Slashdot Mirror
UAV Cameras an Eye In the Sky For Adventurous Filmmakers
First time accepted submitter NRI-Digital writes "Could the use of unmanned aerial vehicles open up a whole new world of filmmaking? UAV manufacturer Schiebel and media company Snaproll Media recently teamed up to test Schiebel's Camcopter on an aerial film shoot. Whether filming volcanic eruptions or zipping through forest tree-lines, UAVs have the potential to get shots that manned helicopters would struggle to manage. It's still a young, niche industry, but as costs come down, these little vehicles could become a common sight on the film shoots of the future."
I have an Air Hawk with built-in cam and with a little tweaking of the airframe, it now holds a digital HD camera (Hammacher Schlemmer pen cam, minus the ink barrel!), so two for the price of one (almost, the whole setup costs £90 including batteries).
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
BULLSHIT. You dont need a $200,000 camera to take utterly fantastic shots.
Good-bye
This is actually an old story a couple of weeks later very sadly the same type of UAS flew through its control cabin killing the operator. http://www.suasnews.com/2012/05/15515/schiebel-s-100-crash-kills-engineer-in-south-korea/ Don't expect it to be operating in civilian hands until that little issue is sorted out. Schiebel also have to answer questions about the few they sold to China.
I agree, I've seen it done with a Fishing Rod, a Helium Balloon and a Go-Pro camera.
I'm not signing anything
A small consumer-grade HD camera won't do either, at least not for anyone wanting to make good quality film. With proper exposure, colour balance, and contrast (no overexposed backgrounds on pitch black foregrounds - OK that's exaggerating of course but you get the idea).
Those UAVs the US army is using nowadays can carry weapons and bombs. Those bombs could be replaced by movie cameras - the carrying capacity is not an issue. The air resistance of a camera mounted to the plane could be, though nothing a stronger engine can not overcome; the lower operational range will still be good enough for a movie shoot.
The main drawback of plane over helicopter type UAV is that a plane must maintain a minimum speed. And for many shots, like filming a walking/running person from above, that minimum speed is far too high, and one would need a helicopter for that.
And then again I don't see why we can't build unmanned helicopters like we can build unmanned planes. It's not that they are that different. Navigation is the same; flight control is different of course but I don't see why a computer wouldn't be able to handle that as it's pretty straight-forward.
...That was used in 1985. The films "Natural States" and "Desert Vision" come to mind. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1518224/fullcredits#cast and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167888/fullcredits#cast
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
Lost control of the UAV and it crashed into the control cabin. Wow. Seems like a pretty big coincidence that it crashed directly into the control area.
Possibly this is a screwed up version of "return to base" type of failsafe if comms were lost?
Surely the "return to base" would be "return and land safely" rather than "return directly to base and fly straight into it".
I wasn't. I like my porn to be filmed from a little closer than that.
Go to www.rcgroups.com, visit the multi-rotor forum in the RC helis section ( http://www.rcgroups.com/multi-rotor-helis-659/ ) Hundreds of amateurs tinkering with 'drones', some just flying them around a field for fun, others doing a bit of aerial photography with 'em. And they've been doing it for quite a while... A lot of the lower-end builds are stabilised by a combination of an Arduino, Wii Motion Plus, and the open-source MultiWii software. Higher-end multicopters can have actively stabilised camera mounts, and be carrying fairly high-end camera gear.
Yep , small helicopters work much better for the reasons you say. Plus a consumer HD camera is up to the job, I think this was shot with a hacked Panasonic GH2 IIRC (higher bitrate and maybe with a shorter GOP, could even be a GOP1 hack). http://www.yonderbluefilms.com/blog/ the showreel is worth a look too.
...for the comments. I know RC helicopters have been used on plenty of shoots before, but I thought the use of advanced UAVs with automatic navigation functions, coupled with an integrated HD camera system like the Cineflex, seemed like enough of a step up to be worth posting about. The video linked from the article shows some pretty impressive stuff being filmed. As for my headline jumping the gun, my original header was actually posed as a question rather than a statement; I'm aware that this option is still massively expensive and in the very early stages...
Strangely enough, the last message transmitted from the UAV to control was, "I'm afraid I can't do that Dave..."
Isn't the RED Epic considered to be good enough for cinematography? There's a more compact setup using this camera on an octocopter and the output looks adequately stabilized to me: http://www.omstudios.de/OMCOPTER-Flying-Epic
At least one noted film director is already using UAVs. Werner Herzog used a Skybot UAV made by British Technical Films for the opening sequence in Cave of Forgotten Dreams - the camera moves through a vineyard before soaring up and revealing the countryside of the Combe d'Arc where the cave art was found. It's an impressive shot in 2D but in 3D it takes your breath away.
My father was a tremendous model airplane, and photography, enthusiast. In 1962 he strapped his Leica to the bottom of one of his radio-controlled models and took black-and-white photos of the airfield where he flew his models, and the adjacent industrial plant. The shutter was tripped by the Leica's built-in timer; he got pictures of approximately what he wanted by running a second timer on the ground and ensuring the plane was in right place at the right time. The timer was used because the radio-control equipment of the day (at least, the equipment he could afford) had only one channel, used for rudder control. He used black-and-white film so that he could do his own developing; besides the fact that he just liked doing it, doing his own developing allowed him to compensate for things like underexposures. (To compensate for vibration blur, present despite all of his anti-vibration efforts, he was always underexposing these shots.)
By 1971, the R/C art had improved to the point that multichannel radio equipment (4 to 6 channels) was commonplace, and the photographic art had improved to the point that small, lightweight motion-picture cameras were also affordable. To take advantage, he took a handheld Super 8 mm movie camera and mounted it on a wire frame on the fuselage over the wing, pointed ahead and slightly down, so that the arc of the propeller was just visible in the resulting images (to give scale). He quickly learned to fly very slowly and gently; images taken during even the most mundane of maneuvers would be enough to induce nausea when viewed on the screen later.
Because of the consumer-grade equipment used, these photos and films will never win any prizes for photographic art; still, it is always a pleasure to see something state-of-the-art in its time, turn into something available at Wal-Mart a few years later.
Very simple: try flying an RC helicopter sometime. (Hint as to the outcome: helicopters meant for beginners...also the easiest ones to fly...come with extra replacement rotors for a reason.) They are incredibly difficult to pilot; just getting them off the ground is a herculean task. A perfect example of the learning curve showed up on a Mythbusters episode, the one where the myth was that you could cause a helicopter to crash by putting a postage stamp on the end of a rotor blade, thus destabilizing it. They were going to do it at scale with a decent-sized RC copter. They ended up having to abandon that approach because after a whole day of trying to learn how to get the thing off the ground without making it crash, not one of them had managed to do it.
Now, take that intense learning curve, and think about this...small UAVs are the main thrust of the UAV market now. Man-portable and carried by platoons or squads, they allow troops to see what's over a hill or in a neighborhood themselves, without the need for them to have a Predator tasked to them, without the need for them to have someone else try to interpret the view without the context of what things look like for the ground forces, or the need for a high-speed data link so that the ground forces can see for themselves. And unlike a Predator, it doesn't take over 160 people to maintain and keep one going. They're cheap, they're flexible, and they're actually better-suited to the intended mission of providing tactical real-time data to small units.
But here's the rub, and why these squad-level devices are all airplanes. Remember that learning curve for a helicopter? Apply that at the squad level. You have just added a new skill set that at least one person in each squad would have to develop, one that has nothing to do with any of their other skills, and is harder than any of their other skills. Imagine if shooting a rifle was so difficult that for the first few days you were learning, not only would you miss the target completely but the rifle would explode. How many riflemen would there be? How would that affect military doctrine? I bet you'd still see archers on the battlefield.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Yes I know those RC choppers are tough to fly. But that are RC aircraft, not drones. Drones are supposed to fly themselves, as in operator gives instructions like "go from A via B to C and then back to base". Drone does the rest.
The small planes carried by troops to look over the next hill, that's more like an RC plane than a drone. Those things are usually flown within eyesight of the operator, who manually steers the craft. And even then one needs serious practice to fly one.
Anyway it should not be too hard to make a "fly-by-wire" RC plane, in between the pure RC and the drone. With that I mean the operator gives basic instructions to the aircraft (go up, down, left, right, faster, slower) and the craft is smart enough to just follow those instructions, setting trim and engine speeds and whatnot in a manner that it won't fall out of the sky. That way it should be possible for an absolute beginner to fly a helicopter: you tell where it's going, the computer takes care of keeping the thing airborne and going where it's instructed to go. It's just the operator's responsibility to make sure it won't crash into something.