I keep asking myself why this cannot be done, and so far i have not found an answer i can believe. So i bought a commercial HD Video/Audio sender for home use and plugged in my gopro as a video source, and my flat screen TV as the player, and i connected up these devices and viola..! it worked. So my next thought what is the problem with making this work in a UAV , it is using 5.8Ghz it is cheap to buy, just need to hack it so the antenna is less directional, and we can then have HD in our goggles, or on our screen.

This would be far more preferable to me for a first time FPV flyer as the picture is so poor at 480x240 pixels, you can hardly see if your moving or not.

What do you all think? i know a more elegant solution would be nicer but for now it would work.

sample of what i meant : http://www.maplin.co.uk/wireless-hdmi-video-sender-kit-503801

Views: 7249

Comment by Project Nadar on May 15, 2013 at 7:07am

There are already solution much smaller than this like the Paralynx Arrow. I don't know what limits their range and what would boost it but 3 years ago i gave this technology 5 years to develop. If there is an HDMI dongle today that does 90 meters i am very optimistic that there should be an HDMI dongle that does a lot more than 90 meters in the next 2 years. 

Comment by Yusuf Pirgali on May 15, 2013 at 7:14am

Hi Project Nadar, i saw the price of the Paralynx Arrow £999 wow, it has to become cheaper than that, and the ones in my links are below £120 so it cant be that hard to do, and for only FPV it will do. Te Paralynx ones seems to be for live broadcasting etc..

Comment by Adam Kroll on May 15, 2013 at 7:33am
Comment by Dez Socks on May 15, 2013 at 7:50am

Is it because of the amount of information being sent, that limits the overall range? 

Comment by The Sun on May 15, 2013 at 7:51am
What band are they on OP?

If the required bandwidth fits on 5.8ghz then you can disassemble the unit and replace the RF transmitter with something less directional and more powerful...


I would do it but I don't have the capital floating around sadly.
Comment by The Sun on May 15, 2013 at 7:52am
Also another consideration is latency, you should check that by the way.
Comment by Crasher on May 15, 2013 at 7:56am

You have two things to consider:

1. Video lag. This is likely to be high on cheaper solutions. Even half a second can be the difference between a successful flight and a crash. 

2. Handshake delay. Because the data stream is digital, there may be a delay on handshaking. If the signal breaks up, how long will the delay be before the connection is re-established? Not a concern on analogue SD systems.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying either of thee two will be a problem necessarily, but important considerations.

Comment by Luke Olson on May 15, 2013 at 8:18am

Right now you get what you pay for with wireless HD video. In time the costs will come down and the performance will improve.

Comment by Jaan Kronberg on May 15, 2013 at 8:25am
Comment by Yusuf Pirgali on May 15, 2013 at 8:39am

Hi Jaan, have you seen the price of these units $1700, we all know in the Electronics industry this will come down, but when? i think this needs an open-source type of project to kick-start it, i would support it.

Comment

You need to be a member of DIY Drones to add comments!

Join DIY Drones

© 2014   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service