Howdy, just some thoughts..
Costs for camera drones rise exponentially with its size, so does the risk if something goes wrong. While you only loose your equipment when crashing e.g. in Islands deserted wilderness, you risk much more when crashing over crowded areas or just locations with people on the ground. Although in most countries it’s forbidden to fly over people at all, Youtube or Vimeo are full with videos that show the opposite content.
Wether you stick to the rules or not, depending on the spot you plan to fly at, serious consideration is recommended regarding the question what camera is required to get the job done. Usually, the bigger the camera – the better the footage, – you have a bigger sensor, higher quality lenses, you get more dynamic range and higher resolution etc. But with heavier cameras, you need a bigger, heavier multicopter, wich always goes with higher risk for everyone below.
Two years ago, I developed and flew a copter whos job was to carry the Red Epic + brushless gimbal you see in the picture on top. It had 12 engines in coax configuration, roughly 5kW of electrical power and a maximum take off-weight of 13kg/26lb. Everytime I flew it, I imagined the crater occuring if this beast would go down. Since I never experienced a critical situation like that, my safety record is (still) as good as it can be, but it’s the same with safety as it is with perfection or efficiency – we never reach the 100%.
In conclusion I tend to encourage every multicopter pilot to choose the smallest possible camera that is able to get the money shot your clients require. Not only is it cost-efficient, more importantly you significantly lower the risk of hurting anyone on the ground in case of an epic malfunction. Furthermore, please consider, no insurance will pay a cent if it’s obvious you ignored resonable rules.
Yours truly, Robert Zimmermann, Köln 2015.
Comments
Just had another tought, maybe the max. TOW of cameradrones that wanna commercially fly over inhabited areas should be limited by law. Lets say to 3KG including a parachute in chase of motorfail no matter if quad, hex, octo... That way at least the commercial flyers would not be responsible for the first death caused by a cameradrone. F.e. 2014 there was a bullrun in the U.S. and a cameracopter(hex?) plunged into a group of people, or months later, a woman runner was hit by a cameradrone during a marathon in the U.S., the doc picked a piece of prop out of her headskin. Everytime kind of bigger ships.. Its hard to pass knowlegde to some of the newbies, DJI phantom over the white house - how stupid man must be??! But at least the commercial flyers should make use of their experience and know how.. ..lighter is better.. And please, no delivery-drones - did you ever saw the futurama intro?
Have a nice day, yours truly Robert Zimmermann.
After owning and flying a Solo for 29 days, I returned it. During that same period I flew my friend's Phantom 3 Pro to compare. While both are capable video machines and fun to fly, after having a 3DR Y6B and Sky Hero 750 Y6, there is no comparison when flying in windy conditions. I'll take a larger heavier copter any day for the type of flying conditions I'm accustomed to, and find them easier to control,steady and see from a distance (obviously).
The same goes for the 650 and 680 quads I have, both under 3kg but still considerably heavier and larger than the Solo/P3P, yet because the motors are much more powerful are still very responsive and will handle winds much better. It's just a fact. Flight time is longer as well. My little Hubsan agrees.
Since small copters down to palm size are already available, it's basically popularity and cost that dictate what consumers buy. A 250mm copter is dirt cheap, but look what most do with them.......nothing that I do. OTOH, simple physics says wind will blow a small light copter all over the place compared to larger heavier copter. There is no magic technology to change that, except maybe Area 51.
There's a reason why we don't see 175 lb men on the offensive/defensive line in college/pro level football, or even high school in many cases. Oh, and think twice before driving a Yugo across the Mackinaw Bridge.
While I see the logic in safety, the majority of mishaps occur in large cities where most of the idiots happen to reside that do stupid things so prominently reported by the MSM. One size doesn't fit all, and the problems in a large metropolis don't apply to we country hicks. I generally don't like small plastic copters with lower quality components that fail, have no redundancy and are not as stable for purposes of other than only flying in calmer winds, but that's just me and why I build my own copters (both coaxial and flat).
As far as transport-ability, this 680mm 3kg quadcopter when folded will fit in a smaller cubic ft space than either a Solo or Phantom.
After saying no crashes to date..........I'd find as much wood I could find and start knocking.
Totally agree with the size and capabilities advancements. But I think top quality video/images will always go to the bigger camera(all other things being equal) and thus larger rigs. That being said....there will come a point when the human eye will not be able to distinguish. Has that point come yet? No.
+1 Heli,
"Swarm Optics", probably a lot of possibilities we haven't even thought of yet.
A real time completely adjustable synthetic array, like some of our radio and optical astronomical arrays except for terrestrial applications.
Honestly can't even imagine the possibilities yet.
Best,
Gary
Funny you mention lightfield-cameras. They might really revolutionize the way pictures are recorded. The possibility to "film" rayclouds with every optical information is appealing as hell. The bokeh is simply rendered in post and your footage will never ever be outta focus. :) Crazy times.
Hi Uplift, I agree that optics are also "currently" a limiting factor.
But, Although zoom capability is often extremely useful for a hand held or stationary camera, on a quadcopter you can simulate zoom simply by flying closer to or further from your subject.
And a good argument can be made for often being able to achieve better results by that method.
And making smaller higher resolution high quality sensors can permit very adequate conventional focus lens's to achieve excellent results.
As I said, there will always be some applications or requirements that require a bigger vehicle and absolute pro movie making level of capability will probably be one of them, but that is less than 1/100 of 1% of the market.
For the other 99.99% of us something not much bigger than a dragonfly will probably work fine.
I will make what I consider a conservative prediction that, that will come true in less than 5 years.
Cellphone cameras are already carrying the ball for the appropriate camera and Sony's new AX1000V sport cam is seriously getting there with the non-gimbaled digital optical stabilization.
Convergence (and the unavoidable and intractable safety issues) make this inevitable.
Not arguing against big multis, only very much in favor of tiny ones.
Best,
Gary
Btw, I mainly fly with Gopros. This way I don't have to call the nearest tower when I want to film somewhere. With a copter above 5kG, you have to announce your takeoffs and landings via telephone at the nearest airport. (at least in Germany) I just post-process the hell out of this little cameras and smile inside when cameramen can't believe the footage I show them was taken with that 90gr device..
What all smartphone- and actioncameras with their wideangle-lenses miss, is some eye-candy in form of bokeh - or shallow depth of field. So, to achieve at least a bit of that filmlook everybody wants, you need some good glass in front of your sensor - thats where you really can't expect big changes - you simply can't change the laws of physics. This picture illustrates that point quite nicely:
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next