A216 Main Menu

Digital Multimedia
Concepts and Technologies.


[RIP] Ray Dolby [1933 - 2013]


Instructor: Jeff Whitmer

Jeff Whitmer

  • Office: Luddy Hall 2050.
  • Office Hours:

    • Luddy Hall 2050 (IF2050) Monday/Wednesday: 8:30 - 9:00am, 1:00 - 2:00pm.
    • Luddy Hall 2050 (IF2050) Friday: 8:00 - 8:45am.
    • Appointments also available.

  • Office Hour Special NOTES:
    • Any changes to my office hours will be posted here.
      • Monday, August 20, 2018: Classes Begin.
      • Monday, September 3, 2018: Labor Day holiday. Classes do not meet.
  • Phone: 855-3974.
  • E-mail: jwhitmer@cs.indiana.edu.

Meeting Times:

Fall 2018: MW: 11:15am - 12:05pm (section 8531) in INFO West 107.

Lab Times:

Fall 2017:

  • Tue/Thu: 1:00 - 2:15pm in Luddy Hall 0006 (section 8532)
  • Tue/Thu: 2:30 - 3:45pm in Luddy Hall 0006 (section 8533)

animated GIF

Fall 2018 Students: Please note the following:
[Updated: 12/11/2018]


  • PLEASE READ CAREFULLY: Active Course Participation Scores, Final Averages and Final Grades: are now posted on Canvas. Final Grades have been submitted to the Registrar and should be visible to you tomorrow, 12/12/2018.

    The A216 Active Course Participation score represents my evaluation of your preparation and participation both in the Monday/Wednesday class meetings and in the course overall. As noted on the first day, just being the one saying the most doesn't mean you will get the highest rating. Similarly, being quiet doesn't mean you'll get a low score. I see a great deal from my position, including who is paying attention, who is asleep, who is using their laptop to take class notes and who is using their laptop/mobile to surf the Web or check Facebook. Just being in class doesn't insure a good Participation score. ALSO NOTE that you cannot expect a high participation score if you missed 30% or more of the class meetings. You can not participate when you are not there. The Participation scores ranged from the 90s to 0% and the class average was 82.41%. This means most of you were there most of the time and engaged most of the time. Thank you.

    Here are a few details on Final Grades. Grading Scale Adjustment: The work during this semester, for the class as a whole, was outstanding, which an average of 81.53% for those who were truly active in the course, there being a couple of exceptions. However, in order to address any small issues here and there I made a very small change in the original 90-80-70-60 grading scale. I dropped the entire scale by 1 point, to 89-79-69-59. Again, almost everyone did very good to excellent work this semester, including some of the best ever. Everyone worked hard and I've tried to be sure that is reflected in the final grades. Remember, the +/- grades are determined but the upper and lower 2.5% of each range, respectively. IMPORTANT NOTE: The final grades displayed on Canvas are correct, using this adjusted grading scale.

    Remember, your final average was based on the following "weights" for each course component as published on the website the first day of class:

    Attendance: 5% (.05)
    Assignments: 25% (.25)
    MINI/CAT/JIT/Quiz: 10% (.1)
    Participation: 10% (.1)
    Project Average for two Projects, including Journal: 40% (.4)
    Project Assessment Average for two Projects: 10% (.1)

    Together, these add up to 100% and if you multiply your averages by these percentages, you will get your final average. NOTE: While final averages are published to 2 decimal places, they are stored and calculated to 6 decimal places.

    The final distribution of grades was: 1 A, 7 A-, 2 B+, 5 B, 3 B-, 2 C+, 3 C, 1 C-, 1 D+, 1 D- and 1 F. Overall, this means there were 8 A, 10 B, 6 C, 2 D, and 1 F. Thanks to everyone for their hard work. I hope you found the course interesting and useful. Best of luck in the future to each of you.

    A NOTE ON "BORDERLINE" GRADES: After the new grading scale was set and initial final grades were determined, several students were on the "borderline" for a higher grade. PLEASE be careful to note that "borderline" in this course means within .1 -.3% (tenths of a percent), NOT within 1-2% (full percent). For each student, I looked carefully at every aspect of the course, from projects to attendance to assignments. If the work was of consistent quality in all areas, the higher grade was probably given. HOWEVER, if there were one or more areas where the scores/averages were consistently lower, or if there was missed work, i.e., got a 0 (zero), then the higher grade was not given. Just so you are clear, since I have taken the time to review all this information already, unless you find a mathematical error in your averages, I will not be open to a request for a grade change.

    Again, thanks to everyone who participated in the course. I hope you found it fun or interesting or useful, or even all three.

  • Second Project Assessment scores posted and emails sent. Assessment Average on Canvas confirmed correct.

    The Assessments for the Second Project were a modest improvement over the First Assessment, but still not as good as I had hoped for, especially since I provided you with exemplars of the written feedback from the First Project. In addition, I did my best to advise against giving all your teammates perfect scores, but some of you still did. I also advised that you take some time and care in preparing your qualitative feedback, because, as with the First Project, I would be scoring you on the quality of what you wrote for others. Again, some of you took my advice, and some did not. Any of these could have had a major impact on your final assessment average.

    All of this led to a good range in the Assessment scores, with an average of 82.74%, with individual scores from 63.71 to 95.35. Three students earned 0 because of no submission. Some of the lower scores were cases where teammates were judged pretty sternly by their teams, or the qualitative feedback offered was just not of good quality. There were 4 totals in the 90s, 13 in the 80s, 5 in the 70s, 2 in the 60s and 3 0s.

    I expect to have the Active Course Participation scores, as well as the final grading scale and Final Grades posted tomorrow, when I submit the Final Grades to the Registrar.

  • Second Project Phase 3, Phase 4, and Second Project Total scores posted, Canvas Team Project Average confirmed accurate, emails sent or on the way: Phase 3 emails with detailed scores and some comments have been sent to EACH TEAM MEMBER. PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING: The Phase 3 score was shared by all team members and is the score for the actual project itself. Phase 3 was graded by all four of us and the 4 scores in every category were averaged to arrive at the team Phase 3 score. The Phase 3 submissions were good as a group and some were very good. Scores ranged from 69.25 to 93.75, with 2 Teams scoring in the 90s, 1 in the 80s, and 1 in the 60s. All the Projects were well done and I think all teams should be complemented for their teamwork on this Phase.

    Phase 4/Journal scores will also be mailed out by the end of the day. Phase 4 was graded by your lab instructor. It was combined with Phases 1, 2 and 3 according to the Second Project Description: Phase 1 + Phase 2 was 20% of your score, Phase 3 was 60%, and Phase 4 was 20%. REMEMBER: The Assessment score is a separate score and those will be posted in a separate column and will have a separate report, which will be emailed to each of you in the next day or so. Because of the Journals, there was a variation in the Overall Score for each teammate. The overall Phase 4/Journal average was 79.48% for those who submitted one. The overall average on the entire Second Project was 84.67%, which is very good and nearly a 2% average improvement over the First Project. ALSO REMEMBER: Only the OFFICIAL First Project and Second Project scores count toward your final average. The components are there so you can see the scores, but they have been marked "Not part of the final grade" by me. The Project Average on Canvas for each student has been confirmed accurate.


Undergraduate Laboratory Instructors and Graders, Fall 2018: