Well done. Your well spoken, I heard just one heavy sigh before you
add the I. 14min seemed to go by quickly.
The demo is nice, maybe a Tach display and a angle display.
And better lighting, maybe you can shrink your self into a PIP and
just show the demo.
Cheers
On Wed, 04 May 2016 19:43:26 -0400, Martin Riddle wrote:
I've been fiddle-farting around with this for ages, starting about a year
ago with "what would it take to make professional quality video". Not
having infinite money, I didn't go that route. I finally managed to
whittle my expectations down to something I could actually _do_.
I am partially trying to sell myself here, but better lighting would
certainly be a Good Thing -- there's some known cheap ways of doing
these, which I'll probably employ next time.
If you have (access to) a Mac, I can highly recommend "ScreenFlow".
It can record multiple screens, multiple cameras and audio at the same
time, and provides a really good post editor for mixing down the video,
with slo-mo replays, transitions and many other effects, PIP, etc.
All for $100. Excellent value, even just for the post facilities (i.e.
even if you never make a recording).
On Thu, 05 May 2016 09:07:58 +1000, Clifford Heath wrote:
I'm using KdenLive for editing, and it's pretty good -- at least, its
capabilities are well beyond mine. And at $0, its price is infinitely
better.
The muy-expensivo camera is my cell phone. It was realizing that I had
something ON HAND that would take adequate video that really pushed me
over the edge.
As for simple recording and editing mistakes, the points that will be
different next time are:
1: I'm working off of (essentially) a bunch of slides, and you can see me
looking at them as I talk. I certainly don't like the looks of it.
2: There's a number of places where swear words, tongue-twists, and nose-
scratching was edited out on-the-fly, causing jumps in the video. Again,
they detract from the video.
Instead of trying to do the whole video in one take (and failing), I'm
going to study _one_ slide, _hide it_, turn the camera on, do _that one
slide's worth_ while _looking at the camera_, turn the camera off, repeat
until _that slide_ is good enough, turn to the next slide, and repeat
until done. Then I'll edit them together with suitable transitions.
This presentation had ten slides, so if I do 90 seconds and flub it, I
can just stop the camera, take a few deep breaths, and try again.
3: The lighting could be improved. Just a few lamps off screen would
have made it better, but I was in "dammit, just get 'er done" mode --
which is why it got done.
Not really on the "immediate" list, but room for incremental improvements:
4: The filming spot could be better. That's my very own desk and
workbench, just cleaned up for filming. I'll probably stay here for now,
possibly with incremental improvements, but if I should happen to get a
really strong response I'll make a better spot.
5: I'm doing this entirely on my own. If I can get a camera-wrangler and
general coach in here while I'm filming that would help. Fortunately, I
have under-employed family members.
6: Editing and closed-captioning, ditto. Unfortunately my general
attitude toward new things is "dive in and keep screwing up until you get
it right", while my wife and kids' attitude is "no, won't try unless I'll
get it perfect". Maybe I can get one or more of them to take classes...
On Wed, 04 May 2016 16:48:13 -0500, Tim Wescott
Nicely done.
May I suggest that future videos be done in something other than
Flash, such as HTML5:
<https://www.wired.com/2015/07/adobe-flash-player-die/ <http://youtube-eng.blogspot.jp/2015/01/youtube-now-defaults-to-html5_27.html <
https://www.youtube.com/html5
For now, there are some Flash to HTML5 converters available. I have
no idea which is best or how well they might work:
<https://www.google.com/#q=flash+to+html5+converter
Suggestion: Take a clue from Dave Jones and fill the background with
an impressive collection of test equipment:
<
https://www.youtube.com/user/EEVblog
That adds credibility to your video. (Perception is everything).
--
Jeff Liebermann snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
On Wed, 04 May 2016 23:21:08 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
html5_27.html>
YouTube takes my mp4 files and does what it wills with them. I know it
reduces the resolution for most people -- at least I assume that you're
not seeing all 1920 x 1080 that I uploaded. Maybe there's an option for
one of us to ask for flash vs. HTML5 -- I'll see if I can figure out if
that's my option.
I have a pretty sparse set of test equipment, actually. A nice Agilent
mixed-signal scope and a Rigol spectrum analyzer are the highlights; it
goes downhill from there all the way to a 1950's-era Heathkit RF signal
generator complete with crinkle-coat paint.
Besides, the most important test equipment in the room is my brain -- the
rest is just for convenience.
One of the videos I plan will show the test equipment that's built into
nearly any closed-loop control project I build: there's a swept-sine
analyzer in that software that lets me analyze both the arm position loop
and the motor speed loop. I can take the resulting data and use it to
tune the system.
--
Tim Wescott
Control systems, embedded software and circuit design
YouTube adjusts the video to correspond to what the internet
connection and computah can handle. I'm bandwidth limited by a
1.5Mbit/sec DSL connection which shows your video as 360p. I'll try
it again tomorrow on my office cable modem connection, which can do
25mbits/sec and should show at least 720p. However, even at the
lowest resolution of 144p, the video looks acceptable but blurry on my
24" 1680x1050 monitor.
I don't know why it ended up as Flash instead of HTML5. YouTube
recommends uploading in MP4 (H.264) which should have been transcoded
to HTML5:
<https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171
Check the list of recommended settings and see if there's anything
different.
Vintage doesn't matter. It's just a collection of props that add
authenticity to your presentation and makes it appear that you
actually work with the things that you are discussing. It's much like
a mad scientist movie always features a sparking Jacobs ladder, a
sci-fi space program has a wall full of flashing lights and an
oscilloscope displaying a Lissajous pattern, or until fairly recently
TV news programs had the sound of a teletype machines clattering in
the background. Viewers expect electronic presentations to have a
wall of electronics. Don't disappoint them.
True, especially since your presentation is almost an infomercial
advertising your services.
Ever notice that law offices always feature a wall full of legal books
behind the photo of the attorney?
<https://www.google.com/search?q=law+office&tbm=isch
The books are for show. Today, attorneys do their reading online with
dedicated programs, LexisNexis, Shepard's, Westlaw, Fastcase, etc. The
books are purely for show. If you look at them carefully, many are
probably seriously out of date. Same with test equipment. If you
look carefully at the equipment behind Dave Jones, you'll notice that
there are few test leads plugged into the equipment, none of it is
powered on, and there's little in the way of the usual boxes,
attenuators, isolators, adapters, clip leads, and related trivia
necessary to make the test equipment do something useful.
Yet another suggestion. Try not to put yourself between what you're
presenting and the audience. Sitting to one side, as in your video,
is acceptable. However, if you're showing something larger or more
complicated, you may want to put it on a table between you and the
camera.
One more and I'll quit (It's 1am here). If you look at the various
Dave Jones videos:
<
https://www.youtube.com/user/EEVblog
You might notice that the camera is well above Dave's head and looking
down at Dave and everything else. That's intentional. There's lots
of psychology involved, but basically it gives the viewer a slight
feeling of superiority, which generally a better view of what's on the
table. Your video puts the viewer slightly above your eye level,
which makes them an equal to you. If you're trying to present
something to other engineers who are competent in their areas of
expertise, that's perfect. However, if you're trying to attract a
general audience, who knows nothing about control systems, I suggest
that you make them feel a bit superior by positioning them above eye
level. If you want to intimidate the viewer, set yourself up as the
leading authority on the topic, and probably chase your audience away,
put the camera below your eye level.
I know next to nothing about PID controllers and would be very
interested in seeing how it's really done. You mentioned cruise
control. Practical examples are what interest me.
--
Jeff Liebermann snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Yet another another day in computah hell. I run Firefox 46.0.1 on
Windoze XP in my palatial office at cable modem speeds and still get
Flash as 360p. I would have expected higher resolution and HTML5.
However, when I switch to Chrome Version 49.0.2623.112m (last version
for XP), your video auto plays in HTML5 at 480p. I can also force it
to 720p and 1080p and it plays without buffering.
I also tried both the Firefox and Chrome browsers on Win 7 and Win 10.
Here's the table of results for what appeared as the default player
and screen resolution:
Firefox Chrome
Win XP Flash 360p HTML5 480p
Win 7 HTML5 360p HTML5 480p
Win 10 HTML5 360p HTML5 480p
So, in Chrome, everything is working normally and correctly, but in
Firefox, I have a problem only on my XP machine. Oddly, both Chrome
and Firefox on XP show that HTML5 is supported and is the default:
<
https://www.youtube.com/html5
I still don't know why my Firefox default to Flash, but I think you
can safely ignore this oddity as it seems to be a problem with my XP
machine.
--
Jeff Liebermann snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Really good if you somewhat understand it.
But ...
1) beginning: explain the hardware.
Motor with reversible fan
What sensor(s) in base? Position etc
What is the static balance point and how does that affect all.
2) Show what overshoot is. e.g. manually move the arm back indicating
that is the overshoot.
A little light on integration and differentiation explanation. A little
more would be extremely helpful. These are important concepts as you
well know.
I give you a 98. (lol)
--- ---
After finally watching the whole thing, it's great! I think you
already captured appropriate changes to make it better, so nothing to
add here. It's always good to see somebody provide an intuitive
explanation for things instead of focusing on the math (which is also
important, but the math usually gets explained to death).
On Wed, 04 May 2016 16:48:13 -0500, Tim Wescott
Thank you Tim, really nice to hear the fan working harder/softer - an
inspired choice of actuator!
Good clear demonstration, I now can't wait to see a demo of the effects
of too much D or too much I and not enough D / I etc and then an
introduction on how to tune these or even explain how self-tuning works.
piglet
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.