Is there any way to slow the rate at which the camera returns to the front when you press the "reset" button? Currently it snaps around very quickly (less than a second) and it makes for ugly video...would be nice if you could set the rate somewhere...anyone?
Camera reset
- Thread starter GreyArea
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,851
- Reaction score
- 5,717
No.
But why would you be filming during the centering phase/movement and use that footage?
The centering button is just that - a quick way to reset the gimbal to centre.
I'm a hobby filmer on a budget. I know, I have an Inspire, which doesn't imply "budget", but the Inspire will last; software is an ongoing cost and since I don't really need the video to be Hollywood quality, I'll never expend the effort to know the advanced features of Adobe products that are about £90 a month...
...so, I edit as little as possible, in software that is as cheap as possible, which in 4K leaves a very limited feature set. I often don't edit at all. I use the "click the tablet and drag" feature to move the camera around when I'm in position...but on the flight back I'd prefer it to be faced forward...at any reasonably distance it's hard to judge "forward" exactly, so I'd like to use the automatic feature...but lose the ugly "snap"
Example in this video...
...so, I edit as little as possible, in software that is as cheap as possible, which in 4K leaves a very limited feature set. I often don't edit at all. I use the "click the tablet and drag" feature to move the camera around when I'm in position...but on the flight back I'd prefer it to be faced forward...at any reasonably distance it's hard to judge "forward" exactly, so I'd like to use the automatic feature...but lose the ugly "snap"
Example in this video...
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,851
- Reaction score
- 5,717
OK, without going into the illegal aspects of this flight (on at least three counts - careful what you put on YT), the simplest way would be just to stop recording, reset the gimbal to centre and then restart recording. Effectively 'editing in camera'.
I don't think the concept of the "reset" was to use it as a video tool. To my mind the reset is to bring the camera forward as quickly as possible for piloting reasons. Having said that, it seems to me that since the last couple of updates the reset speed, appears to be slower.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2015
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 17
OK...please DO list the three illegal aspects for my education...I was below 400ft at all times, the Inspire was in visual line of sight at all times...so...other?
Ok what I would say since you asked...
1. Crossing over a public road
2. Flying within 50m (horizontal distance) of a building outside of your control
3. Ditto 2
Unless you did have written permission from the first two buildings you flew past, and local council permission to fly over a road, then thats 3 in the first minute....
1. No restrictions about flying over roads...a road is not a structure, and if you see the occasional pause in the flights that's me waiting for traffic so I didn't overtly any cars.
2. Properties are some 350 m from each other, meaning since I went roughly down the middle, I was 150-175m from both...
2. Properties are some 350 m from each other, meaning since I went roughly down the middle, I was 150-175m from both...
I only mention it because I like to fly safe...you'll note for instance I turn away from the guy on the hill...
I don't believe permission has to be WRITTEN either, though I can see it would be preferable if something did go wrong.
And I carry £5m third party liability cover...that's NOT required by the CAA, but in my opinion should be. It's about £15 a year, which is a cost even a tightwad like I can bear...
Thanks for the answers about the reset; I accept it's not the intended function, just wondered if it was in settings and I'd missed it.
No more talk of regs please, the world is not short of such conversations!
I don't believe permission has to be WRITTEN either, though I can see it would be preferable if something did go wrong.
And I carry £5m third party liability cover...that's NOT required by the CAA, but in my opinion should be. It's about £15 a year, which is a cost even a tightwad like I can bear...
Thanks for the answers about the reset; I accept it's not the intended function, just wondered if it was in settings and I'd missed it.
No more talk of regs please, the world is not short of such conversations!
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,851
- Reaction score
- 5,717
OK, I said I wasn't going to but you have specifically asked......
- You took off at the corner of Mount Rd and the A62 within 20m of passing cars - a breach of 166/7
- The distance to the summit of Pule Hill to your take off point is greater than 500m - again a breach of 166/7 under standard permissions
- I believe Pule Hill is National Trust property? - Written permission is required to fly any, powered remote aircraft in or over a NT estate (and its a real PITA to get). Was this sought or granted?
- Did you have permission from The Coach House or the caravan owners to fly over or within 50m of them? Once on the outward flight and again on the return
- Upon your turn to home you were already above the summit of Pule Hill past the last two rocks. This would put you circa 20m from a member of the public who was at the edge of the summit (and certainly no where near the requisite 50m)
- Although not a major issue in this instance and for information you are actually within MAN CTR at that point.
If flyers are genuinely ignorant of the regulations then fair enough, they may be educated and learn from their experiences, and there are plenty of people that will point out bad flying etc.
However, if individuals are aware of the ANO and its restrictions in respect of SUAV AND then post videos flying showing breaches of 166/7 then they should put their hands up and admit their mistakes.
I will not dwell on the issue but 2 weeks ago, you cannot possibly tell me that your flight 'Ilkley Cow and Calf' was within CAA regulations and considered safe.
If these videos are not posted, nobody is any the wiser, but if they ARE published people will see them and maybe comment and not just viewed by members of this or other forums but also more authoritative entities.
I will leave it there - Please do not take offence, that was not the intention, but simply to point out where possibly you (or others) may think they are flying legally (or do not need permissions) but in fact they are not.
OK, grinding my teeth but accept your concern is for the hobby overall...so I will calmly address
1. You got me here. I should have been further back - the regs state 30m at takeoff. An oversight on my part as it says "people" - not "people in cars"...but you are right.
2. Distance on my remote showed 1620 feet = 494 metres. Either your estimate of where I was is out or my craft needs calibrating. I'll check the latter.
3. The National Trust, like many independent bodies and individuals, have decided to make rules about drones (usually along the lines of "no drones") unilaterally. This does not make them law - after all, a 747 could fly over their property and they are powerless to stop it. I am sympathetic where there are properties which may be damaged, but an area of open countryside being designated a no-fly zone arbitrarily seems worth challenging...especially shortly after my flight when a paraglider took off from the hill (may actually have been the chap I saw). One wonders if they are as draconian about permission for that?
4. I wasn't over them, I looked at Google Maps and it's 150m between the two buildings - the coach house and the private house. I did the best I could to go between the two, meaning 75m from each = within regs. Are caravans structures? If so is a car a structure when it's parked? There were no people out and about (I checked on my to the takeoff point).
Edit: a bit of a "mea culpa" here. I really should watch my own videos...from my takeoff point during the flight I was sure I'd gone to the right of them...but it's clear from the video I was off. Still - definition of "structure" still vague to my mind, and if we're to include parked caravans, what next? Some idiot piles one stone on another and hey presto, it's a structure...
5. No I wasn't. Sorry I can't refute that one any other way...I would hope that if I DID go within 50m, then anyone viewing would see that I immediately acted to evade as soon as the gent hove into view.
6. No, not a major issue (yes I knew that, you don't have to go far from Huddersfield to clip it) but at my 360ft above takeoff I had maybe 50ft clearance from the summit...if any aircraft is flying at that height from Manchester, I would suggest they have more serious issues than my (relatively) little Inspire.
So - duly noted in future I will walk a bit further from the road before taking off. The National Trust can do their worst if they wish...I didn't know it was National Trust land and there are no "No drone" signs posted...though I'll admit I disagree with their blanket stance, until DJI upload National Trust Property in their NFZ data, how am I supposed to know?
The others I think I was within the regs...we'll just have to agree to disagree.
1. You got me here. I should have been further back - the regs state 30m at takeoff. An oversight on my part as it says "people" - not "people in cars"...but you are right.
2. Distance on my remote showed 1620 feet = 494 metres. Either your estimate of where I was is out or my craft needs calibrating. I'll check the latter.
3. The National Trust, like many independent bodies and individuals, have decided to make rules about drones (usually along the lines of "no drones") unilaterally. This does not make them law - after all, a 747 could fly over their property and they are powerless to stop it. I am sympathetic where there are properties which may be damaged, but an area of open countryside being designated a no-fly zone arbitrarily seems worth challenging...especially shortly after my flight when a paraglider took off from the hill (may actually have been the chap I saw). One wonders if they are as draconian about permission for that?
4. I wasn't over them, I looked at Google Maps and it's 150m between the two buildings - the coach house and the private house. I did the best I could to go between the two, meaning 75m from each = within regs. Are caravans structures? If so is a car a structure when it's parked? There were no people out and about (I checked on my to the takeoff point).
Edit: a bit of a "mea culpa" here. I really should watch my own videos...from my takeoff point during the flight I was sure I'd gone to the right of them...but it's clear from the video I was off. Still - definition of "structure" still vague to my mind, and if we're to include parked caravans, what next? Some idiot piles one stone on another and hey presto, it's a structure...
5. No I wasn't. Sorry I can't refute that one any other way...I would hope that if I DID go within 50m, then anyone viewing would see that I immediately acted to evade as soon as the gent hove into view.
6. No, not a major issue (yes I knew that, you don't have to go far from Huddersfield to clip it) but at my 360ft above takeoff I had maybe 50ft clearance from the summit...if any aircraft is flying at that height from Manchester, I would suggest they have more serious issues than my (relatively) little Inspire.
So - duly noted in future I will walk a bit further from the road before taking off. The National Trust can do their worst if they wish...I didn't know it was National Trust land and there are no "No drone" signs posted...though I'll admit I disagree with their blanket stance, until DJI upload National Trust Property in their NFZ data, how am I supposed to know?
The others I think I was within the regs...we'll just have to agree to disagree.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 3
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
- Website
- www.johncarrollphotography.com
Having just attended ground school for PFAW, one of the things pointed out to us was that although a property can be private they don't own the airspace above it. Surely as long as you stay within the regs, they can't stop you flying over their land? How does that go then with NT? Or have I picked it up wrong?
Which is really screwy...the thousands of walkers they allow every year do far more damage...the no-drones thing is entirely a Luddite reaction to a new technology. Let's hope they catch up with the times eventually...
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,851
- Reaction score
- 5,717
A lot of NT property comes under Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and also are wildlife refuge for both land and air specie. If you are deemed as 'disturbing' certain protected animals you will find yourself in VERY hot water. NON powered aircraft are accepted (including RC gliders). But if you are using motors or engines you are not allowed to fly there without permits/permission - Period.
It's not a 'drones' thing it actually dates back some years and is a blanket ban on all RC aircraft on their property unless it doesn't have a motor.
Don't forget 166/7 doesn't just state structures - Its' vehicles, vessels or structures. A caravan would be classed as a vehicle as would the cars on the A62
If you use google maps and utilise the distance tool you will see you were (according to Google) just over 600m horizontal distance from your take off point (when you were at the summit over the path) and circa 20m from the guy at the summit (place the marker just past the two last rocks and you will see what I mean).
Anyway, no harm done....and you DID ask
, just some knowledge for next time.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 3
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
- Website
- www.johncarrollphotography.com
Sorry to drag this on, I just want to make sure I'm understanding it correctly. In the OP's video over Pule Hill, which you state is NT property (sorry I don't know area), if it wasn't an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or a wildlife refuge (which I assume would be marked on a map) and he didn't take off or land on NT property, is flying over it legal (assuming everything else is within the regs)?A lot of NT property comes under Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and also are wildlife refuge for both land and air specie. If you are deemed as 'disturbing' certain protected animals you will find yourself in VERY hot water. NON powered aircraft are accepted (including RC gliders). But if you are using motors or engines you are not allowed to fly there without permits/permission - Period.
It not a 'drones' thing it actually dates back some years and is a blanket ban on all RC aircraft on their property unless it doesn't have a motor.
Don't forget 166/7 doesn't just state structures - Its' vehicles, vessels or structures. A caravan would be classed as a vehicle as would the cars on the A62
If you use google maps and utilise the distance tool you will see you were (according to Google) just over 600m horizontal distance from your take off point (when you were at the summit over the path) and circa 20m from the guy at the summit (place the marker just past the two last rocks on and you will see what I mean).
Anyway, no harm done....and you DID ask
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,851
- Reaction score
- 5,717
Unfortunately not. The NT is protected by some blanket bylaws which are unique to the trust and have been passed to 'unable it to protect special places for the Nation'
It IS possible to fly NT properties or estates managed by the NT but permission must be sought first and you will never get it unless you hold PFAW. Additionally, their rangers are empowered to stop you if necessary.
The editor is right. We had to get permission from NT to film up in the Yorkshire Dales. It did help that the filming was then agreed to be used by them for a secondary purpose.
