This is the latest Flying Multicopter Camera system. It uses the Panasonic HDC-TM900. The arms are on rubber mounts and only move if there is any vibration. The motors are Pulso X2826/12 Kv 760 they have 5mm shafts and are three bearing. They run very smoothly compared to the MK3538's. Three axis of inner stabilisation on the camera mount plus three outer on the model itself. It is made from balsa, plywood and insulation foam covered with epoxy resin and lightweight cloth. Strong, light and it floats. Rock steady imagery, even when zoomed to 80X. Still waiting to get the latest code for the FC. The only bit that I really need help with.
Looks awesome. It looked like from your earlier prototypes that their was a servo on the balanced beam as well. Is it still there? If I am following the multi-axis system you are describing, I guess the balanced beam would take out some of the larger movements first, and then the finer movements are taken care of with the inner axis servo near the camera in the photo? Did you use different speed servos for these servos, or did the gearing take care of that?
Also, I have hacked together a pretty sloppy stablization system (2 axis) that I need to introduce some gearing to, and I think I might also take a stab at using a balanced beam system. You referenced a "number one mistake" - I usually make those type of mistakes, so to clarify - the mistake is assuming that soft mounting alone on the beam would be sufficient, you must also use dampeners? What type of dampeners did you find useful? I have some oil filled shock absorbers for RC cars that I was thinking of using.
Last question - did you use a dual system for the roll axis too? I can see one of the servos, but wondered if there is another servo for the camera plate as well.
The military have been doing this for years with FOG's and non IS lenses but this uses 6 axis of stabilisation plus some internal camera mods. So it goes through three levels of refinement. Each one has its own full scale range of maximum movement. The clue lies in the fact that camera movements beyond about 10 degrees per second are useless. The camera is very sensitive to vibration hence the intensive development in that area. It is also very useful to be able to remove the motor arms for transport. The largest mass is on the balanced camera mount beam which holds the batteries and most other stuff. It is not enough to just support that on silicon and EVO rubber, it must also have a damping system. There is no soft mounting beyond that beam. This is the number one mistake that everybody seems to make. When I have the auto object tracking system fully integrated and working I will be very happy. That is an area that is beyond my scope but as they say, I know some people who can do it.
That's difficult to even believe. 0.003 degrees is way beyond subpixel stabilization... I guess in an aerial situation translational, rather than rotational, changes are the predominant motion blur mode by that time.
Congratulations.
I'm serious about extending the tech beyond copters, by the way. Other devices that don't have to deal with the translational dynamic of fighting wind could really use 0.003 degree rotational stabilization.
A lot of that is in the camera but the mount itself can hold around .003 degrees. I have been banging on about how this is done with mems technology but nobody listens.
80x zoom is a bloody telescope, if you've created a stabilizer for that level a lot of binocular and tripod companies are going to want to talk to you. Do you mean 8x? There's only a 12x optical zoom lens on that camera.
The weight changes from day to day as I try different camera set-ups but each motor can lift over 3 Kg. so it is not an issue. props are 14x4.7 two or three blades. I am using the Gentles stuff on my 550D camera. I like the Panny because of the stunning quality and the weight saving. Working on some video that will explain a few more things but as usual I don't have enough hours in a day.
What kind of weight are you lifting and what props are you using? I am not sure if the Panasonic you are using is supported but if it is you could save a gram or two by using one of these and eliminate the remote control and servo? :
I don't have vibration issues, A lot of effort went into isolating it at source. The camera works fantastically well. I also use and like the Canon 550D.
Comments
Denny:
Looks awesome. It looked like from your earlier prototypes that their was a servo on the balanced beam as well. Is it still there? If I am following the multi-axis system you are describing, I guess the balanced beam would take out some of the larger movements first, and then the finer movements are taken care of with the inner axis servo near the camera in the photo? Did you use different speed servos for these servos, or did the gearing take care of that?
Also, I have hacked together a pretty sloppy stablization system (2 axis) that I need to introduce some gearing to, and I think I might also take a stab at using a balanced beam system. You referenced a "number one mistake" - I usually make those type of mistakes, so to clarify - the mistake is assuming that soft mounting alone on the beam would be sufficient, you must also use dampeners? What type of dampeners did you find useful? I have some oil filled shock absorbers for RC cars that I was thinking of using.
Last question - did you use a dual system for the roll axis too? I can see one of the servos, but wondered if there is another servo for the camera plate as well.
Can't believe how tight that system looks.
John
The military have been doing this for years with FOG's and non IS lenses but this uses 6 axis of stabilisation plus some internal camera mods. So it goes through three levels of refinement. Each one has its own full scale range of maximum movement. The clue lies in the fact that camera movements beyond about 10 degrees per second are useless. The camera is very sensitive to vibration hence the intensive development in that area. It is also very useful to be able to remove the motor arms for transport. The largest mass is on the balanced camera mount beam which holds the batteries and most other stuff. It is not enough to just support that on silicon and EVO rubber, it must also have a damping system. There is no soft mounting beyond that beam. This is the number one mistake that everybody seems to make. When I have the auto object tracking system fully integrated and working I will be very happy. That is an area that is beyond my scope but as they say, I know some people who can do it.
That's difficult to even believe. 0.003 degrees is way beyond subpixel stabilization... I guess in an aerial situation translational, rather than rotational, changes are the predominant motion blur mode by that time.
Congratulations.
I'm serious about extending the tech beyond copters, by the way. Other devices that don't have to deal with the translational dynamic of fighting wind could really use 0.003 degree rotational stabilization.
That looks like a really compelling camera.
80x zoom is a bloody telescope, if you've created a stabilizer for that level a lot of binocular and tripod companies are going to want to talk to you. Do you mean 8x? There's only a 12x optical zoom lens on that camera.
Denny
What kind of weight are you lifting and what props are you using? I am not sure if the Panasonic you are using is supported but if it is you could save a gram or two by using one of these and eliminate the remote control and servo? :
http://www.gentles.ltd.uk/gentled/video.htm
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next