reaching the screen, and there are a group of scopes which let the user capture data outside the screen. This entire thread.

The ONLY point I'm making is that the two aren't exclusive.

The argument being made in this entire is that the Siglent doesn't allow zoom out because it would slow down disastrously. That's not true, and that's the point I was trying to make by example. Keysights don't slow down, Rigols don't slow down... not unless you pick a pathological combination of sample rate and buffer size. Both Keysights and Rigols allow zoom out (among others).

That's it. That's the total of what I'm trying to say.

If this thread is a "dumpster fire" it's because the Siglent people refuse to accept the simple facts and are trying to deflect the plain truth via. hand waving.

Scopes slow their waveform rate if they are capturing data outside the screen. True, proven, tested.

It doesn't happen on the Keysight Infiniivision/megazoom models as they don't do it, despite what you think, they aren't capturing the data outside the screen constantly.

It does happen on the Rigol:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-tektronix-tbs2000-oscilloscopes/msg1283038/#msg1283038
Adding more memory depth does slow down the Rigol DS1054, regardless of if that adds capture outside the screen or not.

Keysight Infiniivision/megazoom scopes do slow down when adding more memory, its well hidden and hard to get the data, but its still true:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso4000-and-ds4000-tests-bugs-firmware-questions-etc/msg973064/#msg973064
They slow down so much less than other scopes (it appears to be their major design goal and marketing point regardless of the true benefits) that there is no option to reduce the memory depth because it is such a small penalty compared to other competitive products.

Selecting more memory on the Rigol is guaranteed to slow it down in almost every single realistic case (waiting for you to do the classic fanboy thing and jump on one of the obscure cases where that was reversed).

The list of examples above that 2N3055 collected summed this up really clearly:

LeCroy, Siglent, Picoscope, Rigol (by default AUTO strategy), R&S (by default AUTO strategy), Keysight Infiniivision (Run mode), Micsig (by default AUTO strategy) and all others that have AUTO memory mode use that same method of only grabbing only amount of data that is equivalent to length of screen in current timebase. They all do it to minimize amount of data taken in every trigger to get faster reacting scope and keep sampling rate high to avoid aliasing.

Thats it, there are some scopes that don't let you set the capture window larger than the window visible on the screen. Its a valid design decision and one I prefer.

[Martin72]

If this thread is a "dumpster fire" it's because the Siglent people refuse to accept the simple facts and are trying to deflect the plain truth via. hand waving.

No Sir.

[Fungus]

there are some scopes that don't let you set the capture window larger than the window visible on the screen. Its a valid design decision and one I prefer.

Sure, but it's often useful and you should be allowed to override the behavior if you want to.

https://youtu.be/bVxDibdosdI?t=741

Surely the Siglent won't slow down because you use more than 10 bytes of memory...? 

[EEVblog]

In another thread some users claimed that the Siglent 5000 series DOES have zoom out capability.
I just tried on the SDS5104X and it does NOT in Auto memory mode but it DOES in fixed memory depth mode.
I think zoom mode might have been mentioned, but that's not the point.

[tautech]

In another thread some users claimed that the Siglent 5000 series DOES have zoom out capability.
I just tried on the SDS5104X and it does NOT in Auto memory mode but it DOES in fixed memory depth mode.
I think zoom mode might have been mentioned, but that's not the point.

Memory management and its options/guises are a recently added feature to SDS5000X in the FW version V0.9.7R2 before last.
It was developed in SDS2000X HD and SDS6000A.

[dreamcat4]

Memory management and its options/guises are a recently added feature to SDS5000X in the FW version V0.9.7R2 before last.
It was developed in SDS2000X HD and SDS6000A.

aah interesting... so maybe it could be coming to any other remaining models featuring same / similar shared firmware platform? Or perhaps it requires a specific set of hardware common in those listed above? ^^

[EEVblog]

Memory management and its options/guises are a recently added feature to SDS5000X in the FW version V0.9.7R2 before last.
It was developed in SDS2000X HD and SDS6000A.

aah interesting... so maybe it could be coming to any other remaining models featuring same / similar shared firmware platform? Or perhaps it requires a specific set of hardware common in those listed above? ^^

It would be an FPGA capture architecture thing I think, not the processor firmware as such.