Stabilized roll or not?

I am trying to understand what is the better option for our fixed wing airplane when using pix4d. We have the option to build a roll axis stabilized gimbal or a non stabilized gimbal for our cameras. While the image quality will most likely be better with the roll axis stabilized, we are using the logs from the Pixhawk for the GPS data. I believe that uses the roll, pitch, and yaw angles of the plane as based on the pixhawk unit, not on the angle of the gimbal. If this is true, is it better to have the correct roll, yaw, and pitch values in the GPS data for the picture (IE, a non stabilized gimbal) or is it better to have a stabilized image (Stabilized gimbal) and possibly have the roll axis GPS data be incorrect for that image?

I may produce both and see what works better.

Thank you in advance

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Email me when people reply –


  • I spoke with Pix4D representatives and they informed me a stabilized gimbal is definitely the better solution as the roll, pitch, and yaw axis angles are not currently used in creating the orthomorsaic or DSM.

  • Greetings like

    I am flying a fixed mount Canon S110 in a fixed wing aircraft and am able to create good images. Adding roll stabilization would add weight and power draw, reducing the available flight time. You need to plan your mission a bit more carefully and take images when flying straight and level. This isn't too hard. There is some buffeting but, with care, this is minor.

    • Yes, it can work well without stabilization, but the weight difference for our airframe would not be enough to effect flight time enough for it to be a major factor. My question is not about the flight aspect of it, but, the benefit of stabilization vs. accurate IMU data.

      Or, does the pixhawk account for the stabilization offset when capturing the IMU data during the camera trigger?

This reply was deleted.