What a knowledgeable individual! I envy you @MihaiDesign for being able to have a chat with the man! Thank you for sharing👌 I need to make use of my Duet boards again 😎
THIS is by FAR the absolute best explanation of resonance reduction that I have heard bar none! THANK YOU so much for taking the time to explain this to us!
Alas, the explanation of the input shaping work around the corner in the video at 7:55 is not correct. It describes it as first segmenting deceleration, then segmenting the acceleration after the corner, and makes it sound that when IS the frequencies for X and Y are equal, there are no defects introduced. But in fact, the deceleration segments will be interleaved with acceleration segments, well before the corner is passed, and that will introduce deviation from the expected toolhead path and well-known smoothing. And in fact, this deviation will be far greater than the one introduced by unequal input shaping for two axes. And it appears with any input shaping implementation.
Having just implemented IS for Marlin, I concur. And I would go further: there are multiple things wrong with the explanation of IS in the video. The jagged path described, for example, is not the path the print head will follow. Inertia will smooth the path out but if the resonant frequencies are different for X and Y then the inertial effect will be different for X and Y and so the jagged path will be needed for the smoothed path to best fit the intended print path. Also the video implies that RRF does not apply IS to the direction change at each corner. If this is really true, a major source of ringing is not being addressed. The only way the explanation given could actually work is if at each corner RRF decelerates the print head to a complete stop and then pauses for a short period before beginning the next segment. Given that IS is supposed to increase print speed and quality, this would be counterproductive. I also baulked at the claim that EI3 applied identically to X and Y is better than, say, ZV applied independently to each axis. This is, indeed, true if RRF really does pause at each corner but for any firmware that maintains speed through the corner, it is misinformation: in general the least deformation comes from the simplest shaper. You only use more complex shapers if an axis has multiple dominant resonant frequencies and then it becomes a trade off between how much resonance is cancelled and how much distortion is introduced.
@@tombrazier6172 Thanks for chiming in. I agree with all your points. So, I think there are two possibilities: 1) the implementation of IS in RRF follows the classical approach and then the explanation in the video is wrong, and the suggested benefit isn't there; 2) the implementation more or less follows the explanation in the video, but then it's not how it is usually done and will have some other defects instead. As you described, due to different masses/stiffness, different forces on X and Y are required to better follow the expected trajectory. Then, RRF will also not be able to compensate for velocity jumps at corners (when junction deviation or jerk is non-zero) so there will be some ringing left, and it will not be able to input shape short moves when the input shaper does not fit the duration of the move (e.g. when filling some small infill areas or printing smooth curves composed of myriads of small moves). In fact, earlier I observed in the RRF code that if a move is too short (fast), first it tries to slow it down and then, after some threshold, disables input shaping for it completely. So, then perhaps it is the latter, but then this isn't an obviously better implementation. In fact, I'm really looking forward for someone not affiliated with either of the firmware to make a fair comparison of the input shaping implementations in them (RRF, Klipper and now Marlin).
@@MihaiDesigns You can check out 'Effects of input shaping on two-dimensional trajectory following' by W. Singhose, N. Singer, where more or less this problem is discussed in more details. They also mention that the way to avoid smoothing (rounding) is to introduce pauses between moves around corners, something which isn't practical for 3D printing as the material will be leaking from the nozzle during such stops, forming blobs at corners. Otherwise, there are many good articles on input shaping, for example by Singhose, or an overview article 'A review of command shaping techniques for elimination of residual vibrations in flexible-joint manipulators' by C. Conker et al.
@@dmitrybutyugin3857 I have not tested for this but I suspect that a lot of short zigzag movements at the resonant frequency (which infill could easily generate) is a potential source of layer shifts. IS is important here and from what you say RRF might switch it off for this case. I also would welcome a comparison between RRF, Klipper and Marlin - and also the GH Enterprises stepper driver which incorporates an MCU that does IS for you. I am also very interested to know how Klipper has implemented it but I don't really have the time to read the source code.
Indeed, he's such a great guy! We casually discussed the implementation at first, but then I knew we had to share his knowledge and found a camera to record everything from the top.
@@MihaiDesigns And I'm very glad you did! I've always used "control boards from the east" for all the reasons he graciously acknowledged in this video and have seen duet as a premium alternative but I've absolutely gained a whole new level of respect for them from this video.
It's not cheap, but it's worth it. I've got a Duet 2 wifi in my ancient UM2 clone (along with a Bondtech LGX/Shortcut Copperhead) and a Duet 3 with an LGX/Ace Mosquito + toolboard in my big custom CoreXY. LOVE these boards. I have been mulling on getting the closed loop controller/motors for the X/Y, and now it looks like I'll just wait until their encoder boards or all-in-one motors come out. Excited to see what else they do in the next year.
REPRAP FIRMWARE ALL THE WAY! DUET3D ELECTRONICS THE GOAT. the only plug n play solution I've ever come across as an automation engineer. Used a duet3 6xd board to revive a PnP machine and got it running first try. If you're looking for a plug n play controller for any CNC, printer, PnP, etc machine get a duet3 board.
Dang you David, you just sold me on the Duet 3! I have been using the Duet 2 wifi for many years with zero issues. The fast boot up and web interface are very convenient. I want to try out the canfd and the tmc quiet drivers.
Great interview. I was going to suggest to interview the klipper developers next but they're already here in the comments. Very interesting discussion.
Indeed, it looks like there are multiple approaches to IS and I'm excited to learn more about all of them. Perhaps I should do more interviews. A bit more difficult over the Internet, but still possible.
GH Smart Shaper uses two plug-in drivers (TMC2225-SA) with dedicated CPUs, allowing users to avoid using “external host cards such as RPI4,” according to the product page. “Just replace the X- and Y-axis drivers with the GH Smart Shaper drivers, add some configuration commands to your G-code, and you are ready to print with input shaping.”
Hey, do you think there is a way you could do more videos about Duet? Or reprap firmware on its own. Something like variables in SS for reprap or conditional gcod? I find that reprap is lacking tutorials on UA-cam or even on Google thus making it very hard for people like me ( that get machines preconfigured with Duet boards) changing minor stuff without going trough 1xxx forums or Not maintained guides. Maybe even do a tutorial on how to configure input shaper on Duet 🌝
Great idea! I'll be using the boards over the next months anyways and might as well track what I need to learn and change and summarize in a video or two.
What I want to know is if there plans to release any new mainboards? I would really love to see a Duet 2 style board with more processing power. My delta falls flat on its face at 300mm/s with the steppers set to 200 steps/mm. It's probably even worse now that I've enabled input shaping, but I haven't tried pushing it past its limit in a while.
Awesome stuff everywhere on this chanel, great job, man! Offtopic: have you started the build of PitStop? will we get updates on it any time soon? cant wait for that!
im trying to educate myself and wrap my brain around input shaping. I have a custom printer i designed and built with a duet wifi2 with the duex expansion, that has a build area of 800x500 but has ringing even at some slow speeds... so i see duet3d supports input shaping in reprap. But what hardware do i need to buy or install to utilize input shaping? I heard him mention accelerometers??? where or how are they installed? We need more in depth videos on this
If you don't have a compatible accelerometer, there are special prints you can make and measure to determine resonance frequencies, which you later use to configure the input shaper. You should be able to find tutorials on this.
Around 27:40, there is a mention of a patent on printing multiple parts at one, does anyone know more about this? Could you please give me a link to the patent? Thank you very much.
9:05 No no, that's not how you'd segment those. Of course whenever x is accelerating y is accelerating proportionally. Now, when you have 2 conflicting acceleration targets there are many possible solutions. E.g., you could use the weighed average of the target accelerations. In any case your x and y acceleration segments will always match and thus have no squiggly path artifact.
Where can I learn more about this? Because in my mind (and this is more of a guess) if the accelerations match, then the cancelled frequencies must match as well. Or if we're targeting some middle frequency between the two, then aren't we only targeting one?
@@MihaiDesigns Yes, you would be targeting only one. But you could choose which one. Using a weighed average would target a frequency somewhere inbetween the x and y resonance targets. Or a simpler algorithm would choose just max(x, y) to target the more prominent one in each situation.
@@johnkim3858 I have no idea, but it could be a nice idea for a UA-cam video to test. Set 2 very, very different input shaping coefficients for x and y and then run with different firmwares and see how it behaves.
I couldn't find much out there. He's busy solving the technical challenges and leading the firmware development. It's why I was so excited to film this interview. Happened spontaneously.
i'm sorry but when they started input shapping on 3.3 he already had this talk about ahving same frequency on X and Y but the problem is taht users had to choose between eliminate ringin on X or Y simply because as the X carraige and X whole gantry don't weight the same the frequencies are not the same at all !!! I was waiting for the end of developpement of input shappiing on duet but i may switch to klipper
Why is your camera man constantly moving? Dc42 is possibly the most talented person in consumer 3d printing. It’s an amazing interview and i appreciate it, but it has to be pointed out so you don’t do this again.
I really dont like the way he downplays every other mcu manifacturer except smoothieboard (which he does anyways). Kind of puts me of buying their products. He also insinuates rrf has no competition. Either he is a carsalesman or he is blind for what other manifacturers/developers acctually brings to the table. But for me personally I was searching for info on what firmware to choose somehow ended up here and now rrf seems like a choice that i dont feel like exploring. Anyone wanting to flame me for this please understand this is just what i feel.
From personal experience with years of Marlin frustration, tried klipper once it was too much programming for my liking I didn't like the RPi setting up, then tried RRF with Duet boards and will never look back at either klipper or marlin unless forced to. Duet has its audience being those who just want to configure the machine and run it. I can setup a Duet board for a 3d printer or pick and place in under an hour. That's why I love Duet they give you a platform where you can configure everything via gcode you never have to program C++ or python. Klipper is similar but you still have to install the firmware is has gotten super easy nowadays though. Also Duet's hardware just works seamlessly with each other and everything is backwards compatible for the most part. I have several "marlin" Chinese touch screens that turned out to be outdated and useless with newer boards and firmware versions are all over the place. With Duet most of the time using old hardware like the paneldue is just including a line of gcode in the config. David is just passionate about his baby would be too so would you, and he does give credit to klipper for innovation on the input shaping. Then proceeds to rip them a new one for independent axis shaping why? because the man studied the hell out of it to incorporate it into RRF. As an engineer myself I understand his passion and why he's so head strong because he's put in the work and understands the advantages and disadvantages of different implementations and he's very open to saying they went the wrong direction but they learned and improved. Lots of other companies aren't developing/innovating mainly just using whatever firmware is on the top sold machines. why marlin? It was on the prusas but now klipper is coming stock why? It's on the vorons and I think on the bambu maybe idk. Had Duet boards or just RRF been on those machines it would be the dominant Firmware. IMHO marlin is dying staying alive because of prusa, klipper is for programming enthusiasts and hobbyists, and RRF is for engineers making machines in industry. Also my favorite part of Duet boards and RRF you don't need wifi at all which is my personal preference give me my touchscreen HMI with GUI and SDCARD! Those are my two cents.
@@sculptaware4548 actually, with off-the-shelf hardware (I mean some widely used boards), you can install klipper with zero programming skills. The only compilation requires to jump once in a console and execute "make menuconfig && make flash". The rest could be (and should be) done from the web interface
@marsgizmo filmed it. Formnext is very exhausting. Soo .... On the other hand if you use the right OS and there the right player you can enable deshaking for youtube....
What a knowledgeable individual! I envy you @MihaiDesign for being able to have a chat with the man! Thank you for sharing👌 I need to make use of my Duet boards again 😎
That moment when a bright mind visits another bright mind's chanel! Looking forward to the next episode of Hotends Olympics!
THIS is by FAR the absolute best explanation of resonance reduction that I have heard bar none!
THANK YOU so much for taking the time to explain this to us!
Glad it was helpful!
This video is awesome! The explanations of David are briliant! 👏
The amount of good info in this single video is an oceans worth. So much good stuff to look into.
DC42 is a legend! Thank you for all your work.
wow I have learned a lot on this one. Thanks Mihai and thanks Duet!
Alas, the explanation of the input shaping work around the corner in the video at 7:55 is not correct. It describes it as first segmenting deceleration, then segmenting the acceleration after the corner, and makes it sound that when IS the frequencies for X and Y are equal, there are no defects introduced. But in fact, the deceleration segments will be interleaved with acceleration segments, well before the corner is passed, and that will introduce deviation from the expected toolhead path and well-known smoothing. And in fact, this deviation will be far greater than the one introduced by unequal input shaping for two axes. And it appears with any input shaping implementation.
Very interesting! Where can I find more technical details about this?
Having just implemented IS for Marlin, I concur. And I would go further: there are multiple things wrong with the explanation of IS in the video. The jagged path described, for example, is not the path the print head will follow. Inertia will smooth the path out but if the resonant frequencies are different for X and Y then the inertial effect will be different for X and Y and so the jagged path will be needed for the smoothed path to best fit the intended print path. Also the video implies that RRF does not apply IS to the direction change at each corner. If this is really true, a major source of ringing is not being addressed. The only way the explanation given could actually work is if at each corner RRF decelerates the print head to a complete stop and then pauses for a short period before beginning the next segment. Given that IS is supposed to increase print speed and quality, this would be counterproductive. I also baulked at the claim that EI3 applied identically to X and Y is better than, say, ZV applied independently to each axis. This is, indeed, true if RRF really does pause at each corner but for any firmware that maintains speed through the corner, it is misinformation: in general the least deformation comes from the simplest shaper. You only use more complex shapers if an axis has multiple dominant resonant frequencies and then it becomes a trade off between how much resonance is cancelled and how much distortion is introduced.
@@tombrazier6172 Thanks for chiming in. I agree with all your points. So, I think there are two possibilities: 1) the implementation of IS in RRF follows the classical approach and then the explanation in the video is wrong, and the suggested benefit isn't there; 2) the implementation more or less follows the explanation in the video, but then it's not how it is usually done and will have some other defects instead. As you described, due to different masses/stiffness, different forces on X and Y are required to better follow the expected trajectory. Then, RRF will also not be able to compensate for velocity jumps at corners (when junction deviation or jerk is non-zero) so there will be some ringing left, and it will not be able to input shape short moves when the input shaper does not fit the duration of the move (e.g. when filling some small infill areas or printing smooth curves composed of myriads of small moves). In fact, earlier I observed in the RRF code that if a move is too short (fast), first it tries to slow it down and then, after some threshold, disables input shaping for it completely. So, then perhaps it is the latter, but then this isn't an obviously better implementation. In fact, I'm really looking forward for someone not affiliated with either of the firmware to make a fair comparison of the input shaping implementations in them (RRF, Klipper and now Marlin).
@@MihaiDesigns You can check out 'Effects of input shaping on two-dimensional trajectory following' by W. Singhose, N. Singer, where more or less this problem is discussed in more details. They also mention that the way to avoid smoothing (rounding) is to introduce pauses between moves around corners, something which isn't practical for 3D printing as the material will be leaking from the nozzle during such stops, forming blobs at corners. Otherwise, there are many good articles on input shaping, for example by Singhose, or an overview article 'A review of command shaping techniques for elimination of residual vibrations in flexible-joint manipulators' by C. Conker et al.
@@dmitrybutyugin3857 I have not tested for this but I suspect that a lot of short zigzag movements at the resonant frequency (which infill could easily generate) is a potential source of layer shifts. IS is important here and from what you say RRF might switch it off for this case. I also would welcome a comparison between RRF, Klipper and Marlin - and also the GH Enterprises stepper driver which incorporates an MCU that does IS for you. I am also very interested to know how Klipper has implemented it but I don't really have the time to read the source code.
This man held my attention for 40 minutes! Genius.
That was very fun to listen to, David is a great guy
Indeed, he's such a great guy! We casually discussed the implementation at first, but then I knew we had to share his knowledge and found a camera to record everything from the top.
@@MihaiDesigns And I'm very glad you did! I've always used "control boards from the east" for all the reasons he graciously acknowledged in this video and have seen duet as a premium alternative but I've absolutely gained a whole new level of respect for them from this video.
It's not cheap, but it's worth it. I've got a Duet 2 wifi in my ancient UM2 clone (along with a Bondtech LGX/Shortcut Copperhead) and a Duet 3 with an LGX/Ace Mosquito + toolboard in my big custom CoreXY. LOVE these boards. I have been mulling on getting the closed loop controller/motors for the X/Y, and now it looks like I'll just wait until their encoder boards or all-in-one motors come out. Excited to see what else they do in the next year.
REPRAP FIRMWARE ALL THE WAY! DUET3D ELECTRONICS THE GOAT. the only plug n play solution I've ever come across as an automation engineer. Used a duet3 6xd board to revive a PnP machine and got it running first try. If you're looking for a plug n play controller for any CNC, printer, PnP, etc machine get a duet3 board.
David is great, he shared so much knowledge over the years via reprap/duet forums and running a succesfull hardware business on the side...not bad :D
An dont forget Reddit LOL. Yes he is there.
Dang you David, you just sold me on the Duet 3! I have been using the Duet 2 wifi for many years with zero issues. The fast boot up and web interface are very convenient. I want to try out the canfd and the tmc quiet drivers.
Great video, thank you. It was like being back at Uni listening intently so I remember for a change.
I hope that this info leads to improvements in the klipper implementation of input shaping :)
Great interview. I was going to suggest to interview the klipper developers next but they're already here in the comments. Very interesting discussion.
Indeed, it looks like there are multiple approaches to IS and I'm excited to learn more about all of them. Perhaps I should do more interviews. A bit more difficult over the Internet, but still possible.
The asynchronous gcode streams is also a very powerful idea, let's see how it develops.
Wow never thought I would want o look into Duet as a solution, now I have Duet 3 Mini 5+ wifi on the way!!!
GH Smart Shaper uses two plug-in drivers (TMC2225-SA) with dedicated CPUs, allowing users to avoid using “external host cards such as RPI4,” according to the product page. “Just replace the X- and Y-axis drivers with the GH Smart Shaper drivers, add some configuration commands to your G-code, and you are ready to print with input shaping.”
Such a enjoyable video and plenty full of information from David aka dc42!awsome news!
Hey, do you think there is a way you could do more videos about Duet? Or reprap firmware on its own. Something like variables in SS for reprap or conditional gcod? I find that reprap is lacking tutorials on UA-cam or even on Google thus making it very hard for people like me ( that get machines preconfigured with Duet boards) changing minor stuff without going trough 1xxx forums or Not maintained guides. Maybe even do a tutorial on how to configure input shaper on Duet 🌝
Great idea! I'll be using the boards over the next months anyways and might as well track what I need to learn and change and summarize in a video or two.
Wow ... The knowledge is astounding ... Thank you thank you !
Awesome and super insightful interview.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I could hear David talk about 3D printers all day
Mihai - I know you were looking for helical gears for extruders, I just found that the Bambu X1C extruder uses helical gears.
What I want to know is if there plans to release any new mainboards? I would really love to see a Duet 2 style board with more processing power. My delta falls flat on its face at 300mm/s with the steppers set to 200 steps/mm. It's probably even worse now that I've enabled input shaping, but I haven't tried pushing it past its limit in a while.
Awesome stuff everywhere on this chanel, great job, man! Offtopic: have you started the build of PitStop? will we get updates on it any time soon? cant wait for that!
Yes! Working on PitStop for a while now. Got some partial builds. Waiting for the boards to arrive 🙂
im trying to educate myself and wrap my brain around input shaping. I have a custom printer i designed and built with a duet wifi2 with the duex expansion, that has a build area of 800x500 but has ringing even at some slow speeds... so i see duet3d supports input shaping in reprap. But what hardware do i need to buy or install to utilize input shaping? I heard him mention accelerometers??? where or how are they installed? We need more in depth videos on this
If you don't have a compatible accelerometer, there are special prints you can make and measure to determine resonance frequencies, which you later use to configure the input shaper. You should be able to find tutorials on this.
great topic, thanks 👍
I have a Duet 3 on my Pro 3D V-King 400, I havent changed over to the new Input Shaper yet but its just gone on my task list.
Love duet3d products awesome boards, i run a 2x3x2 meter hybrid printer with duet3d boards great products.
Around 27:40, there is a mention of a patent on printing multiple parts at one, does anyone know more about this? Could you please give me a link to the patent? Thank you very much.
Just noticed that now. Not sure which patent that is, but someone might know on the Duet3D forum.
9:05 No no, that's not how you'd segment those. Of course whenever x is accelerating y is accelerating proportionally. Now, when you have 2 conflicting acceleration targets there are many possible solutions. E.g., you could use the weighed average of the target accelerations. In any case your x and y acceleration segments will always match and thus have no squiggly path artifact.
Where can I learn more about this? Because in my mind (and this is more of a guess) if the accelerations match, then the cancelled frequencies must match as well. Or if we're targeting some middle frequency between the two, then aren't we only targeting one?
Is there any 3D printer firmware that implements this average target acceleration?
@@MihaiDesigns Yes, you would be targeting only one. But you could choose which one. Using a weighed average would target a frequency somewhere inbetween the x and y resonance targets. Or a simpler algorithm would choose just max(x, y) to target the more prominent one in each situation.
@@johnkim3858 I have no idea, but it could be a nice idea for a UA-cam video to test. Set 2 very, very different input shaping coefficients for x and y and then run with different firmwares and see how it behaves.
Where can I find more talks from David?
I couldn't find much out there. He's busy solving the technical challenges and leading the firmware development. It's why I was so excited to film this interview. Happened spontaneously.
If only Duet3D would support a few more accelerometers - their C++ hurt my brain when I tried to implement my own support for other accelerometers.
I was actually wondering why there was no input shaping talk in the last video 😁
The separate input shaping is an issue only with CoreXY, though, right?
No, which is why he drew the corner at an angle
i'm sorry but when they started input shapping on 3.3 he already had this talk about ahving same frequency on X and Y but the problem is taht users had to choose between eliminate ringin on X or Y simply because as the X carraige and X whole gantry don't weight the same the frequencies are not the same at all !!!
I was waiting for the end of developpement of input shappiing on duet but i may switch to klipper
Wow... Great info
awesome :))
Nowadays duet3d doesn't get any coverage. It's all klipper. Is duet3d as a company in trouble?
No, they do industrial or oem stuff and not consumer.
This video clarified input shaping.
Why is your camera man constantly moving? Dc42 is possibly the most talented person in consumer 3d printing. It’s an amazing interview and i appreciate it, but it has to be pointed out so you don’t do this again.
Its such a shame that their documentation for reprapfrimware is so bad.
Hell yeah! Show the Voron/Klipper bros how it's done
I really dont like the way he downplays every other mcu manifacturer except smoothieboard (which he does anyways). Kind of puts me of buying their products. He also insinuates rrf has no competition. Either he is a carsalesman or he is blind for what other manifacturers/developers acctually brings to the table. But for me personally I was searching for info on what firmware to choose somehow ended up here and now rrf seems like a choice that i dont feel like exploring. Anyone wanting to flame me for this please understand this is just what i feel.
From personal experience with years of Marlin frustration, tried klipper once it was too much programming for my liking I didn't like the RPi setting up, then tried RRF with Duet boards and will never look back at either klipper or marlin unless forced to.
Duet has its audience being those who just want to configure the machine and run it. I can setup a Duet board for a 3d printer or pick and place in under an hour. That's why I love Duet they give you a platform where you can configure everything via gcode you never have to program C++ or python. Klipper is similar but you still have to install the firmware is has gotten super easy nowadays though.
Also Duet's hardware just works seamlessly with each other and everything is backwards compatible for the most part. I have several "marlin" Chinese touch screens that turned out to be outdated and useless with newer boards and firmware versions are all over the place. With Duet most of the time using old hardware like the paneldue is just including a line of gcode in the config.
David is just passionate about his baby would be too so would you, and he does give credit to klipper for innovation on the input shaping. Then proceeds to rip them a new one for independent axis shaping why? because the man studied the hell out of it to incorporate it into RRF. As an engineer myself I understand his passion and why he's so head strong because he's put in the work and understands the advantages and disadvantages of different implementations and he's very open to saying they went the wrong direction but they learned and improved. Lots of other companies aren't developing/innovating mainly just using whatever firmware is on the top sold machines. why marlin? It was on the prusas but now klipper is coming stock why? It's on the vorons and I think on the bambu maybe idk. Had Duet boards or just RRF been on those machines it would be the dominant Firmware. IMHO marlin is dying staying alive because of prusa, klipper is for programming enthusiasts and hobbyists, and RRF is for engineers making machines in industry. Also my favorite part of Duet boards and RRF you don't need wifi at all which is my personal preference give me my touchscreen HMI with GUI and SDCARD! Those are my two cents.
@@sculptaware4548 actually, with off-the-shelf hardware (I mean some widely used boards), you can install klipper with zero programming skills. The only compilation requires to jump once in a console and execute "make menuconfig && make flash". The rest could be (and should be) done from the web interface
Please don't move the camera like that, it's very distracting.
@marsgizmo filmed it. Formnext is very exhausting. Soo .... On the other hand if you use the right OS and there the right player you can enable deshaking for youtube....
this video is awesome!