Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ken Lab Gyro  (Read 2809 times)
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 899


WWW
« on: September 06, 2013, 11:21:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Just a quickie regarding the Ken Lab article. You should not be flying a Cessna with the window open at 100mph, the speed needs to be right down. Cessna's have been known to lose the window at high speed when it gets opened. It's not just that it might hit someone on the head, it stands a good chance of damaging the tail and crashing the aircraft. Plus unless you are using a real long lens 1/1200th is enough to get sharp without a gyro.
Logged

Kevin.
atlnq9
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2013, 12:30:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, I had several disagreements with the aerial article and the Kenyon Labs article.  

Shutter speed listed would only be required for 200mm on an APSC sensor flying low to the ground.  I have plenty of dead sharp images from a 40mp 645d down as low as 1/200sec when using a 35mm lens and flying low.  It depends a lot on focal length which was completely ignored.

And only mentioning about choosing a gyro based on the camera weight?  Huh?  It depends a lot on how much stabilization you actually need to which is based largely on:

Video or stills?  Low light (sunrise) or mid day?  Lens focal length?  Resolution?

I constantly change the shutter speed, aperture, and ISO as conditions change to get the best possible image.  Would never dream of just using shutter priority.  Of course I work a lot of pre dawn, dawn, up to about 1.5hrs after sunrise shooting into the sun away from the sun and 90degrees to the sun.  Would never dream of working much later than 2hrs after sunrise, aerial landscapes gain so much from the shadows.

I don't even know why you would want that long of a lens.  You loose a lot less sharpness from haze and dust in the air by shooting wider form a lower perspective.  People say but yeah then the wing gets in the picture or the strut...  Rent a bigger plane.  Cessna 210 is perfect (6 seater with no strut) and find a more experience pilot to control the wing when you are shooting.

And why shoot through a window open or closed?  Take the door off and add a wind deflector.  Pull the front seat out and slide the back seat forward.  Sit on the seat or sit on the floor etc.  Just wear a harness, you wont fall out anyways it is near impossible.

I have a KS 4x4 and find it an indispensable tool.  It is even very useful handheld on the ground (I don't have image stabilization).
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 12:32:15 AM by atlnq9 » Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 899


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2013, 03:31:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I have two KS6 two KS8 and a KS12, for stills, unless I'm shooting in low light you just don't need them. Plus if you were looking to hire a Gyro these days you would go for the new 4x4 6x6 or 8x8.
I would like to see a comparison between using a KS and the Movi. I think the Movi might win on stabilisation but lose on being able to point the camera where you want.
I don't wish to do the Guy an injustice but I felt it was more that someone wanted to write something more than someone with years of actual on the job knowledge.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 03:45:25 AM by KevinA » Logged

Kevin.
atlnq9
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2013, 03:30:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah I understand what you are saying about just writing an article.  And the thing is even if you have a lot of experience in something doesn't mean you have good experience.  I have learned a lot from the pilots flying me and sitting around the bar with other pilots.  The things they come up with like the best plane, modifying and altering the plane, ways to fly, etc make a big improvement as well to more than just the photography side...  I would not classify that I have years of experience but I have roughly 60hrs.
Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 899


WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2013, 06:40:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I can't count the number of hours I've done, too depressing by far:-)
Logged

Kevin.
atlnq9
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2013, 01:23:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I only know because my budget feels it!  Between plane rental, and fuel the aerial budget is now empty.  Well I have budget for a hot air ballon trip but that is mainly to get shots of other balloons in the air over sand dunes for an advertisement...  Don't think I will even hassle with the gyro for that even though it will be at first light to sunrise.
Logged
Colorado David
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621



« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2013, 12:28:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I've spent a lot of time in a Turbo 210 with the door off.  Wear ear protection.  Tinnitus is no fun.
Logged

John Nollendorfs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 331


« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2013, 11:49:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Look out for the "Drones" guys, light weight cameras in 2 axis stabilized mounts! ;-)

Technology marches ahead. Maybe not quite as good as you can deliver today, but . . .



Logged
atlnq9
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2013, 12:10:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I've spent a lot of time in a Turbo 210 with the door off.  Wear ear protection.  Tinnitus is no fun.

It really is a fantastic plane with the retractable landing gear and absence of a wing strut.  On top of that it is older and only a 6 seater so rental costs aren't excessive.

Look out for the "Drones" guys, light weight cameras in 2 axis stabilized mounts! ;-)

Technology marches ahead. Maybe not quite as good as you can deliver today, but . . .





Makes a lot more since for video.  But the absence of being able to look through a viewfinder kills a lot for photography.  In +5yrs yeah, I can see it being a viable option for aerial photography.  That is if somebody comes up with a way to mount a 40mp camera on one and remotely send me a viewfinder image to the controller...  Not sure though that there will ever be enough of a market to bring that to a reasonable price.
Logged
John Nollendorfs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 331


« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2013, 02:56:20 PM »
ReplyReply


Makes a lot more since for video.  But the absence of being able to look through a viewfinder kills a lot for photography.  In +5yrs yeah, I can see it being a viable option for aerial photography.  That is if somebody comes up with a way to mount a 40mp camera on one and remotely send me a viewfinder image to the controller...  Not sure though that there will ever be enough of a market to bring that to a reasonable price.

There's a lot going on in that area--remote viewing and a lot available at a "reasonable" price already. If you are willing to invest $10,000, then yes, you can get a heavy weight quad copter set up and running that will take a D800 in the air. Not sure how the remote viewing on that would work, but if it can be done via Wif fi, then yes, it's quite possible today.  What I'm interested in is something more in line with the DJI Phantom, the bare bones Copter available around $500.
http://www.atlantahobby.com/Store/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=17576&idcategory=871

But there appears to be quite a bit of legislation starting to be set up, limiting "drone" use by the general public. This is of concern.

You'll have to pardon me for "hijacking" your thread on the gyro, just wanted to point out that this is an area that is moving quite fast. You can put together a Quad Copter and camera for less than the price of just the  KS-6.

Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 899


WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2013, 12:18:55 PM »
ReplyReply

The law is such you can't fly them over built up areas in the UK, that makes it impossible for 90% of aerial work. It's the same in the USA. I bet every operator is flying illegally, fine until you hit something or someone.
Plus it should be a two person job, plus you can't do a lot of sites in one day, in reality it will often be cheaper in a Cessna than a drone.
I do think they are amazing machines, (I've had one). I do also think they will attract baseball caped nerds that think 50. a job is enough to make a living. Just as the pole mounted camera systems have. Honestly they are sexy but everyone will have one.
Logged

Kevin.
atlnq9
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2013, 02:47:36 PM »
ReplyReply

plus you can't do a lot of sites in one day

Yes this is a big thing a copter will never match.  A drone will never cover as much area as a plane.  You can hit one area at dawn then be at another area with a different landscape 100miles away at sunrise then be 100 miles away agin for just after sunrise.  With a drone you would have to base camp in each area you want to photograph each time.  For me it wouldn't work.  Some of these areas are a three day drive and others can't even be accessed by land without impossible to obtain permits, etc.

And for me the Nikon D800 isn't my cup of tea.  I prefer medium format.  And I am not sure how you get WIFI 1000ft above ground in the middle of nowhere. 

So yes it can work in some places but I think it is still a long ways out for meeting my needs.  Plane is still best option as I agree with Kevin.  In more popular areas sure maybe but I have no idea about the legality in those areas...  Never something I have looked into.  I am in Africa and working some remote areas. 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad