There is much talk these days about drone racing. This week ESPN will even start airing several Drone Racing League (DRL) events. For those who aren't familiar with the sport, pilots wearing video goggles fly small quadcopter drones around a gated obstacle course for time. The HD video image from the drones camera can be displayed so spectators can ride along. Many people find this image nauseating due to a vertigo type sensation. Some of the larger events have been able to offer large sums of money to the winning pilots. Advocates of the sport profess that it is "the next big thing" because it appeals to the video game generation. But is that really the case and will it be something the average sports viewer will find engaging. We don't think so and here is why:
The world's most popular sports all involve human athleticism, such as soccer, football, basketball and baseball. Variations in this theme include all forms of vehicle racing, with one of the latest being Red Bull Air Racing. Inherent in all racing is the excitement and anticipation that a horrific crash is always lurking around the next turn from even the smallest mistake. The greater the human risk, the greater the thrill in watching. Humans can't take their eyes off train-wreck scale carnage - it's written into our DNA. Drone racing offers none of this form of viewer excitement. A small drone racing crash is viewed with far less agape than dropping your smartphone on the floor.
As a radio controlled aircraft event organizer for many decades, I have some experiences that support my contention that drone racing's 15 minutes of fame has only about 12 minutes left. My wife Leisa and several of our RC buddies started an event over a decade ago called the Extreme Flight Championships (XFC). It was our groundbreaking attempt to make flying unmanned aircraft more appealing to mainstream sports viewers. In many areas it had much more going for it than drone racing. The world's top giant scale RC aerobatic airplane and 3D helicopter pilots flew radical aerobatic routines, often inches from the ground, all choreographed to music. A panel of judges scored each round much like figure skating or gymnastics. In many cases the cost of these aircraft were 10's of thousands of dollars. The flying skills of the pilots was an order of magnitude more demanding than drone racing. We handed out huge cash prizes to winners. Routines were even flown at night with amazing remotely controlled LED lighting systems and on-board and ground fireworks displays. This sport had something for everyone, yet it only achieved a very modest mainstream following, despite all our best efforts and support from the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA). Today, after more than a decade, the XFC is finding it increasingly difficult to keep going.
Drone racing on the other hand is a one dimensional, one trick pony. The drones don't even race each other at the same time, which is key in the most popular forms of racing. But I will confess that it does have at least a couple of significant things in it's favor that may ultimately have value, should it morph or evolve into something greater that it currently is. The most significant being a very low cost to entry. Just about anyone can afford to buy a racing quad which will certainly help more young people get on board. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, is, today's younger generation seems content to do something that older folks can't even begin to understand - they are perfectly content to sit for hours in front of a video screen watching someone else play a video game. If these young people find this a viable form of entertainment, perhaps drone racing does actually have a future and I don't have a clue.
Only time will tell and I am sure many will tune in to check out drone racing. But I predict that for the majority of us, it will garner nothing more than a big wide yawn, followed by a channel hop to one of the many other time-tested sports or entertainment options available.
Saturday, September 17, 2016
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
The Naked Truth Behind The FAA "Part 107" License
With the recent arrival of the FAA's new Part 107 Small Unmanned Aircraft regulations late last month, it has become quite common to see drone operators proudly announcing that they are one of the first to pass the knowledge exam and will soon be open for business. (The applicant must pass a TSA background check before actually being granted the license). But what does this really mean to the average individual or business person?
To be honest it's very similar to someone saying they passed the knowledge test for a chauffeur's license, but not an actual driving test. Yes that's correct. There is NO practical exam associated with Part 107. When I obtained my Private Pilots License, I had to pass a knowledge test, an oral exam and a check ride with an FAA examiner. On top of all that, my instructor had to sign off my log book to indicate I was actually qualified and ready to even go on that check ride.
So what passing the 107 knowledge test really means is some test questions were memorized and a passing score on the 107 exam was obtained - and nothing more. This is in no way intended to downplay the importance of compliance with the new FAA commercial drone regulations. This step is vitally important to educate potential commercial drone operators on the safety aspects of flying drones in the national airspace. Many of these new drone pilots have been violating FAA safety policies they never knew existed until studying for this exam.
Even more important for the FAA is by passing the exam, commercial drone operators will no longer be able to plead ignorance when they are caught being careless or reckless. This also greatly simplifies FAA enforcement efforts when it comes to levying fines and revoking operators licenses, as they can now actually cite specific regulations violated.
So going back to our example of the aspiring limo driver who just passed the chauffeur's exam, what you would NOT know about this person is -
- How much actual driving experience they had?
- How many accidents they have had?
- Do they possess good decision making skills?
- Do they have drug or alcohol dependence?
- What kind of maintenance history does their limo have?
- Is their limo the best one for the job?
- Do they have any references or insurance?
- Have they ever driven for anyone important?
Obviously all of these same questions and many more should be asked before hiring anyone to perform drone services for you or your company. Check out the operators previous work and website. How many flight hours do they have? What kind of insurance do they carry? Only the most experienced operators are able to obtain policy limits of $5M to $10M or more. Do they have a Worker's Comp policy?
The most experienced professionals in the drone service industry started down the path to excellence many, many years ago - long before the potential of using drones commercially was even on the FAA's radar screens. These professionals obtained full size pilot's licenses and developed very comprehensive operating manuals for things like closed-set motion picture/television filming and inspections of industrial facilities.
As I have mentioned previously, a large portion of the work that our company gets is the direct result of another less experienced company not performing as expected and/or having an accident. Because drones have become easier and easier to operate, many people think that little actual flying skill is required to use them for work. It then comes as a rude awakening when they discover that flying indoors, around electrical equipment, power lines, inside boilers and near buildings can require the pilot to quickly and unexpectedly assume full manual control to avoid an accident. But this is the kind of information you need, before you actually need it - otherwise commonly known as "experience".
To be honest it's very similar to someone saying they passed the knowledge test for a chauffeur's license, but not an actual driving test. Yes that's correct. There is NO practical exam associated with Part 107. When I obtained my Private Pilots License, I had to pass a knowledge test, an oral exam and a check ride with an FAA examiner. On top of all that, my instructor had to sign off my log book to indicate I was actually qualified and ready to even go on that check ride.
So what passing the 107 knowledge test really means is some test questions were memorized and a passing score on the 107 exam was obtained - and nothing more. This is in no way intended to downplay the importance of compliance with the new FAA commercial drone regulations. This step is vitally important to educate potential commercial drone operators on the safety aspects of flying drones in the national airspace. Many of these new drone pilots have been violating FAA safety policies they never knew existed until studying for this exam.
Even more important for the FAA is by passing the exam, commercial drone operators will no longer be able to plead ignorance when they are caught being careless or reckless. This also greatly simplifies FAA enforcement efforts when it comes to levying fines and revoking operators licenses, as they can now actually cite specific regulations violated.
So going back to our example of the aspiring limo driver who just passed the chauffeur's exam, what you would NOT know about this person is -
- How much actual driving experience they had?
- How many accidents they have had?
- Do they possess good decision making skills?
- Do they have drug or alcohol dependence?
- What kind of maintenance history does their limo have?
- Is their limo the best one for the job?
- Do they have any references or insurance?
- Have they ever driven for anyone important?
Obviously all of these same questions and many more should be asked before hiring anyone to perform drone services for you or your company. Check out the operators previous work and website. How many flight hours do they have? What kind of insurance do they carry? Only the most experienced operators are able to obtain policy limits of $5M to $10M or more. Do they have a Worker's Comp policy?
The most experienced professionals in the drone service industry started down the path to excellence many, many years ago - long before the potential of using drones commercially was even on the FAA's radar screens. These professionals obtained full size pilot's licenses and developed very comprehensive operating manuals for things like closed-set motion picture/television filming and inspections of industrial facilities.
As I have mentioned previously, a large portion of the work that our company gets is the direct result of another less experienced company not performing as expected and/or having an accident. Because drones have become easier and easier to operate, many people think that little actual flying skill is required to use them for work. It then comes as a rude awakening when they discover that flying indoors, around electrical equipment, power lines, inside boilers and near buildings can require the pilot to quickly and unexpectedly assume full manual control to avoid an accident. But this is the kind of information you need, before you actually need it - otherwise commonly known as "experience".
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Key Considerations When Selecting A Drone Filming Company
Currently in the U.S. there are over three thousand FAA Section 333 approved drone service providers and many, many more rogue (unauthorized) operators. As word spreads throughout various industries that a legal (although cumbersome) option exists for limited commercial drone use, more and more companies are insisting on only using Section 333 authorized companies for their drone aerial filming needs. Here are a few reasons why:
In general, well established businesses don't want to risk getting into scrapes with the Federal Government or having to deal with the negative publicity that often results when things go south. The media continues to sensationalize anything negative associated with drone use, no matter how trivial it might actually be. Larger companies also don't want to risk having an entire production shut down unexpectedly by the FAA. Using only an FAA authorized provider is also preferred for liability reasons.
A down side of using a Section 333 provider is more planning is required, which can result in significant delays in a production schedule in some cases. A perfect example of this is the requirement to obtain a written letter of agreement from airport management when flying within controlled airspace. As a matter of fact, at this point in time it is just about impossible to get such approval flying near any of the 12 largest Class B airports in the country. This might sound like an infrequent issue until you look at an aviation sectional chart or Airmap.io (a great resource). Every moderately populated part of the country is densely littered with airports and heliports.
In our part of the country, over 50% of our business inquiries want to shoot within 5 miles of an airport. The main reason for this is many desirable filming locations (and subjects) are situated within population centers, and consequently, near airports. At times we have had airports provide written approval in less than 24 hours. In other instances, like in Frankfort Kentucky for example, a drone shoot had to be canceled because the approval was going to take over a month to obtain, once the airport's board and legal departments got involved.
There is also another compelling reason to only use an FAA authorized drone company. There is considerable time and expense associated in becoming authorized. Companies willing to put forth this effort are almost always committed professionals. Consider that less than 1% of the U.S. population are certificated pilots. To become a pilot requires intelligence, dedication, good decision making skills and hard work. These same exact qualities are what most people want in a company they are going to do business with.
With these thoughts in mind, here is a list of the top 10 things clients want from a professional drone aerial cinematography company, based on our 11 years in this business:
10. Drone pilots who can get technically difficult shots without putting the cast/crew at undue risk.
9. A company that brings at least 2 of everything and is also good at improvisation.
8. A company that's flexible and doesn't slip in extra charges for minor gear changes.
7. Drone Pilots who have the flying skills/gear to get epic, attention grabbing shots, above and beyond the same basic moves the everyone else is doing, even in less than perfect conditions.
6. A crew that are not only drone experts but camera/video production experts as well.
5. The ability to move from location to location and deploy in only a few minutes.
4. A company that is adept at dealing with the public and law enforcement concerns.
3. A company that is equipped with latest cutting edge drone/camera technology that is currently evolving very rapidly.
2. A company that can meet the current Section 333 exemption rules and still get viable results.
1. A company that doesn't oversell it's capabilities.
Freefly Systems Alta flying Red Dragon 6K UHD camera
In general, well established businesses don't want to risk getting into scrapes with the Federal Government or having to deal with the negative publicity that often results when things go south. The media continues to sensationalize anything negative associated with drone use, no matter how trivial it might actually be. Larger companies also don't want to risk having an entire production shut down unexpectedly by the FAA. Using only an FAA authorized provider is also preferred for liability reasons.
A down side of using a Section 333 provider is more planning is required, which can result in significant delays in a production schedule in some cases. A perfect example of this is the requirement to obtain a written letter of agreement from airport management when flying within controlled airspace. As a matter of fact, at this point in time it is just about impossible to get such approval flying near any of the 12 largest Class B airports in the country. This might sound like an infrequent issue until you look at an aviation sectional chart or Airmap.io (a great resource). Every moderately populated part of the country is densely littered with airports and heliports.
In our part of the country, over 50% of our business inquiries want to shoot within 5 miles of an airport. The main reason for this is many desirable filming locations (and subjects) are situated within population centers, and consequently, near airports. At times we have had airports provide written approval in less than 24 hours. In other instances, like in Frankfort Kentucky for example, a drone shoot had to be canceled because the approval was going to take over a month to obtain, once the airport's board and legal departments got involved.
There is also another compelling reason to only use an FAA authorized drone company. There is considerable time and expense associated in becoming authorized. Companies willing to put forth this effort are almost always committed professionals. Consider that less than 1% of the U.S. population are certificated pilots. To become a pilot requires intelligence, dedication, good decision making skills and hard work. These same exact qualities are what most people want in a company they are going to do business with.
With these thoughts in mind, here is a list of the top 10 things clients want from a professional drone aerial cinematography company, based on our 11 years in this business:
10. Drone pilots who can get technically difficult shots without putting the cast/crew at undue risk.
9. A company that brings at least 2 of everything and is also good at improvisation.
8. A company that's flexible and doesn't slip in extra charges for minor gear changes.
7. Drone Pilots who have the flying skills/gear to get epic, attention grabbing shots, above and beyond the same basic moves the everyone else is doing, even in less than perfect conditions.
6. A crew that are not only drone experts but camera/video production experts as well.
5. The ability to move from location to location and deploy in only a few minutes.
4. A company that is adept at dealing with the public and law enforcement concerns.
3. A company that is equipped with latest cutting edge drone/camera technology that is currently evolving very rapidly.
2. A company that can meet the current Section 333 exemption rules and still get viable results.
1. A company that doesn't oversell it's capabilities.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Why FAA's Commercial vs Recreational Drone Policies Don't Fly
At a recent press conference held January 7th, 2015 at the CES Show in Las Vegas, FAA UAS Integration Manager Jim Williams was asked why the FAA views commercial drone use differently compared to recreational use in regards to NAS safety.
2015 CES Drone Press Conference
The response from Mr. Williams was "It's fairly established in past history, that people who are being paid to do a job are more likely to take risks in order to accomplish that than they are if they are just doing it for pleasure and that's the reason the rules are different for those two activities".
The looks on the faces in the crowd must have been filled with utter dismay as all of the comments immediately following this statement vehemently disagreed with the FAA's position (as we do also) and here is why:
First of all there is no valid basis or data to support such a comment and position specifically for drones. Only within the last few months has commercial drone use been permitted by the FAA through exemptions and subsequently under FAA/NTSB scrutiny in regards to safety reporting. Further, if all known careless and reckless flights performed by unauthorized commercial operators in recent years was tallied, and this figure was then compared to the number of careless/reckless recreational flights.......well, we all know how lop-sided that comparison would be. In 10 years of flying camera drones, not once has anyone ever asked us to take photos or video from 5000' AGL.
People only do things they need or want to through some form of motivation.
The typical motivation for a careless recreational drone pilot is to simply see if they can do something. Natural curiosity if you will. At more extreme levels, this is sometimes also known as thrill-seeking. How high can this drone fly? What does my city look like from 5000' high? How far away can I fly this drone? How close to something can I fly my drone if FPV? What do fireworks look like from my drone? What do my city's Xmas lights look like from my drone at night? These are all good examples of motivations for a careless drone hobbyist. It is also human nature to want to share such daring exploits with others and the more YouTube views the better!
This is in very stark contrast to the motivations of a commercial drone pilot and company. Their prioritized motivations are more along the lines of -
Making a profit
Keeping costs down
Staying ahead of the competition
Building a client base
Maintaining a good reputation
While there can be business motivations to get attention-grabbing, high-risk shots for marketing purposes, in general putting very expensive equipment at high risk is usually a very poor business model. Frequently broken equipment is not good for a productive bottom line. A perfect example of a more preferred risk management approach is the frequent use of disclaimer's that reads "professional driver on closed course" in automobile advertising.
Looking at the list of motivations for a commercial drone operation, putting equipment, persons and company reputations at excessive risk is directly counter to every single item listed above in a very big way. Insurance is also a consideration. Aviation liability insurance is expensive and hard to keep for those prone to frequent claims. Careless hobbyists aren't covered by insurance when not following the safety code of a "community based organization" such as the AMA.
So in conclusion, since the FAA's commercial vs recreational regulatory policies are not based on data, logic, trends or observations, the question that begs to be asked is...what are they "really" based on, truth be known?
2015 CES Drone Press Conference
The response from Mr. Williams was "It's fairly established in past history, that people who are being paid to do a job are more likely to take risks in order to accomplish that than they are if they are just doing it for pleasure and that's the reason the rules are different for those two activities".
The looks on the faces in the crowd must have been filled with utter dismay as all of the comments immediately following this statement vehemently disagreed with the FAA's position (as we do also) and here is why:
First of all there is no valid basis or data to support such a comment and position specifically for drones. Only within the last few months has commercial drone use been permitted by the FAA through exemptions and subsequently under FAA/NTSB scrutiny in regards to safety reporting. Further, if all known careless and reckless flights performed by unauthorized commercial operators in recent years was tallied, and this figure was then compared to the number of careless/reckless recreational flights.......well, we all know how lop-sided that comparison would be. In 10 years of flying camera drones, not once has anyone ever asked us to take photos or video from 5000' AGL.
People only do things they need or want to through some form of motivation.
The typical motivation for a careless recreational drone pilot is to simply see if they can do something. Natural curiosity if you will. At more extreme levels, this is sometimes also known as thrill-seeking. How high can this drone fly? What does my city look like from 5000' high? How far away can I fly this drone? How close to something can I fly my drone if FPV? What do fireworks look like from my drone? What do my city's Xmas lights look like from my drone at night? These are all good examples of motivations for a careless drone hobbyist. It is also human nature to want to share such daring exploits with others and the more YouTube views the better!
This is in very stark contrast to the motivations of a commercial drone pilot and company. Their prioritized motivations are more along the lines of -
Making a profit
Keeping costs down
Staying ahead of the competition
Building a client base
Maintaining a good reputation
While there can be business motivations to get attention-grabbing, high-risk shots for marketing purposes, in general putting very expensive equipment at high risk is usually a very poor business model. Frequently broken equipment is not good for a productive bottom line. A perfect example of a more preferred risk management approach is the frequent use of disclaimer's that reads "professional driver on closed course" in automobile advertising.
Looking at the list of motivations for a commercial drone operation, putting equipment, persons and company reputations at excessive risk is directly counter to every single item listed above in a very big way. Insurance is also a consideration. Aviation liability insurance is expensive and hard to keep for those prone to frequent claims. Careless hobbyists aren't covered by insurance when not following the safety code of a "community based organization" such as the AMA.
So in conclusion, since the FAA's commercial vs recreational regulatory policies are not based on data, logic, trends or observations, the question that begs to be asked is...what are they "really" based on, truth be known?
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Top 5 Reasons Small Drones Crash More Often Than Manned Aircraft
General aviation remains one of the safest forms of transportation with a fatal accident rate per 100,000 flight hours of only 1.05 in the United States in 2013. The non-fatal accident rate per 100,000 flight hours was 5.85 during the same period. It isn't easy to make an apples to apples comparison with drone accident rates because, for the most part, small drone accidents happen often and most go undocumented.
2013 U.S. Aviation Statistics
Our estimated accident rate (non-fatal) for even the most experienced commercial drone operation would likely be on the order of approximately 1 accident every 250 flight hours for a rate per 100,000 flight hours of 400. There are many reasons for the wide gap compared to manned aircraft accidents but this article will focus only on what we see as the top 5.
#5 - Multirotor drones have very limited flight test data to learn from.
Today's small drones, for all intents and purposes, are very similar to RC aircraft. The first RC gliders, for example, have been around since the mid 30's. The first successful RC helicopter flight took place in 1969 by German engineer Dieter Schluter. Multirotor's however are a very recent development with the earliest versions only taking off within the last 8 years or so. An early pioneer in RC helicopters named Don Chapman actually described the basic multirotor concept to me in his Dayton Ohio basement way back in the mid-90's however Li-po batteries, brushless motors, electronic speed controllers and low cost flight control technology were not available at that time.
As aircraft accumulate substantial flight hours, lessons learned such as "mean time between failures" (MTBF) contribute significantly to improving overall reliability. At present single rotor helicopters tend to be a more reliable aerial platform than multirotors, all else being equal, solely because the knowledge and evolution of SR designs has had a several decade head start.
2013 U.S. Aviation Statistics
Our estimated accident rate (non-fatal) for even the most experienced commercial drone operation would likely be on the order of approximately 1 accident every 250 flight hours for a rate per 100,000 flight hours of 400. There are many reasons for the wide gap compared to manned aircraft accidents but this article will focus only on what we see as the top 5.
#5 - Multirotor drones have very limited flight test data to learn from.
Today's small drones, for all intents and purposes, are very similar to RC aircraft. The first RC gliders, for example, have been around since the mid 30's. The first successful RC helicopter flight took place in 1969 by German engineer Dieter Schluter. Multirotor's however are a very recent development with the earliest versions only taking off within the last 8 years or so. An early pioneer in RC helicopters named Don Chapman actually described the basic multirotor concept to me in his Dayton Ohio basement way back in the mid-90's however Li-po batteries, brushless motors, electronic speed controllers and low cost flight control technology were not available at that time.
As aircraft accumulate substantial flight hours, lessons learned such as "mean time between failures" (MTBF) contribute significantly to improving overall reliability. At present single rotor helicopters tend to be a more reliable aerial platform than multirotors, all else being equal, solely because the knowledge and evolution of SR designs has had a several decade head start.
#4 - Small drones fly close to the ground so errors in judging depth perception are common.
When the pilot is inside an aircraft, it is much easier to judge its distance from other objects. For unmanned aircraft flown by line-of-sight (LOS), the drone pilot's eyes are focused primarily on the aircraft in flight and so it is quite easy to lose track of spacing from various objects projecting up from the ground. Also, the accuracy of a person's depth perception drops off dramatically with distance.
#3 - Small drones aren't built to any formal or recognized quality standards.
As mentioned above, small unmanned aircraft tend to use RC hobby grade components, few of which are built to ANSI, ASTM, ISO or MIL-SPEC quality standards. Sudden unexpected failures can be a frequent event as a result. It is also common to overload systems through trial and error verses having the benefit of accurate operating limits for key components.
#2 - Flying a drone manually is more difficult than flying a manned aircraft manually.
This is primarily due to the fact that the unmanned aircraft pilot is unable to benefit from several key senses, such as sensing motion first hand or detecting changes in vibration for example. When seated inside an aircraft, the relative direction of control remains constant; this is not so for unmanned aircraft. A very common cause for drone crashes is from disorientation following loss of GPS control. When a drone's heading changes, the relative control direction from the pilots perspective can become reversed. The symmetrical design of many multirotors tends to exacerbate this problem.
#1 - Small drone pilots typically aren't formally trained and have widely varying skill levels.
Many aspiring drone pilots think that because the flight controller is doing most of the work that additional flying skills aren't terribly important. This theory only works up to the point that something doesn't go as expected. Being able to react quickly and correctly to an emergency only comes from many hours of flight training, simulation and experience. At the highest level are RC competition pilots who typically have thousands of hours experience building, tuning and flying unmanned aircraft.
There are also less tangible factors that affect the overall reliability of an unmanned aircraft. It is a common mindset that each drone has a number and it isn't "IF" a crash will occur but rather "WHEN". This is a dramatically different mindset from a full size aviator.
Perfect Perspectives has been able to dramatically improve the reliability of its unmanned systems over the last 10 years by applying concepts such as "all accidents are preventable" along with management of change (MOC) principles and near-miss tracking. Each time a maintenance function, repair or modification is performed, key questions are asked such as - "how might this change unintentionally result in a malfunction?". Going through this thought process has proven very effective in avoiding otherwise unexpected failures. Also any event that is abnormal to the standard flight process is recorded on the Flight Safety Analysis form as a "near-miss". These events are not near mid-air collisions with full size aircraft but rather are any operational close calls that could have caused an accident if not detected beforehand. Studies have shown that for every accident that occurs, there can be 100 or more near-misses that went unacknowledged as a precursor. Taking note of, and incorporating preventive measures for all near misses has proven very effictive in reducing accidents. The combination of all of these techniques has allowed Perfect Perspectives to safely make thousands of flights over several years without incident.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
UHD 4K and 6K Aerials for VFX Backplates
One of many excellent applications for close range aerial video using advanced drone technology is the acquistion of UHD backplates. Perfectly smooth, dynamic and flowing images can now be captured using cameras such as the Red Epic Dragon which make the perfect canvas for the addition of CGI/VFX elements in post production. Have so much pixel real estate to work around in with the 6K image is pefect for compositing in post.
Perfect Perspectives has entensive experience in providing UHD backplates and has a fleet of 8 different single rotor drones that can easily fly a fully kitted camera with anamorphic glass if required. For action filming it should be noted that single rotor rigs are capable of flying at speeds that are more than double that of mulitrotor systems, all with superb aerodynamic stability and control. Our systems utilize the amazing Freefly Systems Movi M10/MR camera stabilization system and includes Paralinx wireless HD real time monitoring during flight.
Perfect Perspectives is the only drone filming company we know of that guarantees zero post stabilization will be needed for any cameras we fly. Below are a few examples of recent projects:
Perfect Perspectives has entensive experience in providing UHD backplates and has a fleet of 8 different single rotor drones that can easily fly a fully kitted camera with anamorphic glass if required. For action filming it should be noted that single rotor rigs are capable of flying at speeds that are more than double that of mulitrotor systems, all with superb aerodynamic stability and control. Our systems utilize the amazing Freefly Systems Movi M10/MR camera stabilization system and includes Paralinx wireless HD real time monitoring during flight.
Perfect Perspectives is the only drone filming company we know of that guarantees zero post stabilization will be needed for any cameras we fly. Below are a few examples of recent projects:
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Close Range Aerial Filming - Own or Rent?
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Single or Multirotor Rigs for Professional Aerial Cinematography
With the exponential increase in sightings of multirotor aerial rigs, one might think that they are the cat's pajamas for low altitude aerial cinematography; and in some cases, they are the perfect tool for the job. But one might also be led to think that they are far superior in every aspect of close range aerial cinematography. But to assume this would be a serious error.
The primary reason for their sudden increase in popularity centers around the fact that, to a great extent, the on-board flight control system does most of the actual flying, with the pilot left to provide occasional control inputs to guide the rig along the desired flight path. Without this flight control, these aircraft are quite unstable. This assistance with control allows many lesser skilled pilots to quickly get into the aerial filming game.
Another difference is, compared to the traditional single rotor platforms we are all so familiar with, the need for advanced mechanical skills is displaced by the need for knowledge in advanced electronics.
On the supply side of the equation, vendors selling "ready-to-fly" or RTF rigs, are making a killing on would-be aerial cinematographers at the moment, and so, are perfectly happy to lead the uninitiated into thinking this is a buy/charge/fly/film proposition. It is impossible to appreciate the various skills needed to build, maintain and operate an aerial rig proficiently until, in many cases, it's too late. Many of our recent clients have reluctantly admitted to us that they had purchased these rigs and promptly proceeded to confirm Newton's first law of motion with them. All one needs to do is ask around camera rental houses to hear horror stories of Red Epics plowing into the ground attached to a variety of "heavy lift" octocopters. There is a very good, and hopefully obvious reason, why senior commercial airline pilots are excellent, highly skilled pilots, even without using advanced auto flight systems.
When we first started out, 10 years ago on our adventure to provide cinema quality aerial filming from RC platforms, we thought that the most important thing we needed to learn was how to not let the vibration and unwanted movements of the helicopter disturb the cameras images. Granted this was a major challenge but we also learned there was so much more we needed to know. Things like dealing with changing wind intensity and direction, crew safety, not running into things (situational awareness), staying focused on the task under time pressure and multiple distractions. All of these skills did not come quickly or easily. Please keep in mind that these observations are coming from one of the world's most experienced, world-class professional RC pilots. Even with over two decades of top level flying experience, there was still an enormous amount to learn to be fully qualified to fly on a movie set.
It is often said that true learning follows the 70-20-10 rule, whereas 70% is learned by doing, 20% by observing others with experience and the last 10% by more formal training. This certainly applies to becoming a proficient aerial filming pilot.
Because of the rapid proliferation of multicopters, there continues to be a corresponding amount of misinformation surrounding them related to single rotor platforms.
1. "Multirotors are more stable than single rotor helicopters." False. A single rotor helicopter is far more aerodynamically stable. Using a very sophisticated flight controller, the multirotor is slightly more stable than a properly tuned single rotor platform - sans autopilot. This same flight control technology is also available for single rotor helicopters, which, if used, yields a platform that is far more stable in high winds, taking advantage of its inherent stability combined with flight control.
2. "Multirotors are more efficient than single rotor platforms." False. Using the same flying weight and camera payload, and using the same battery voltage and capacity, the single rotor helicopter provides more total thrust and endurance. Because approximately 15% of the single rotor helicopter's power output is used for torque compensation (driving the tail rotor) some mistakenly think this throws the advantage to the multi. Even with this portion of total power not going to overall lift, the single rotor will still outlift the multirotor by 20%-30% due to the larger aerodynamic economies of scale.
3. "Multirotors are more reliable than single rotor platforms." False. Multirotors are often presented as having more redundancy than a single rotor, due to having 6 or 8 propellers. The issue here is that each of these propellers have individual motors and speed controllers, each being a potential failure point. For example, each octocopter has 8 times more solder joints to potentially melt due to high resistance overheating compared to a single rotor. Some argue that should an octocopter lose one motor, control can still be maintained. While this is true, the problem is, that to carry a Red Epic size camera, the power systems are usually very near their operational limits, making recovery after losing a motor far less likely. A large single rotor platform can very easily carry a Red Epic in the most demanding climates without significantly taxing the power system. All of its mechanical components have evolved over decades of outright abuse to be very reliable. Another added bonus flying the single rotor heli is the ability to glide down safely by autorotation in the event of a main power failure.
4. "Multirotors can do anything a single rotor platform can." False. Our latest single rotor platform called "BRUTUS" can easily lift a 30 lb. camera payload and fly it for 15 minutes. It also has a top speed of over 80 mph carrying a Red Epic (twice the speed of any multicopter). It can smoothly descend at a rate 5 times faster than a multirotor and can also provide usable footage in up to 25 mph winds safely. Multirotors are generally preferred when flying close to talent. We are now getting smooth footage from the Movi at 100mm's so the heli can be flown at a safe distance from talent and still pull of tight shots.
5. "A heavy lift multicopter costs the same as an equivalent single rotor platform." False. At current pricing, an 800 size single rotor heli is approximately half the cost (both with GPS flight control) of a heavy lift multicopter with the same camera stabilizer/auxiliary components.
6. "Multirotors provide smoother footage compared to single rotor platforms." True. Or at least this is true for most. Having said that, a highly skilled builder can balance a single rotor to be just as smooth but this level of skill is uncommon. The recent development of brushless gimbals like the Freefly MOVI MR also levels the playing field between both platforms ability to provide stable footage. We have recently discovered that we are able to run much higher stiffness settings on our MOVI flown on our single rotor rigs compared to the multicopter which is another very significant advantage. This is primarily due to the difference in vibration frequencies and mass distribution between the two arrangements. We have also discovered that in fast forward flight (> 25 mph) the single rotor helicopter provides much smoother footage, due to the greater vertical distance between the rotor disc and the camera mount along with the fact that most single rotor rigs have main blade axle damping which helps to absorb aerodynamic disturbances like wind gusts. On multirotor rigs the propellers are rigidly mounted to the motor shaft which permits such disturbances to be directly transmitted to the airframe. Sychonization issues between multiple motors often results in unwanted vibrations that occur intermittently during flight. Using a single motor rotorcraft alleviates this problem.
These comments should not be taken as being negative towards multirotors. We have and use both types of copters wherever they fit best. In rough terrain, it is awesome to be able to hand-launch and retrieve a multirotor for example. There is an increasing number of clients who are specifically requesting multirotors under the impression that they are always the better choice and single rotor platforms are less capable "old technology" which is incorrect. In the hands of a top-notch, world-class pilot, both platforms can be very safe and can provide breathtaking, dynamic camera movements.
The primary reason for their sudden increase in popularity centers around the fact that, to a great extent, the on-board flight control system does most of the actual flying, with the pilot left to provide occasional control inputs to guide the rig along the desired flight path. Without this flight control, these aircraft are quite unstable. This assistance with control allows many lesser skilled pilots to quickly get into the aerial filming game.
Another difference is, compared to the traditional single rotor platforms we are all so familiar with, the need for advanced mechanical skills is displaced by the need for knowledge in advanced electronics.
On the supply side of the equation, vendors selling "ready-to-fly" or RTF rigs, are making a killing on would-be aerial cinematographers at the moment, and so, are perfectly happy to lead the uninitiated into thinking this is a buy/charge/fly/film proposition. It is impossible to appreciate the various skills needed to build, maintain and operate an aerial rig proficiently until, in many cases, it's too late. Many of our recent clients have reluctantly admitted to us that they had purchased these rigs and promptly proceeded to confirm Newton's first law of motion with them. All one needs to do is ask around camera rental houses to hear horror stories of Red Epics plowing into the ground attached to a variety of "heavy lift" octocopters. There is a very good, and hopefully obvious reason, why senior commercial airline pilots are excellent, highly skilled pilots, even without using advanced auto flight systems.
When we first started out, 10 years ago on our adventure to provide cinema quality aerial filming from RC platforms, we thought that the most important thing we needed to learn was how to not let the vibration and unwanted movements of the helicopter disturb the cameras images. Granted this was a major challenge but we also learned there was so much more we needed to know. Things like dealing with changing wind intensity and direction, crew safety, not running into things (situational awareness), staying focused on the task under time pressure and multiple distractions. All of these skills did not come quickly or easily. Please keep in mind that these observations are coming from one of the world's most experienced, world-class professional RC pilots. Even with over two decades of top level flying experience, there was still an enormous amount to learn to be fully qualified to fly on a movie set.
It is often said that true learning follows the 70-20-10 rule, whereas 70% is learned by doing, 20% by observing others with experience and the last 10% by more formal training. This certainly applies to becoming a proficient aerial filming pilot.
Because of the rapid proliferation of multicopters, there continues to be a corresponding amount of misinformation surrounding them related to single rotor platforms.
1. "Multirotors are more stable than single rotor helicopters." False. A single rotor helicopter is far more aerodynamically stable. Using a very sophisticated flight controller, the multirotor is slightly more stable than a properly tuned single rotor platform - sans autopilot. This same flight control technology is also available for single rotor helicopters, which, if used, yields a platform that is far more stable in high winds, taking advantage of its inherent stability combined with flight control.
2. "Multirotors are more efficient than single rotor platforms." False. Using the same flying weight and camera payload, and using the same battery voltage and capacity, the single rotor helicopter provides more total thrust and endurance. Because approximately 15% of the single rotor helicopter's power output is used for torque compensation (driving the tail rotor) some mistakenly think this throws the advantage to the multi. Even with this portion of total power not going to overall lift, the single rotor will still outlift the multirotor by 20%-30% due to the larger aerodynamic economies of scale.
3. "Multirotors are more reliable than single rotor platforms." False. Multirotors are often presented as having more redundancy than a single rotor, due to having 6 or 8 propellers. The issue here is that each of these propellers have individual motors and speed controllers, each being a potential failure point. For example, each octocopter has 8 times more solder joints to potentially melt due to high resistance overheating compared to a single rotor. Some argue that should an octocopter lose one motor, control can still be maintained. While this is true, the problem is, that to carry a Red Epic size camera, the power systems are usually very near their operational limits, making recovery after losing a motor far less likely. A large single rotor platform can very easily carry a Red Epic in the most demanding climates without significantly taxing the power system. All of its mechanical components have evolved over decades of outright abuse to be very reliable. Another added bonus flying the single rotor heli is the ability to glide down safely by autorotation in the event of a main power failure.
4. "Multirotors can do anything a single rotor platform can." False. Our latest single rotor platform called "BRUTUS" can easily lift a 30 lb. camera payload and fly it for 15 minutes. It also has a top speed of over 80 mph carrying a Red Epic (twice the speed of any multicopter). It can smoothly descend at a rate 5 times faster than a multirotor and can also provide usable footage in up to 25 mph winds safely. Multirotors are generally preferred when flying close to talent. We are now getting smooth footage from the Movi at 100mm's so the heli can be flown at a safe distance from talent and still pull of tight shots.
5. "A heavy lift multicopter costs the same as an equivalent single rotor platform." False. At current pricing, an 800 size single rotor heli is approximately half the cost (both with GPS flight control) of a heavy lift multicopter with the same camera stabilizer/auxiliary components.
6. "Multirotors provide smoother footage compared to single rotor platforms." True. Or at least this is true for most. Having said that, a highly skilled builder can balance a single rotor to be just as smooth but this level of skill is uncommon. The recent development of brushless gimbals like the Freefly MOVI MR also levels the playing field between both platforms ability to provide stable footage. We have recently discovered that we are able to run much higher stiffness settings on our MOVI flown on our single rotor rigs compared to the multicopter which is another very significant advantage. This is primarily due to the difference in vibration frequencies and mass distribution between the two arrangements. We have also discovered that in fast forward flight (> 25 mph) the single rotor helicopter provides much smoother footage, due to the greater vertical distance between the rotor disc and the camera mount along with the fact that most single rotor rigs have main blade axle damping which helps to absorb aerodynamic disturbances like wind gusts. On multirotor rigs the propellers are rigidly mounted to the motor shaft which permits such disturbances to be directly transmitted to the airframe. Sychonization issues between multiple motors often results in unwanted vibrations that occur intermittently during flight. Using a single motor rotorcraft alleviates this problem.
These comments should not be taken as being negative towards multirotors. We have and use both types of copters wherever they fit best. In rough terrain, it is awesome to be able to hand-launch and retrieve a multirotor for example. There is an increasing number of clients who are specifically requesting multirotors under the impression that they are always the better choice and single rotor platforms are less capable "old technology" which is incorrect. In the hands of a top-notch, world-class pilot, both platforms can be very safe and can provide breathtaking, dynamic camera movements.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)