RC Drones, Quadcopter, and real-time Video

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The Phantom is an electric vehicle, after all ...

Be afraid. Be very afraid...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5PiVR_4vOs[/youtube]
 
Now with 3 months of ownership I have learned a great deal and had plenty of fun. There is definitely a steep learning curve and I am still on the climbing side of it. My experience has been much like garygid's. My rig is a Phantom 1 with an SJ1000 camera. At less than $600 total this is a cheap way to start. I was able to kludge a mount to the Phantom, but the camera does not come with a mount fitting the Phantom and vice versa (the Phantom comes with a GoPro mount). I can video, but I don't have either a gimbal or FPV, which makes good video much more difficult to obtain. I can see how mission creep will drive an owner to go for a higher-end setup. I have to make my videos mostly from stills, since the video footage is usually too choppy. My mount buffers the jello, so that's not the problem, it's the lack of a gimbal that limits it and there is no gimbal that fits the SJ1000. If you are after excellent video go with the Vision 2 or at least get a GoPro and the Zenmuse or something similar. Still, the problems can be largely overcome or mitigated in the post-flight editing. See my video below.

The biggest problem I've had is lack of good places to fly. Here in Silicon Valley most of the larger parks prohibit drones, even those that allow R/C planes. I've been busted once. There's only one park I know of that allows it, and after flying there a few times, there really isn't anything new to video there. Almost everywhere else is over private property or streets. This is also a pretty windy area and that makes good flying and smooth video difficult. On the plus side, wherever I have flown it, in local mini-parks, etc., the reception from the public has been positive. People are curious, ask a lot of questions, and seem to think it's cool. But it can be dangerous flying it around people, especially when learning, and other pilots have sometimes encountered people who are outraged at the violation of their "privacy" on a public street or beach.

Here's a video of an event I was requested to shoot:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d108FLAsEo4[/youtube]
 
Have you gents had any trouble with recent law changes?

Seems there's some pressure growing against both first-person flying as well as aerial video capture, and some back and forth between the FAA and AMA.

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/FAAInterpretiveRule.pdf
http://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?31095-FAA-Guidance-June-23-2014


http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB912/id/855957
Texas:
AN ACT
relating to images captured by unmanned aircraft and other images
and recordings; providing penalties.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWqPrDqfFUo[/youtube]
 
Nope, and I doubt anyone will until someone does something very stupid and/or evil.
FAA on the line-of-sight requirement: "To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model." I don't see any language supporting this interpretation. Can't see how it could hold up. Seems like they are trying to twist the law into something it was never intended to be.

To establish a precedence, they will wait until they find a nefarious operator so they are more likely to gain the sympathy of the court. Once they get a win, they can then site that case in the future against innocent operators. They won't risk pursuing a case that they might lose (establishing a precedence against their position) and given their sketchy interpretation of Section 336 they have to wait for extenuating circumstances.

AndyH said:
Have you gents had any trouble with recent law changes?

Seems there's some pressure growing against both first-person flying as well as aerial video capture, and some back and forth between the FAA and AMA.

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/FAAInterpretiveRule.pdf
http://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?31095-FAA-Guidance-June-23-2014


http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB912/id/855957
Texas:
AN ACT
relating to images captured by unmanned aircraft and other images
and recordings; providing penalties.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWqPrDqfFUo[/youtube]
 
TickTock said:
Nope, and I doubt anyone will until someone does something very stupid and/or evil.
FAA on the line-of-sight requirement: "To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model." I don't see any language supporting this interpretation. Can't see how it could hold up. Seems like they are trying to twist the law into something it was never intended to be.

To establish a precedence, they will wait until they find a nefarious operator so they are more likely to gain the sympathy of the court. Once they get a win, they can then site that case in the future against innocent operators. They won't risk pursuing a case that they might lose (establishing a precedence against their position) and given their sketchy interpretation of Section 336 they have to wait for extenuating circumstances.
I think a primary driver for the Texas 'privacy' law is that animal rights activists have used them to film animal handling practices. Beyond that, I'm concerned that modelers will be limited by the public outcry against police and military use of unmanned aircraft systems. As for the FAA...hopefully the process will be different than an enforcement action against pilots of manned aircraft - guilty until proven innocent comes to mind... :(

Ohio - felony
http://www.flyingmag.com/news/uav-pilot-charged-felony
NYC - reckless endangerment
http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/phantom-pilot-arrested

Sep 2013
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...er-local-drone-use-getting-louder-4815449.php
The only action by FAA in a drone incident was in April 2012, when the FAA issued a $10,000 civil penalty against a man operating an unmanned glider over the University of Virginia medical center campus in Charlottesville, Va., said Dorr. It was a commercial flight to map the campus, and the FAA cited a dozen violations, including flying under a pedestrian tunnel, under a crane, and 20 feet over cars and pedestrians.

http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-g...cle_017a720a-56ce-11e1-afc4-001871e3ce6c.html
"Seconds after it hit the air, numerous shots rang out," Hindi said in the release. "As an act of revenge for us shutting down the pigeon slaughter, they had shot down our copter."

He claimed the shooters were "in tree cover" and "fled the scene on small motorized vehicles."

"It is important to note how dangerous this was, as they were shooting toward and into a well-travelled highway," Hindi stated in the release. He said someone from SHARK called the Colleton County Sheriff's Department, which took a report of the incident.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregory...tion-protects-animal-abuses-and-other-crimes/
 
That reckless endangerment case was fully deserved. Flying over a crowd is stupid. I wish the media would show more of these cases to show that there *are* laws already in place being enforced (so we don't really need any more). Not complying with a police officer's request -even if they didn't mention the incoming heli - is also not very bright. Unless you are documenting First Contact or similar, it just isn't worth it.
 
The line of sight rule is controversial, but I do understand the need for it, or at least the FAA reasoning. I don't have FPV, so it doesn't affect me with my current setup. If you have seen the Stanley Cup finals video
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR39DErszRE[/youtube]
you might wonder why the drone owner/operator let it float up there for so long without evasive action. He had plenty of time. (If you don't want to bother watching it, the crowd knocks it down and stomps it to pieces. The GoPro was lost, too.) I suspect that he was using FPV and simply did not see the stuff being thrown since it generally did not come from straight in front. The arguments that FPV is safer than line of sight aren't entirely without merit, since I know first-hand how difficult it is to judge distance once the drone gets more than 20 or 30 yards away, where I would be able to judge it much better with FPV, at least if the camera was pointed straight down. But it is also important to see the surroundings, including any vehicles or people coming from all directions.
 
Rat said:
I don't have FPV
You gotta try it - it's awesome! Especially with the goggles. However, I usually fly with a LCD screen on my TX because I like to get that LOS confirmation time to time - especially when flying near (i.e coming in to land). I agree you don't have the visibility of your surroundings like you do with typical LOS, however if you are moving you know what you are flying into. Hovering is when you are the most exposed to changes in your surroundings. However, whether you agree that FPV with goggles should be outlawed or not my argument is currently *it isn't* and the FAA is trying to twist the LOS law to make it illegal. It simply states you must fly within your line of sight (i.e. cannot go on missions to the next valley). It never states you must use natural vision for navigation.
 
I would love to, but a FPV setup would cost at least twice what I paid. I got my whole rig including camera for less than $600. I'm not convinced that I'll stick with the hobby long enough to make it worth it. The biggest problem I see is that there are so few good places to fly around where I live. Residential and commercial areas are pretty much out of bounds and most parks prohibit drones. There's basically only one legal place to fly mine within convenient driving distance, and I've videoed it a couple of times already. There isn't much point in filming it again every weekend, and I don't want to have to drive all over the state in order to get good video.
 
So, I have a question. I am wanting to leap into quads. The DJI Phantom can be had for under $500. But, I have been waiting on the Parrot BeBop. Opinions?
 
rawhog said:
So, I have a question. I am wanting to leap into quads. The DJI Phantom can be had for under $500. But, I have been waiting on the Parrot BeBop. Opinions?
You probably already know the obvious things I have to contribute. The built-in stabilized camera is a huge plus, saving he cost of a GoPro and gimbal, although you could use a GoPro or other sport camera apart from the drone. Price and battery life are huge issues, so you can't really compare until you know those. The short rotors and smaller size may make it harder to fly, but easier to transport. Until you've actually flown it, that's hard to judge, too. Then there's reliability and service, and that too is an unknown, at least for that model. It looks like you have to have a smart phone for the FPV app, which I don'e have, but maybe you do. The app may only be compatible with certain OS.
 
If you're really into these things, there is now a good murder mystery out featuring them prominently in the plot.

Death Row

DR_KindleCover-small.png
 
Back
Top