I'm a big fan and supporter of open source multirotors but this is just too impressive to pass. Too bad it is super expensive and out of reach for most hobbyists. Just wanted to share this with the community and see what they have to say about the the frame, gimbal and about DJI in general.
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Comments
As I mentioned earlier, the tube/clamp design of the CineStar gimbal seems perfect. The clamps and smaller parts can be made if you have access to a CNC. Servo belt and beltwheels you find at hobby robotics stores. And replace the 25mm K3 carbon tubes with aluminum (.90 size helicopter booms) to reduce cost.
John: Point taken.. but then again how difficult is it to make a servo belt driven drive gimbal?
all i'm saying is we need an open source rig of our own that won't set us back a grand.. what you've pointed out is another feature we could aim for..
Azam: I do by no means try to discredit Leif, he is a pioneer. But those samples does not show the strengths/weakness of a stabilization rig. All shots are taken with what seems to be little or no wind, there is post stabilization done, and most shots have been slowed down. And by using a short clip editing style, you can cherry pick the seconds of really good footage.
Again I am not trying to talk down on anyone, but the point of a good stabilization rig is to produce good results even when the conditions aren't ideal. And I can pretty much grantee that a non-dampened, direct drive servo solution does not do that.
Yeah, guess you need to move fast, David from rcexplorer.se already beat you to it :)
Why am I not shooting video like that? I live in the great land of Canada, and we have as many such naturally beautiful places. I need to get out more. ;-)
@ Ellison Chan
No he does use light video deshaking.. Mercalli V2 plugin for Adobe Premiere to be precise.. but still this has to be the best aerial work done on a multirotor to date.. and I'm amazed at the simplicity of his setup..
Wow, was all that video raw, with no post-processing?
And to back my claim.. take a look at some footage shot by one of the best in aerial film making, fpv leif of Norway:
Last time I checked with him he had been using a simple, self made, servo stabilized aluminium camera mount on his octocopter... take a look at his rig below:
There you have it.. one of the best aerial videography material out there shot with a sub $100 mount..
Also, another factor is ease of availability and price... so as hobbyists if we want to achieve comparable performance with easily accessible parts such as hobby servos then it doesn't make sense to go down the stepper/brushless motor route.. if you ask me the features I would go for would be:
1) Ease of construction (even if somebody wants to build it from scratch)
2) Low cost (< $250)
3) Performance no less than commercial variants
4) Open design (so that others can improve on the design for greater community benefit)
5) Carbon fiber / Fiberglass / Aluminium / 3d printed parts
6) Lightweight (< 500 grams approx)
The way I see it is that most of the gimbal makers out there are charging for their IP and not for the actual cost of making one. Although there's nothing wrong with that, a low cost DIY alternative won't hurt anybody but would rather make aerial photography / film making more accessible and fun..
@ Emin Bu Thanks for sharing these awesome images.. So how do you propose we should go about designing our own gimbal? I mean we can come up with something unique but what should be the features we should aim at? Also, how does one interface with these brushless motors? Servos on the other are compatible with most FC's for 3 axes stabilization but are these motors compatible in the same way.. as in do they also have a PWM input?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next