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
I agree. Spend a few minutes surfing the cable channels and you will see huge amounts of aerial shots done with a Go Pro. The general viewer has no idea and doesn't care. Between those cameras getting much better very quickly and advancements in post processing there is not much of a need to fly a GH4 or a Red.
+1 to Gary. Bojan, your points are understood but remember please there was a day when photographers commonly used 8 X 10 inch (and larger) format cameras and 4 X 5 was considered the minimum for pro work. There is no reason to think that the miniaturization that has been ongoing for well over 100 years is suddenly going to hit a wall. There is no question that we are headed toward cameras that will exceed the human eye in performance and compactness. There may be companies retaining older bigger form factors so long as consumers equate size with performance/quality, but that will change. You joke about a future journalist pulling a nanobot out of a pocket, but that is exactly what many of us think will happen. As for cost, such devices will eventually be much cheaper than the current crop, which is not making some manufacturers happy as they anticipate the present fat profits evaporating. No offence, but you are sounding like the late 19th century American congressmen who tried to abolish the patent system on the grounds that everything worthwhile had already been invented.
Hi HeliStorm,
I agree with you 100%, the future is small.
and Bojan, yes for us desktops are still handy for some things, but the fact is that tablets and even cellphones now have most of the capability that the desktops do and they are portable.
Since the essence of multicopters (photo/video drones) is their portability and since safety goes down as size increases, we have a much higher mandate to make them as small as possible.
It also helps that in consumer quantities, generally cost goes down as size goes down.
Also smaller quadcopters aside from being safer for the public tend to cause less damage to themselves in mishaps.
It is also likely the regulations and government requirements will greatly favor the smallest possible quadcopter.
We have a huge incentive to make small safe quiet quadcopters as opposed to big heavy and definitely not safe multicopters.
And the technologies are already in place to be able to permit this, much smaller and lighter than the Phantom even.
The Parrot BeBop is arguably the first copter to express the proper mix of technologies, dedicated small light camera with built in effective digital no loss stabilization, light weight and foam padded construction.
It is the first generation of a type of copter that can eventually be made in a much smaller size still and be capable of taking very good 1080P video.
There are still some improvements that need to be made in the digital optical stabilization process, particularly in roll, but that is a matter of the proper GPU (graphics processing unit) and a sufficiently oversized and fast video sensor chip, and that requires simply enhancement, not invention.
No doubt there will still be many commercial needs for bigger and more capable multicopters, but the consumer (and a lot of commercial stuff as well) is going to go entirely to micro and nano quadcopters.
BTW, designed with a proper aerodynamic shell and a high mass to size ratio, tiny quadcopters do just as well in a windy environment as bigger ones.
The Blade 200QX is an excellent example of this in a 200 sized quad.
Best Regards,
Gary
Have a look at the SteadiDrone VADER - http://www.steadidrone.com/
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next