No, my science involves observation, investigation, and confirmation.
marmad, get a grip. you're measuring black levels by inspecting photographs.
THAT is not science.
which is not to say your guess is wrong, but...come on....
display performance are not measured in that way, other methods are used.
i.e. "I have an opinion about something and so that proves I'm right."
nope. i never said that.
we're talking, i just had few objections to your method.
but if you wanna define to me what contrast is, what "less sharp" and "washed out" means....come on....
come off from that mountain you're standing on...
i don't wanna discuss "true blacks" video issue with you, mostyl because i probably know more about it, but just don't think it's important here...there is no contrast or black level issue on 1000z, i think we'll agree....i would bitch about it first if i saw it!
there might be small differences between the 2 scopes, but nothing to write home about.
(BTW, what exactly is YOUR experience with image processing again?)
i dislike "experience arguments", they mean the argument is in the toilet, once we come to that.
but to answer, i did a lot of video work.
experience doesn't matter but what is said.regarding sensor/raster alignment, did you know about this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kell_factoryes, it doesn't matter much, but it's an interesting concept.
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.
no. in my book you have something like this
http://televisions.reviewed.com/how_we_test( Konica Minolta CS-200 Chroma Meter )
and measure both displays. science should be DIRECT. it's simpler that way, isn't it?
albeit i don't have much against your method too, but there's better way than making negative photos.
i'm mostly talkign about how your discussion started.
and "blackness of the black" has nothing to do with subpixel rendering anyway...black is where there are no fonts.
Nothing you mentioned will affect the fringing caused by the sub-pixels, which you would know if you understood LCDs and image processing.
you're using that trash talk again: you can't trash me, ok?
i understand everything you're talking about perfectly.
but i have a problem with some of your original methods in this post
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-font-size/msg559800/#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 example
https://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 truth
https://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....
(for example; your belief that the DS2000 was set to High Res mode in my photo)
no.
i asked
"(hires mode on?)"
and then refuse to acknowledge your mistakes (or else make a snarky response to deflect).
what mistakes exactly?
if i mentioned some ways photos can be skewed it doesn't mean i was wrong about those ways indeed can make a difference.
i will repeat, images in this post
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-font-size/msg559800/#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.