"Cursors set to 20% graticule that's not seen as brightness is set a little low.
The Time@Level is almost what you're looking for; time from Trigger level setting but measured to 50% of the rising edge."
Yes, I can manually use the cursors in certain situations, but you can't do that in automated testing when you just want the pulse width at the 10% down levels (that's 90% levels on a Tektronix as they think from the bottom up).
The Time@Level seems to be producing the correct result,, but that must be a coincidence considering your description of it?
Wow, what beautiful screen images the scope has!
I did get a response from Chuck that I need to study more. He mentioned a method of programmically setting the cursors at the correct levels (not sure I understand how, but I need to study his email) and then reading the time between the cursors. It's looks like a heck of a work-around, when a simple width function with settable reference levels is what is called for. That is why those Tek TDS3000 scopes are so expensive when new? They are ridiculously high priced and look behind the times, but they do the job very well and last 20 years or more.
I can get another used TDS3032 as a backup for $1500 with a NIST traceable calibration and a six month warranty from Alltest in New Jersey, and I am seriously considering that right now. I love the looks of Siglent and 200MHz BW for $400?! That's sounds insane for what all you get. I'm pretty sure that is good enough for what I need. I only ever use two channels. The 20 year old TDS3032 is 2.5GS/S where the Siglent is only 1GS/S. I'm not sure what affect that has in the long run. I rarely ever rely on a one shot result. I am typically running in normal free-run mode, or have the acquisition mode set for a 2 or 4 average anyway.
I do reply on P-P readings and expect/hope the channels match each other. I know with some scopes, or most, you can have 2 or 4 channels and none of the channels agree with each other on P-P, RT, PW, etc.,. Sometimes I think calibrated scopes are a joke and get stickered each year just to keep industry (customers) and QA managers happy. You can also have 10 Tektronix 10:1 probes, all compensated the same, and they all give you 10 different PW readings on the same scope and channel. When you are checking a PW (at 10% down) that is supposed to be 20ns wide +/-10%, it doesn't take much of a scope probe variance to throw your reading out of tolerance. Personally, I prefer a calibrated 100:1 probe, which I think does limit the BW to ~150MHz anyway). The company I worked for, would make their own 100:1 probe and adjust it/calibrate it on an HP Spectrum analyzer, and then base their specifications on that probe being used and a 300MHz TDS3032 scope. A lot of customers, and outside techs, figured out that they could get the sames results with a 40dB attenuator. Anyway, I definitely digressed....
I may just have to buy the Siglent $400 scope just to see if I can adapt it to my work. A nice bright large screen sure looks nice compared to the tired old TDS3032 screens. There's also to "too cool" factor, but it has to be able to do the job, or it is just a cool toy in the shop.
Dave