Let me echo (pun) what another commenter said. Slowing down the speaking rate, or even merely pausing briefly between sentences or claused, works wonders for comprehension by the intended audience - no matter what their first language may be. Might think of it like an 'info sonar' screen scroll rate... if set on 'blazing', although the details WERE all revealed, from the POV of the audience, they weren't all clearly seen, appreciated in depth, or can be recalled. That suggested, this was fine coverage of the topic, and i'm eager to see how the presenter breaks down side imaging, particularly in terms of what's reasonable to expect from that tech, for display of fish marks. As a kayak angler with limited space, heretofore i've just set my portable ice sonar package in the cockpit, and so i'm late to the SI party. My initial in-the-water impressions are that i'm probably discerning the presence if suspended fish directly under the transducer (on the narrow but mostly narrow center stripe), but unless they cast appreciable 'shadows', i have doubts that i'm seeing very many of their marks when they are positioned off to either side. To attempt to compensate, i've selected a one-sided display and reduced the range to maybe 30-40 ft, but am still questioning whether i'm missing 'bogies'. i DO understand how if a fish is tighter to bottom and/or associated with a complex rather than a smoother bottom, it itself will often be in the sonar shadow of larger 'bumps' on the bottom itself, like a boulder(s). One question i've not yet been able to resolve, so far never seen addressed in a presentation? Why do the SAME targets appear so very much larger and bolder as displayed by 2D sonar, versus DI? It's almost like the decades -older, liquid crystal pixelation limits of older sonar. If the top-to-bottom height of a fish (suspended in 10FOW) were 6" or 1/2 ft, i'd expect its mark to occupy (0.5/10=) one-twentieth, or a full 5% of the height of the full water column display. But instead, relatively speaking, i'm viewing just a speck - and that's representing quite a big fish in most freshwaters! And two different sized specks aren't so easily distinguished at that scale. Then let the viewing conditions degrade due to reflective glare or moisture on the screen, and in terms of fish detection, DI can get frustrating. 2D depictions of the same pair of suspended fish are dramatically different.
Good video and you are explaining it all well BUT if you want people from countries that have another languish than English as first languish, you have to slow down a lot. If you are only adressing people from US, don’t mind this comment. When I am taking a photo or shooting a video, I’m very concerned about the sun and how it effects the picture. You have the sun from behind and that makes the video in the boat not so good.
Let me echo (pun) this advice? Slowing down the speaking rate, or even merely pausing briefly between sentences or claused, works wonders for comprehension by the intended audience - no matter what their first language may be. Might think of it like an 'info sonar' screen scroll rate... if set on 'blazing', although the details WERE all revealed, from the POV of the audience, they weren't all clearly seen, appreciated in depth, or can be recalled. That suggested, this was fine coverage of the topic. One question i've not yet been able to resolve? Why do the SAME targets appear so much larger and bolder as displayed by 2D sonar, versus DI? If the top-to-bottom height of a fish (suspended in 10FOW) were 6" or 1/2 ft, i'd expect its mark to occupy (0.5/10=) one-twentieth, or a full 5% of the height of the full water column display. But instead, relatively speaking, i'm viewing just a speck - and that's representing quite a big fish in most freshwaters! And two different sized specks aren't so easily distinguished at that scale. Then let the viewing conditions degrade due to reflective glare or moisture on the screen, and in terms of fish detection, DI can get frustrating. 2D depictions of the same pair of suspended fish are dramatically different.
Dude, why are you making a vid and then speak 100 mph w/out pauses in between sentences. I understand the english language very well and can comprehend quickly and clearly what's being explained. Maybe have friends and family view and give their feedback before you release to the public
You should be rewarded for this video you made it simple no matter what type of equipment you own.
So, in summary, when you apply 2D sonar and when you apply down imaging. Thanks
Great video can i ask what fish fider is this exactly?
Lowrance HDS 12 Carbon
I have a Solix fish finder and I can back-up my screen to see stuff I have already passed/over.
Let me echo (pun) what another commenter said.
Slowing down the speaking rate, or even merely pausing briefly between sentences or claused, works wonders for comprehension by the intended audience - no matter what their first language may be.
Might think of it like an 'info sonar' screen scroll rate...
if set on 'blazing', although the details WERE all revealed, from the POV of the audience, they weren't all clearly seen, appreciated in depth, or can be recalled.
That suggested, this was fine coverage of the topic, and i'm eager to see how the presenter breaks down side imaging, particularly in terms of what's reasonable to expect from that tech, for display of fish marks. As a kayak angler with limited space, heretofore i've just set my portable ice sonar package in the cockpit, and so i'm late to the SI party. My initial in-the-water impressions are that i'm probably discerning the presence if suspended fish directly under the transducer (on the narrow but mostly narrow center stripe), but unless they cast appreciable 'shadows', i have doubts that i'm seeing very many of their marks when they are positioned off to either side. To attempt to compensate, i've selected a one-sided display and reduced the range to maybe 30-40 ft, but am still questioning whether i'm missing 'bogies'.
i DO understand how if a fish is tighter to bottom and/or associated with a complex rather than a smoother bottom, it itself will often be in the sonar shadow of larger 'bumps' on the bottom itself, like a boulder(s).
One question i've not yet been able to resolve, so far never seen addressed in a presentation?
Why do the SAME targets appear so very much larger and bolder as displayed by 2D sonar, versus DI? It's almost like the decades -older, liquid crystal pixelation limits of older sonar.
If the top-to-bottom height of a fish (suspended in 10FOW) were 6" or 1/2 ft,
i'd expect its mark to occupy (0.5/10=) one-twentieth, or a full 5% of the height of the full water column display.
But instead, relatively speaking, i'm viewing just a speck - and that's representing quite a big fish in most freshwaters! And two different sized specks aren't so easily distinguished at that scale.
Then let the viewing conditions degrade due to reflective glare or moisture on the screen, and in terms of fish detection, DI can get frustrating. 2D depictions of the same pair of suspended fish are dramatically different.
Great video I’m installing my 2 new Live units tomorrow !
Excellent breakdown
Really good info, easy to understand… Thank you sir. Will be sharing this with my fishing buddy, as we are both learning to use our Garmin 93SV…
Outstanding video
Tjis i simple stuff.
Why not go to 500 feet water ?
I would like to know abouth thise deph
Thanks for the info
Good Video
good stuff
Good video and you are explaining it all well BUT if you want people from countries that have another languish than English as first languish, you have to slow down a lot. If you are only adressing people from US, don’t mind this comment.
When I am taking a photo or shooting a video, I’m very concerned about the sun and how it effects the picture. You have the sun from behind and that makes the video in the boat not so good.
Let me echo (pun) this advice?
Slowing down the speaking rate, or even merely pausing briefly between sentences or claused, works wonders for comprehension by the intended audience - no matter what their first language may be.
Might think of it like an 'info sonar' screen scroll rate...
if set on 'blazing', although the details WERE all revealed, from the POV of the audience, they weren't all clearly seen, appreciated in depth, or can be recalled.
That suggested, this was fine coverage of the topic.
One question i've not yet been able to resolve?
Why do the SAME targets appear so much larger and bolder as displayed by 2D sonar, versus DI?
If the top-to-bottom height of a fish (suspended in 10FOW) were 6" or 1/2 ft,
i'd expect its mark to occupy (0.5/10=) one-twentieth, or a full 5% of the height of the full water column display.
But instead, relatively speaking, i'm viewing just a speck - and that's representing quite a big fish in most freshwaters! And two different sized specks aren't so easily distinguished at that scale.
Then let the viewing conditions degrade due to reflective glare or moisture on the screen, and in terms of fish detection, DI can get frustrating. 2D depictions of the same pair of suspended fish are dramatically different.
Appreciate it
Dude, why are you making a vid and then speak 100 mph w/out pauses in between sentences. I understand the english language very well and can comprehend quickly and clearly what's being explained. Maybe have friends and family view and give their feedback before you release to the public
You can slow playback speed down to whatever you like.