There are many valuable lessons that one learns over the years; don't tug on Superman's cape, don't spit into the wind, don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger and you don't ever want to try and discourage anyone from doing something they are truly passionate about.
So what does the last lesson on the list have to do with aerial filming? As mentioned previously here, few things are more unforgiving of human error that flying. Human factors studies commissioned by the FAA estimate that up to 80% of full sized aircraft accidents can be traced back to human error. It is safe to say that for operating a complex RC aircraft, this estimate would be even higher. To say that the learning curve to become a safe, efficient and effective RC aerial cinematographer is steep is truly an understatement. Provided the person (or team) already has the required mental discipline to meet the challenge (many will not), humans learn best by doing and making mistakes, and in this area, mistakes are almost always very costly. Experience is something you don't realize you need until you need it. So what is the point here? If a person has a relentless, burning desire to become an RC aerial cinematographer, and has the raw core skills to do so, nothing anyone does or says will deter them.
Recent developments in multicopter flight control technology makes it easier to control an aerial filming platform compared to manually flying a more traditional single rotor rig. Many production companies think that in order to stay competitive, they need to add this skill set to their list of offerings. But there are many, many things to weigh in order to determine if this course makes sense from a business perspective. Below is a list of just a few key considerations -
1. Core Competencies, Time Management and Continuity of Skills
If you are a production company, you are already adept at multi-tasking. So what is the big deal about adding just one more task? At issue here is the fact that this particular task is not only very time consuming to master (read years), it is also very time consuming to maintain. This is due to the complex nature of the equipment and process for using it, as well as the fact that the technology is evolving at a very, very rapid rate currently. The time commitment is much more than most would ever think, and if not performed often, the skills needed will quickly deteriorate, leading to greater risk of accidents. So the question that needs to be answered is, do I really have the time to commit to this effort, or does it make more sense to focus on what I am already good at and simply hire an expert to do my aerial filming?
2. Insurance
Due to the exponential increase of incidents, obtaining insurance to perform RC aerial cinematography is becoming more difficult every day. It is possible to obtain a policy, but, upon close examination of the fine print and exclusions, it will become evident that the policy has almost endless avenues to deny a claim, and insurance companies are very adept at denying claims. Many companies may be in a position to absorb the repair costs for equipment damaged in a crash, but most would not be able to cover the liability of a personal injury case. There are only a couple of options for insurance that will truly cover third party liability in a meaningful manner and they are very selective when it comes to taking on new customers. An extensive review of equipment, qualifications and procedures is required in order to qualify for these policies.
3. Pending Regulatory Landscape
Currently there are no specific federal aviation regulations for performing RC aerial cinematography. The agencies policy for this activity is currently being contested in court. This is going to change. While the exact regulatory timeframe is currently not well defined, the event is as certain as death and taxes. Why is this an important consideration? For one thing, the investment made into expensive equipment could result in significant stranded costs should the regulations not permit use of some designs. Should the regulatory agency follow the lead of other, more expedient countries in this area, items such as airworthiness, licensing, safe operating procedures, emergency procedures, maintenance procedures, management of change procedures, flight logs, risk assessments, collision avoidance systems and more may become requirements. Government oversight and red tape have always been synonymous.
So in summary, the purpose of this information is neither to encourage or discourage a production company from pursuing their own aerial cinematography capability, but rather to provide some hopefully insightful considerations before jumping into the deep end.
Showing posts with label octocopter filming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label octocopter filming. Show all posts
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Aerial Cinematography Demo Reel 2013
Below is the last aerial demo reel by Perfect Perspectives using servo driven camera stabilizaton. Recent advances in brushless gimbals provide a level of speed and accuracy that cannot be achieved using servos.
Perfect Perspectives has recently incorporated the amazing Freefly MOVI camera stabilizer to a true super heavy lift airframe with astounding results. This rig, known as "BRUTUS", offers performance capabilities few others can match, such as 15 minute flight times with 30 lb. payloads, useable footage in up to 25 mph winds with no post stabilization, 80+ mph top forward speed and full HD wireless monitoring with minimal latency. Why are these impressive specs important? Because when the density altitude conditions are far less than ideal, such as in very hot, humid or high altitude areas, this rig can still deliver dynamic, high performance shots without making excuses.
Perhaps most important is that this platform was designed from the beginning with the goal to be both reliable and inexpensive to operate relative to other designs capable of carrying ultra high definition digital cinema cameras. As a result, this rig can be provided at a day rate that is significantly less than the competition.
This one-of-a-kind rig can run much higher MOVI stiffness settings than an octocopter, allowing for higher speed, dynamic filming for vehicle tracking and action sports shots.
The MOVI stabilizer can quickly and easily be coverted from aerial to handheld use, providing for maximum versatility and on-set production value.
Perfect Perspectives has recently incorporated the amazing Freefly MOVI camera stabilizer to a true super heavy lift airframe with astounding results. This rig, known as "BRUTUS", offers performance capabilities few others can match, such as 15 minute flight times with 30 lb. payloads, useable footage in up to 25 mph winds with no post stabilization, 80+ mph top forward speed and full HD wireless monitoring with minimal latency. Why are these impressive specs important? Because when the density altitude conditions are far less than ideal, such as in very hot, humid or high altitude areas, this rig can still deliver dynamic, high performance shots without making excuses.
Perhaps most important is that this platform was designed from the beginning with the goal to be both reliable and inexpensive to operate relative to other designs capable of carrying ultra high definition digital cinema cameras. As a result, this rig can be provided at a day rate that is significantly less than the competition.
This one-of-a-kind rig can run much higher MOVI stiffness settings than an octocopter, allowing for higher speed, dynamic filming for vehicle tracking and action sports shots.
The MOVI stabilizer can quickly and easily be coverted from aerial to handheld use, providing for maximum versatility and on-set production value.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Aerial Video Platform Comparison
At this point in time, almost all cinema quality remotely piloted aircraft are based on VTOL (vertical take off/landing) aircraft designs. The two most common are single main rotor and multirotor configurations. Both types have inherent strengths and weaknesses.
Safety
It is believed by some that multirotor designs are the safer of the two options when it comes to flying around talent. The thinking being that the lesser of two evils is to be injured by 8 high rpm steak knives versus 2 medium rpm swords. This is a debate that has no real purpose. Both designs must be treated with the same respect when flown near people and property. To carry an equivalent weight camera package, both would have similar total weight and so would carry the same kinetic energy upon impact. If the risk advantage goes to the multirotor, due to less rotating mass, then the advantage goes to the single rotor platform in the event of a drive power failure due to this designs ability to still be guided during autorotation. Once again, such comparisons are pointless and safety must come from - the experience of the operator, the maintenance practices for the equipment, and well thought out risk mitigation planning for every shot.
The rig in the video below weighs approximately 20 lbs. and lost control with considerable force.
Vibration and Stability
A very common question is - which design provides smoother, steadier images? First let's discuss vibration. Further, lets define vibration as movement at fixed or semi periodic intervals (aka frequencies). In general it is a much simpler task to balance motors and fixed pitch propellers than drive shafts, gears and variable pitch rotors. This, more than any other reason, is why there are so few companies that can provide ultra smooth video from a single rotor machine. It is a very difficult undertaking that very few have all the technical/mechanical skills (and patience) to master. Can a single rotor design be built and balanced to the same relative vibration levels as a multirotor? Absolutely! The vibration frequency ranges are very different but in the end, if both are designed, built and balanced to exacting tolerances, the final product can be, for all intents and purposes, identical.
Regarding stability, there are two different, yet connected components that drive overall stability - one is the aircraft itself, with the second being the camera mount. If both operate smooth and stable, beautifully clean images result. If either is unstable, the other must absorb or dampen the unwanted motion. A perfect example is the current development of direct drive camera gimbals. These devices have both the speed and resolution to hide a multitude of sins being emanated from the aircraft airframe. Obviously, the smoother the airframe the better for camera and component life.
Within the next 12-24 months, it is reasonable to expect that a camera gimbal will be available that will provide near Cineflex quality for 10 -15 lb. cameras at a cost that is manageable for both top tier operators and insurance providers. This technology is already available for smaller cameras.
Flight Performance
In calm conditions, the flight performance is similar between the two arrangements. With electronic stability augmentation to assist the pilot, both have similar capabilities. In windy conditions however, the single rotor design wins hands down. This is due to the fact that a collective pitch rotor system is far more powerful and responsive to attitude changes when compared to multiple fixed pitch rotors. Think of this as driving a six speed performance sedan compared to a compact car with only third gear available. On top of this, the rotating mass of the larger rotors provides considerably more aerodynamic and gyroscopic stability than multirotors do. In general it is better to have an airframe/camera that never suffered from unwanted movement than one that did and had to have said movement removed through a correction in position.
Another significant difference is flying or descending at high speeds (above 55 mph) such as vehicle chase scenes. This is, once again, due to the advantages offered by a collective pitch rotor system used in single rotor designs over fixed pitch propellers on multicopters. A single rotor helicopter can descend at extremely high rates while still maintaining full control and camera stability. This is made possible because the helicopter is being flown rapidly downward using collective pitch with power verses simply falling through its own downwash which usually results in unstable/unusable footage.
The next area, and this one is perhaps the most significant one, is pilot orientation. This factor alone is perhaps the biggest single reason that single rotor designs continue to dominate close range aerial filming in big budget feature films. It is not a major problem to clearly differentiate the nose from the tail at significant distances with a single rotor; Not so with symmetrical shaped airframes. To get around this limitation, multirotor designs rely on flight control systems with complex flight algorithms and GPS return to home features. The problem here is currently these systems are frequently subject to malfunction, and this is the last thing one would want when carrying $50K + of camera kit/glass. Flying first person view (FPV) and navigation lighting are workarounds for the orientation issue however, at present, all indications are that FPV mode of flight will be prohibited or very heavily regulated in the future and will only be permitted in unpopulated areas. First and foremost is to only use a pilot with years of the right kind of experience and one that can fly well without reliance on autopilots .
One area where the multicopter does have a very significant advantage is yaw axis stability. A single rotor helicopter must have a perfectly tuned anti-torque system that immediately and accurately corrects for even the slightest change in applied motor torque. It must also be fast and accurate enough to correct for wind gusts at every possible angle. Since multirotors control of the yaw axis is by varying motor torque through an opposing number of motors, this is a much less of an issue for this design. For a single rotor design, much of this limitation can be reduced by having the camera gimbal automatically correct for sudden movements in the yaw axis using stabilization devices.
A multirotor is also significantly less risky to launch and retrieve by hand than a single rotor helicopter. This can open up numerous opportunities to obtain shots in very tight spaces and difficult terrain.
Cost
For most, making movies is a business endeavor, and so cost will always be a prime consideration. Currently the cost to build a rig capable of effectively carrying a Red Epic using a multiotor is roughly twice the cost of a single rotor design. You don't need to be a CPA to know that a lower initial investment, and the associated lower insurance costs, can result in a lower day rate being charged to the producer. This gap will likely narrow in the future, but for now, this is the current state.
Safety
It is believed by some that multirotor designs are the safer of the two options when it comes to flying around talent. The thinking being that the lesser of two evils is to be injured by 8 high rpm steak knives versus 2 medium rpm swords. This is a debate that has no real purpose. Both designs must be treated with the same respect when flown near people and property. To carry an equivalent weight camera package, both would have similar total weight and so would carry the same kinetic energy upon impact. If the risk advantage goes to the multirotor, due to less rotating mass, then the advantage goes to the single rotor platform in the event of a drive power failure due to this designs ability to still be guided during autorotation. Once again, such comparisons are pointless and safety must come from - the experience of the operator, the maintenance practices for the equipment, and well thought out risk mitigation planning for every shot.
The rig in the video below weighs approximately 20 lbs. and lost control with considerable force.
Vibration and Stability
A very common question is - which design provides smoother, steadier images? First let's discuss vibration. Further, lets define vibration as movement at fixed or semi periodic intervals (aka frequencies). In general it is a much simpler task to balance motors and fixed pitch propellers than drive shafts, gears and variable pitch rotors. This, more than any other reason, is why there are so few companies that can provide ultra smooth video from a single rotor machine. It is a very difficult undertaking that very few have all the technical/mechanical skills (and patience) to master. Can a single rotor design be built and balanced to the same relative vibration levels as a multirotor? Absolutely! The vibration frequency ranges are very different but in the end, if both are designed, built and balanced to exacting tolerances, the final product can be, for all intents and purposes, identical.
Regarding stability, there are two different, yet connected components that drive overall stability - one is the aircraft itself, with the second being the camera mount. If both operate smooth and stable, beautifully clean images result. If either is unstable, the other must absorb or dampen the unwanted motion. A perfect example is the current development of direct drive camera gimbals. These devices have both the speed and resolution to hide a multitude of sins being emanated from the aircraft airframe. Obviously, the smoother the airframe the better for camera and component life.
Within the next 12-24 months, it is reasonable to expect that a camera gimbal will be available that will provide near Cineflex quality for 10 -15 lb. cameras at a cost that is manageable for both top tier operators and insurance providers. This technology is already available for smaller cameras.
Flight Performance
In calm conditions, the flight performance is similar between the two arrangements. With electronic stability augmentation to assist the pilot, both have similar capabilities. In windy conditions however, the single rotor design wins hands down. This is due to the fact that a collective pitch rotor system is far more powerful and responsive to attitude changes when compared to multiple fixed pitch rotors. Think of this as driving a six speed performance sedan compared to a compact car with only third gear available. On top of this, the rotating mass of the larger rotors provides considerably more aerodynamic and gyroscopic stability than multirotors do. In general it is better to have an airframe/camera that never suffered from unwanted movement than one that did and had to have said movement removed through a correction in position.
Another significant difference is flying or descending at high speeds (above 55 mph) such as vehicle chase scenes. This is, once again, due to the advantages offered by a collective pitch rotor system used in single rotor designs over fixed pitch propellers on multicopters. A single rotor helicopter can descend at extremely high rates while still maintaining full control and camera stability. This is made possible because the helicopter is being flown rapidly downward using collective pitch with power verses simply falling through its own downwash which usually results in unstable/unusable footage.
The next area, and this one is perhaps the most significant one, is pilot orientation. This factor alone is perhaps the biggest single reason that single rotor designs continue to dominate close range aerial filming in big budget feature films. It is not a major problem to clearly differentiate the nose from the tail at significant distances with a single rotor; Not so with symmetrical shaped airframes. To get around this limitation, multirotor designs rely on flight control systems with complex flight algorithms and GPS return to home features. The problem here is currently these systems are frequently subject to malfunction, and this is the last thing one would want when carrying $50K + of camera kit/glass. Flying first person view (FPV) and navigation lighting are workarounds for the orientation issue however, at present, all indications are that FPV mode of flight will be prohibited or very heavily regulated in the future and will only be permitted in unpopulated areas. First and foremost is to only use a pilot with years of the right kind of experience and one that can fly well without reliance on autopilots .
One area where the multicopter does have a very significant advantage is yaw axis stability. A single rotor helicopter must have a perfectly tuned anti-torque system that immediately and accurately corrects for even the slightest change in applied motor torque. It must also be fast and accurate enough to correct for wind gusts at every possible angle. Since multirotors control of the yaw axis is by varying motor torque through an opposing number of motors, this is a much less of an issue for this design. For a single rotor design, much of this limitation can be reduced by having the camera gimbal automatically correct for sudden movements in the yaw axis using stabilization devices.
A multirotor is also significantly less risky to launch and retrieve by hand than a single rotor helicopter. This can open up numerous opportunities to obtain shots in very tight spaces and difficult terrain.
As is often said "there is a perfect tool for every job" and this certainly applies to aerial cinematography.
Cost
For most, making movies is a business endeavor, and so cost will always be a prime consideration. Currently the cost to build a rig capable of effectively carrying a Red Epic using a multiotor is roughly twice the cost of a single rotor design. You don't need to be a CPA to know that a lower initial investment, and the associated lower insurance costs, can result in a lower day rate being charged to the producer. This gap will likely narrow in the future, but for now, this is the current state.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Flying The Red Epic - One Year After
My mother used to tell me when I was a child that time passes faster as you get older. This made no sense to me at the time but is all too crystal clear to me now! It certainly doesn't seem like a year has passed since we arrived on location at scenic Kenyon College to begin filming Josh Radnor's latest feature film "Liberal Arts". We were excited to meet Josh and the crew and just as excited to get our first go at putting the Epic in the air.
Having flown the more substantial Red One years earlier, there was little concern about the rig's ability to comfortably carry the 12 lb. load. The real question was - how well would this new camera play with the airframe? There are engineering tools such as modal analysis and calibrated shaker tables that can be used to determine if the natural vibration frequencies generated by the airframe might prove problematic for the camera, however in this instance, the time needed for such testing was a luxury not afforded. Any such concerns were quickly assuaged when word came back that the test footage looked "awesome".
The rest of the day was spent blissfully moving from location to location, flying over country roads, cornfields and the occasional church steeple. The combination of 5K camera and industrial helicam worked flawlessly and has ever since.
By the way, make it a point to catch this film when it is released this fall. It was the only film at Sundance (that I recall) receiving a standing ovation, and rightfully so.
That is how flying the Red Epic began and 12 months and dozens of projects later, we continue to refine our systems and techniques. We have since added a fully kitted Red Scarlet X to our stable of high rez pixel makers earning their keep.
Often we are asked if we are ever concerned flying such expensive cameras. The answer would most certainly be yes if not for the following: We have 10 years experience flying the airframes we currently use with 10 lb. payloads. As chief pilot, I have over 30 years experience flying remotely piloted helicopters, much of which was spent as a world class competition pilot and UAV pilot for two of the world's largest defense contractors. Over the last ten years and countless flights, we continue to have a perfect safety record. This is not due to incredible good fortune, but rather a testament to proven flying, testing and maintenance procedures.
Another question that we are often asked is - why do you use a single rotor helicopter versus a octocopter or mulicopter to carry these cameras? The short answer is, what we currently fly is a known quantity that has yielded proven results for 10 years. To further elaborate, our large helicams have longer flight duration, better visibility, higher top speed with payload and proven reliability.
During the last 10 years we have never been forced to land due to an engine failure for example. For this system to provide smooth footage, the engine must be perfectly tuned every single flight. The side benefit of this requirement is, the engine will make a different sound if not perfectly tuned. Think of this as a continuous audible warning device. As long as the sound being made is of perfect tune, all systems are go.
With an all electric\electronic power system, power system status must be downlinked to the ground. If the camera operator is continuously watching this readout, odds are they are not framing the perfect shot. We are currently evaluating using multicopters as another tool in our hanger.
Will we strap on a $50k digital cinema camera? Not right away. We clearly understand that to fully prove a flight systems reliability takes years and thousands of flights. Anyone who thinks otherwise had better have mighty deep pockets!
For more info, please visit http://www.perfectperspectivesaerial.com
Having flown the more substantial Red One years earlier, there was little concern about the rig's ability to comfortably carry the 12 lb. load. The real question was - how well would this new camera play with the airframe? There are engineering tools such as modal analysis and calibrated shaker tables that can be used to determine if the natural vibration frequencies generated by the airframe might prove problematic for the camera, however in this instance, the time needed for such testing was a luxury not afforded. Any such concerns were quickly assuaged when word came back that the test footage looked "awesome".
The rest of the day was spent blissfully moving from location to location, flying over country roads, cornfields and the occasional church steeple. The combination of 5K camera and industrial helicam worked flawlessly and has ever since.
By the way, make it a point to catch this film when it is released this fall. It was the only film at Sundance (that I recall) receiving a standing ovation, and rightfully so.
That is how flying the Red Epic began and 12 months and dozens of projects later, we continue to refine our systems and techniques. We have since added a fully kitted Red Scarlet X to our stable of high rez pixel makers earning their keep.
Often we are asked if we are ever concerned flying such expensive cameras. The answer would most certainly be yes if not for the following: We have 10 years experience flying the airframes we currently use with 10 lb. payloads. As chief pilot, I have over 30 years experience flying remotely piloted helicopters, much of which was spent as a world class competition pilot and UAV pilot for two of the world's largest defense contractors. Over the last ten years and countless flights, we continue to have a perfect safety record. This is not due to incredible good fortune, but rather a testament to proven flying, testing and maintenance procedures.
Another question that we are often asked is - why do you use a single rotor helicopter versus a octocopter or mulicopter to carry these cameras? The short answer is, what we currently fly is a known quantity that has yielded proven results for 10 years. To further elaborate, our large helicams have longer flight duration, better visibility, higher top speed with payload and proven reliability.
During the last 10 years we have never been forced to land due to an engine failure for example. For this system to provide smooth footage, the engine must be perfectly tuned every single flight. The side benefit of this requirement is, the engine will make a different sound if not perfectly tuned. Think of this as a continuous audible warning device. As long as the sound being made is of perfect tune, all systems are go.
With an all electric\electronic power system, power system status must be downlinked to the ground. If the camera operator is continuously watching this readout, odds are they are not framing the perfect shot. We are currently evaluating using multicopters as another tool in our hanger.
Will we strap on a $50k digital cinema camera? Not right away. We clearly understand that to fully prove a flight systems reliability takes years and thousands of flights. Anyone who thinks otherwise had better have mighty deep pockets!
For more info, please visit http://www.perfectperspectivesaerial.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)