H520 Inspection Use

[ArltTech]

Does Yuneec indicate a maximum wind speed that is deemed operable/safe for the 520 for tower inspections? This would be for AGL wind speed, and since most turbines provide wind readings it would be useful information for both parties involved. So how close is safe and at what wind rating...maybe too many variables for a clear answer.

Has anyone performed an E90 vs E50 for inspection quality? I have seen others but not these two head to head.

These two topics are closely related.

 

[PatR]

I don't know wind limitations, have heard about flying in 30+ mph wind but can't verify. The few images I've seen thus far comparing the 50 to the 90 in an inspection type application has me convinced the 50 is the better choice for that type of work.

 

[gwhuntoon]

Here is a test and video Uwe Loewer did with the H520 on a beach in France with wind gusts up to 50mph.

 

[PatR]

For Beaufort Scale reference, the following:
Beaufort Wind Scale

The video shows some pretty strong wind gusts but the ocean's white caps suggest the constant wind was between 15 and 25mph, which is consistent with the way the camera strap on the tripod is reacting to the wind. The blowing sand in the beginning was a clear indication of wind speed above 30mph for that period. The video certainly demonstrated the 520 will perform well and remain controllable in strong winds. I still love his landing

 

[ArltTech]

No doubt a hex like the 520 is the way to go over a quad for wind. The decision to make for me is whether you can safely get close enough to a tower in wind conditions you routinely encounter at inspection heights, and if so is there a benefit for the E90 over E50 or vv. For example would the 90 outperform the 50 significantly at 5-15 meter range, or when does the focal length of the 50 add benefit over the resolution of the 90?

It would be great to see a chart of wind speed against GPS drift radius, maybe someone wants to do some testing that likes flying in wind

 

[FlyaDrone]

Her is a much more detailed high wind test flight with comparison of H520 vs. DJI P4 and Inspire 1. Recorded 35mph sustained with video recording of 50mph gust.

 

[ArltTech]

A quick inspection test using E90 settings on Auto. After seeing some E90 vs E50 footage (thanks to others) convinced the E50 is the one for inspection work, however the E90 would certainly do. Only a few flights on the H520 and really like it so far.

 

[arruntus]

How far from the tower?

It is true that because of the camera's lens difference with the E90 you have to get closer to the tower which makes the E50 more suitable for "short distances".

The difference of sensor compensates for using the E90 in this type of use?

 

[ArltTech]

How far from the tower?

It is true that because of the camera's lens difference with the E90 you have to get closer to the tower which makes the E50 more suitable for "short distances".

The difference of sensor compensates for using the E90 in this type of use?

I estimate about 5 meters +/-2 from the tower. I was not directly below so my angle for judging distance visually was not very good. From video (1080p 60fps) I can zoom in fairly well, did not take any stills to compare unfortunately. Still learning all of the features of this system, fun stuff!

If I had an E50 I am fairly certain that would be preferred even with the sensor difference, optical seems to win over digital. Maybe Yuneec can send me one to compare

 

[PatR]

In general, optical will best digital zoom every time. Digital always introduces artifacts at some level with progressively higher levels of digital zoom eventually causing an image to pixelate. In surveillance work the ability to positively identify (P-ID) using optical zoom levels is preferred over digital zoom whenever possible. If I might ask, what was the final enlargement factor obtained during the processing?

I can't do an effective resolution comparison without the original file, but if the ability is present could a screen grab be captured from the digitally enlarged video to determine what the photo resolution is after enlargement? Although rendered in 1080 instead of 4k the reduction in resolution would be relevant for relative comparison purposes. This becomes important for inspection work since small but important details might be lost during the enlargement process. Although the E-90 camera is a 20mpxl resolution some of that is lost when enlarging, which could easily leave the E-50 as the superior inspection camera. This is why image comparisons for both cameras shooting a subject from a known distance were requested some time back.

For inspection work where the customer is present and reviewing the imagery as it is generated, the E-50 would be the clear winner since it would not be necessary to depart the location and process the imagery for enlargement in order to view the inspected subject. Unless using a larger monitor during the shoot, the operator will also benefit using the E-50 during an inspection as the enlargement factor provides considerably more visual detail at the ST-16s viewing screen. Areas of special interest would be considerably more visible at the time of initial inspection and not require a second location shoot for a more detailed inspection. Not too many customers want to pay twice for what should/could have been accomplished during the first effort. They might insist the aerial unit return for a second shoot with no additional compensation.

 

[arruntus]

Having to repeat a job again is losing money. I think that's why, knowing the limitations, they have come up with two different camera models. Each focused on a specific function.

The E50 for inspection given its FOV that allows you to fly more distance.
The E90 for video recording because it is a bigger angle. At the same time it allows photogrammetry thanks to the size of its sensor that allows you to capture much better details in shadowy areas, something very common when you try to capture large areas with different levels of light.

I at least understood it this way from the beginning.

Ideally, in my opinion, what would it be? The E90's sensor (it could also be an APS-C as in the Sony QX1 which has an ideal size) and the possibility of exchanging lenses and thus be able to perform all functions with the same camera. Technically I don't know if it would be feasible but it would be a very big step forward. As for the price, which limits very much the success of the product, I think it could be achieved by something intermediate between buying the two cameras, the E50 and the E90. It's a nice dream, hopefully we'll see it materialize someday

 

[PatR]

I do not understand why the E-90 could/did not incorporate lens change capability to provide for better inspection performance. When conducting an inspection you need to know you obtained the level of detail required, not hope you did. Knowing requires the photographer is able to clearly see what the camera will capture before the image is recorded. The E-50 provides the "know", the E-90 is more along the lines of "hope". Using the E-50 also minimizes the amount of post processing required before delivering the product. Any reduction in time and/or labor is an increase in profitability.

Your last sentence is precisely why I elected to go with a 920 and the CGO-4, along with an optional CGO-3 mounting adapter. A 1" sensor that gives up 4 megapixels from the E-90 but gains 4 megapixels over a CGO-3 or E-50, while gaining a triple level zoom, an interchangeable lens, and user adjustable depth of field. There is also the ability to use a CGO-3 with any lens or the CGO-ET in it's current form if desired.

 

[ArltTech]

PatR ...final enlargement factor 1X, no processing except to trim takeoff and landing so basically right out of the E90.

 

[PatR]

That’s good to hear! It means those that are secure in their flying skills can get close enough for the E-90 to be functional for a lot of inspection work. Use if a 4k setting would provide a bit more image clarity but the 1080 worked well.

 

[ArltTech]

Some inspection practice close proximity for those to compare. Shadows as sun just about to set. E90 at 1080p 60fps AUTO setting. 4k too long upload time.

 

[arruntus]

Some inspection practice close proximity for those to compare. Shadows as sun just about to set. E90 at 1080p 60fps AUTO setting. 4k too long upload time.

Nice work on the drone autoselfie

This also tells us about the H520's large flight capacity. 2 meters away from the chimney?

 

[ArltTech]

Nice work on the drone autoselfie

This also tells us about the H520's large flight capacity. 2 meters away from the chimney?

Ha yah the 520 liked looking at itself apparently. Camera was less than 1 meter from chimney cap most of flight (more like 0.5m). At one point if I would have lowered landing gear may have possibly touched, camera was clear of edge of cap. Not being careless just testing capability of H520....like it!!!

 

[Addison]

Here is a test and video Uwe Loewer did with the H520 on a beach in France with wind gusts up to 50mph.

That was impressive, but the landing was out of this world!

 

[BobW55]

Having used my H 480 for inspecting Ham radio towers, Yuneec needs to come up with a camera that has about a 5X zoom on it.
When you are inspecting you can not always "SAFELY" get but so close to the object, or antennas. You are looking for real time images and not images that are later on post processed and reviewed.
I realize that any zoom can and will introduce some jello effects, but at 5X or less you probably will not notice it that much or care.
There is a difference in 4K video for telling a story and High res images for inspection.
Found a corroded connection on one of my own antennas this year, that I did not see until I put the images on my computer and used digital zoom to see the issue. About 3X and I could have seen it while in the air.
From the reviews I have read, the 520 is way more stable than the 480, now if they come up with more camera options.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[ArltTech]

Having used my H 480 for inspecting Ham radio towers, Yuneec needs to come up with a camera that has about a 5X zoom on it.
When you are inspecting you can not always "SAFELY" get but so close to the object, or antennas. You are looking for real time images and not images that are later on post processed and reviewed.
I realize that any zoom can and will introduce some jello effects, but at 5X or less you probably will not notice it that much or care.
There is a difference in 4K video for telling a story and High res images for inspection.
Found a corroded connection on one of my own antennas this year, that I did not see until I put the images on my computer and used digital zoom to see the issue. About 3X and I could have seen it while in the air.
From the reviews I have read, the 520 is way more stable than the 480, now if they come up with more camera options.

Just my 2 cents.

Great information. The E50 has the longer focal length lens and looks to do as you describe. Not sure what the equivalent zoom factor is over the E90 or original CG03+ 2X...3X...?? Anyone know? An earlier video post comparing the E90/50 cameras was good, but I have not seen one with the E90 and E50 at the same distance from a tower or other inspection type object, may have just missed it if available.