Peggy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
- Messages
- 424
- Reaction score
- 376
E50 / E90
- Thread starter Photo
- Start date
arruntus
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2017
- Messages
- 1,851
- Reaction score
- 730
Peggy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
- Messages
- 424
- Reaction score
- 376
No point of interest.... would have been so much better.
It was more a hexagon than a smooth arc around it. but the client was VERY happy with the images.
I also did some Panoramas for each pf the floors using the E90 (8 shots in a 180'-270') stitched in Microsoft I.C.E. 78mb each
It was more a hexagon than a smooth arc around it. but the client was VERY happy with the images.
I also did some Panoramas for each pf the floors using the E90 (8 shots in a 180'-270') stitched in Microsoft I.C.E. 78mb each
Here is a Heavily reduced image as well as I cropped a fair amount of it on the left and right.
Original is 21836 × 4037 76MB
Original is 21836 × 4037 76MB
PatR
Premium Pilot
Very cool, how far from the tower with the E50? Are dents in tower "ball" from someone flying a drone other than the 520....yeek
Goodl work, beautiful video watched in 4K, some small image shake.
It is important for inspection works to be filmed below certain works, for example under bridges. This is a question asked by my clients.
Do we have an angle greater than the H480 or the same? thank you for your reply
It is important for inspection works to be filmed below certain works, for example under bridges. This is a question asked by my clients.
Do we have an angle greater than the H480 or the same? thank you for your reply
PatR
Premium Pilot
I've been wondering when someone else would finally see the problem with using a "standard configuration" multirotor as an inspection rig. The typical under slung camera and gimbal, whether of standard or ball turret design, is by design limited to a very low upwards viewing angle. The motor booms of the airframe of a small hex do not have enough angular separation to keep them out of the image. To overcome those you need to have a top mounted camera option, which makes the system more expensive and complicated for some users. The Alta is an example of such a rig, although designed for cinema work it is also a superb inspecting tool.
A very easy solution for any company serious about targeting the inspection field is to employ frames in X8-,Y6, and H6 or H8 configurations. All of them allow easy installation of a front mounted gimbal with +90* to -90* tilt rotation. There simply is no need for camera pan control as a good flight controller provides extremely smooth yaw. The users have to develop better stick skills but that's a lot less difficult and far less expensive that incorporating upper and lower camera mounts. Some examples of such set ups are found with the old SteadiDrone quads and X-8's and AscTec Falcon 8, which has been renamed to something I don't recall. The H configurations are quite easy to set up, reducing cost and complexity associated with design and production. Incorporating a zoom feature or lens interchangeability are other extremely important features for an inspection rig. An alternative to those is present in the 520 with camera swapping.
Someone serious about developing inspection tools would dispense with trying to capture a piece of the You Tube video crowd. That would of course reduce the number of units sold but such a move would demonstrate the seriousness of company intent for the people and firms that need a true inspection rig. Taking things a step further, the addition of a small FPV type camera at the top of the airframe having 180* of pan capability would allow users a second view that could be used to establish obstruction clearance as an inspection rig transitioned tight spaces.
You don't need to sell a million units to make money, you just need to design a unit that would effectively serve a fairly wide market well enough to charge prices that customers would pay. You also need to put some legwork into marketing to those that would make use of the end product. This is something DJI has done quite well by taking their product to the intended customers in demonstrations. You just can't have the attitude of "If we make it they will come". What's interesting is the price of a camera equipped 520 falls well within the range of what a "starter" inspection rig would cost when standard production methods are employed. Better still, the cost of production would likely be lower than the 520's. Commercial applications require equipment be of a design fairly specific to the application. We cannot expect any single design to be good at all things as a general configuration has to trade off capability in one or more areas to better include other areas. This is exactly what has been done with the 520 and other "standard" configuration multirotors targeting the commercial market. I'll propose it's done this way because it's what people are used to and that designers might be limited in imagination, or that too little attention is being devoted to establishing market demographics.
A very easy solution for any company serious about targeting the inspection field is to employ frames in X8-,Y6, and H6 or H8 configurations. All of them allow easy installation of a front mounted gimbal with +90* to -90* tilt rotation. There simply is no need for camera pan control as a good flight controller provides extremely smooth yaw. The users have to develop better stick skills but that's a lot less difficult and far less expensive that incorporating upper and lower camera mounts. Some examples of such set ups are found with the old SteadiDrone quads and X-8's and AscTec Falcon 8, which has been renamed to something I don't recall. The H configurations are quite easy to set up, reducing cost and complexity associated with design and production. Incorporating a zoom feature or lens interchangeability are other extremely important features for an inspection rig. An alternative to those is present in the 520 with camera swapping.
Someone serious about developing inspection tools would dispense with trying to capture a piece of the You Tube video crowd. That would of course reduce the number of units sold but such a move would demonstrate the seriousness of company intent for the people and firms that need a true inspection rig. Taking things a step further, the addition of a small FPV type camera at the top of the airframe having 180* of pan capability would allow users a second view that could be used to establish obstruction clearance as an inspection rig transitioned tight spaces.
You don't need to sell a million units to make money, you just need to design a unit that would effectively serve a fairly wide market well enough to charge prices that customers would pay. You also need to put some legwork into marketing to those that would make use of the end product. This is something DJI has done quite well by taking their product to the intended customers in demonstrations. You just can't have the attitude of "If we make it they will come". What's interesting is the price of a camera equipped 520 falls well within the range of what a "starter" inspection rig would cost when standard production methods are employed. Better still, the cost of production would likely be lower than the 520's. Commercial applications require equipment be of a design fairly specific to the application. We cannot expect any single design to be good at all things as a general configuration has to trade off capability in one or more areas to better include other areas. This is exactly what has been done with the 520 and other "standard" configuration multirotors targeting the commercial market. I'll propose it's done this way because it's what people are used to and that designers might be limited in imagination, or that too little attention is being devoted to establishing market demographics.
Last edited:
arruntus
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2017
- Messages
- 1,851
- Reaction score
- 730
PatR
Premium Pilot
Your design works very well, at least on a large quad frame even with a gopro wide angle lens. Have not tested on a hex configuration. Batteries are counterweight to forward mounted gimbal on our custom build. APM 2.6 fc. Boring test flight video but you can see the frame layout with upward tilt capability.
Would not go pro karma work. Since the camera is out front facing.
I saw one at the door today and thought it might do the job. Since being out the front it should be able to point up.
Do the 8mm lens swap on it
I saw one at the door today and thought it might do the job. Since being out the front it should be able to point up.
Do the 8mm lens swap on it
PatR
Premium Pilot
Depends on the stop limits programed into the gimbal. Very few, if any, gimbals provided for “consumer drones” have user programmable stops. If this kit with the gimbal was still available, it's not, it would be ideal.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 4,258
- Reaction score
- 2,025
I think using the H's current camera with a very extended plank of some sort (light weight) using another H gimbal platform at the end of the plank tilted up minimum 15° ± 30° . Is it doable, yes. I think I will try to develop one. Some research is needed on the connection from the gimbal platform to the H.
Is it only 3 wires that require the camera to operate?
Is it only 3 wires that require the camera to operate?
Last edited:
PatR
Premium Pilot
It’s the 15* limit where problems come into play. The current gimbal could be placed anywhere on the aircraft but will still be limited to 15* upwards tilt. If it was to have +90* of tilt the location of the gimbal would matter a lot since 90* would be looking at the bottom of the aircraft if placed where it is now.
As the system is currently configured it cannot be used for inspections where the aircraft must be flown under something; bridge, gantry, tower arm, etc., to obtain a good view of the underside of a subject. Too little upwards tilt and a limiting gimbal location.
As the system is currently configured it cannot be used for inspections where the aircraft must be flown under something; bridge, gantry, tower arm, etc., to obtain a good view of the underside of a subject. Too little upwards tilt and a limiting gimbal location.
Similar threads
