HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Jul 26, 2011, 01:42 PM
Registered User
Joined Oct 2010
241 Posts
Discussion
The MARKET for remote control PHOTO/VIDEO JOURNALISM?

Hi guys!

Just came back from a few months Brazil. Tried to pitch my FPV Mikrokopter as the best thing since sliced bread in photojournalism.. I perfected the technique of flying kilometers away, landing on a roof, filming for hours and returning with exclusive video.

But here I am, back in Europe..

While there is no lack of enthousiasm (Globo TV etc.), it is hard to convince news organisations that they should invest in this technology. With me as consultant/photographer..

I could work on a Freelance basis, but I wasnt prepared for that this time. That takes a lot more investment (crash=cash) and I would be taking risks flying a mikrokopter in an urban environment as a foreigner and not as a local big news company.


Any experiences among you guys in other parts of the world? Seeing any changes? Better ways to go about it? Cooperate!?
hardhat is offline Find More Posts by hardhat
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Jul 26, 2011, 06:14 PM
Frenchie in ze USA.
United States, MA, Boston
Joined May 2011
37 Posts
A few weeks ago I saw on french TV some paparazzis photographers using an octocopter with FPV to take shots of celebrities during the Cannes Festival. Inside their hotel rooms or on their balconies, I suppose. That is not going to give Aerial Photography a good name, I guess.

Check here :

Paparazzi: Sharks of the French Riviera (1 min 21 sec)
Zarzaglub is offline Find More Posts by Zarzaglub
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2011, 11:23 AM
Registered User
~>Miha<~'s Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
1,465 Posts
Try it on Fleet Street. They love to hack into other people's privacy and pay for criminal methods.
~>Miha<~ is offline Find More Posts by ~>Miha<~
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2011, 12:47 PM
Registered User
Cromer,Norfolk, UK
Joined Nov 2006
2,505 Posts
FPV will probably be illegal in a couple of years, soon enough, someone will get embroiled in an invasion of privacy case, and bingo, either a ban will be slapped on, or you will need to go through 500 beaurocratic hoops to obtain a licence.

But if you want to make some quick bucks, fly over a couple of noted celebrity hotspots, especially beaches etc, or private homes, and grab some photo's of semi-clad celebs in compromising situations and flog them to the gutter press.
MCarlton is offline Find More Posts by MCarlton
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2011, 12:49 PM
Registered User
Cumbria in the U.K
Joined Jan 2008
1,923 Posts
That should get everybody banned from using them for any reason at all.

In the UK you must have a licence to take aerial photos/video for money and it is illegal to fly unless you have visual contact with the plane at all times..... you can't use fpv if you are the pilot.

It would be a pretty low-life sort of person to try to intrude on others privacy by this means and I reckon the authorities would respond very quickly to complaints.

Alternatively..... you could try and get a proper job to earn some money from.
sparklet is offline Find More Posts by sparklet
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2011, 02:35 PM
Registered User
signguy's Avatar
Swansea, Massachusetts
Joined Dec 2004
2,088 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparklet View Post
That should get everybody banned from using them for any reason at all.

In the UK you must have a licence to take aerial photos/video for money and it is illegal to fly unless you have visual contact with the plane at all times..... you can't use fpv if you are the pilot.

It would be a pretty low-life sort of person to try to intrude on others privacy by this means and I reckon the authorities would respond very quickly to complaints.

Alternatively..... you could try and get a proper job to earn some money from.
Right on brother!!!!
signguy is offline Find More Posts by signguy
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2011, 03:01 PM
Registered User
Cromer,Norfolk, UK
Joined Nov 2006
2,505 Posts
Quote:
But if you want to make some quick bucks, fly over a couple of noted celebrity hotspots, especially beaches etc, or private homes, and grab some photo's of semi-clad celebs in compromising situations and flog them to the gutter press.
This bit was meant to be somewhat sarcastic
MCarlton is offline Find More Posts by MCarlton
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2011, 05:28 PM
Pro AP'er
Latvia
Joined Nov 2008
33 Posts
I like such a topics. Think we should make more treads about things like this. Marketing, business in AP, strategies and solutions. Because this part of all AP'ing have to be developed if we want to succeed. As serious as photographing itself it is! And yes, AP seems to be so special thing that no one other could investigate it. As already told - hard to convince those who could support. It is worth to cooperate.
APtaker is online now Find More Posts by APtaker
Last edited by APtaker; Jul 28, 2011 at 05:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2011, 05:53 PM
Registered User
Cumbria in the U.K
Joined Jan 2008
1,923 Posts
One good thing comes to mind when considering the implications of this idea for making money......

Certainly within the UK, and no doubt other countries as well, all flying of model aircraft, of whatever type, comes under the civil aviation authorities. They make the rules and the penalties for breaking them will involve you in a court appearance and a drastic reduction in your bank balance as a consequence. In the UK the Civil Aviation Authority are the people who carry all the power and they wouldn't hesitate to take wrongdoers to court.

Very briefly - the things that will prevent you from doing this.

No fpv by the pilot. The pilot of the model must be in normal visual contact with the model at all times.

A licence is required for AP that is done for profit.

It is not permitted to fly close to people or property.

That, very briefly, is what is going to stop the daft idea of intruding on peoples privacy.

Once the due legal process takes all the numbskulls out of the equation then the rest of us should be able to carry on with normal AP activities. It shouldn't take long... the first person ending up in court should act as a great deterrent to the rest.... when they see what happens to him.
sparklet is offline Find More Posts by sparklet
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2011, 02:47 AM
Registered User
AndrésMtnez's Avatar
Madrid, Spain
Joined Dec 2004
2,097 Posts
No fpv by the pilot??????

If we limit ourselves our main advantage with traditional RC helis......


The regulations wich exist right now are too old. FPV has so many advantages and is so different to anything that can´t be regulated with old regulations (or old minded regulators)

It´s a matter of evolution, it´s always difficult, specially for the firsts, but it´s inevitable like it or not.

What we need is someone with the knowledge, skills and also some political power to explain this to the authorities and write a really useful regulation.


I´m not saying anyone should be able to fly over populated areas, but there are fpv ships wich are 100 times safer than aircrafts I see over the city daily. This should require some special certification obviously, but it should be perfectly possible.

But until that point (if we reach it some day) we can do lots of things outside populated areas, it´s a matter of imagination

When I see someone criticizing AV/AP from an fpv ship I wonder what does he think about UltraLights. They have a ton LESS safety stuff than a proper fpv ship, even when they weight around 100-200 times more, and they can film what they want while they´re not over populated areas....


A proper fpv ship does weight what a bird, and is safer than an UL, so what´s the problem with them?? Anyone who criticize them is an ignorant. For example an okto with RTH is the safest ship you can find in the air, and I´m not talking about RC or FPV, but everything. It will fly with one or even two motors out, it will fly with an RC glitch or loss, and it does weight around 100, 200 or 500 times less than any other aircraft than we humans are using for filming over populated areas.


You should be a complete ignorant to restrict this technology
AndrésMtnez is offline Find More Posts by AndrésMtnez
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2011, 03:50 AM
Worn-out the seat of my pants
Lomcevac's Avatar
Dorset UK
Joined Dec 2006
922 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrésMtnez View Post
When I see someone criticizing AV/AP from an fpv ship I wonder what does he think about UltraLights. They have a ton LESS safety stuff than a proper fpv ship, even when they weight around 100-200 times more, and they can film what they want while they´re not over populated areas....
Ultralights operate under a set of rules and the pilots are trained to a standard. Most important of all they have a sense and avoid system!

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrésMtnez View Post
A proper fpv ship does weight what a bird, and is safer than an UL, so what´s the problem with them?? Anyone who criticize them is an ignorant. For example an okto with RTH is the safest ship you can find in the air
You dont seem to have much of a grasp of aviation safety. All these AP aircraft, paricularly multicopters are full of single point failures, have very low overall reliability and are often poorly assembled and maintained, modified and operated by incompetent people.

These crash very often compared to manned ultralights, therefore the main factor driving their overall safety is the manner in which they are flown and the competence of the operator.

The only manned aircraft allowed to fly over congested areas are very highly certified (not ultralights) and are flown by competent pilots. It's ridiculous to suggest that the average AP aircraft is many times even though the likely severity of an accident is low.

Sparklet's comment about FPV was saying that there legally must be a competent 'eyes-on' pilot in addition to the FPV pilot. Flying FPV-only means that there is high risk of collsion with other aircaft or people on the ground. Are you suggesting that FPV-only is safer than manned aircraft?
Lomcevac is offline Find More Posts by Lomcevac
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2011, 10:23 AM
Multi Rotors Rule ! ;-)
SkyEyes's Avatar
United Kingdom
Joined Jul 2010
879 Posts
It's all very well well posting on here as a "know all", when it comes to rules and regulations from a UK perspective. However in reality, look on rc groups, you tube, vimeo, exactly how many FPV flights are carried out (and even posted up on the web) each year in the UK, by a 'sole' individual, with no spotter, flying FPV outside of visual range, instantly breaking all the rules you've just quoted, regarding the CAA.

I'm not saying its something I do or support (obviously), I'm just saying, trying to police such a "hobby" is close to impossible, unless someone is caught in the act, or its proven they caused a multiple pile-up on some motorway somewhere, due to flying a model plane via FPV........

Just like in the 'real' world, theres countless criminal acts taking place (sadly). I think the police and likewise the CAA have far more important matters to pursue, before chasing after some guy wearing video goggles and carrying a UHF modified Transmitter, in some field in the countryside.

Just a thought.
SkyEyes is offline Find More Posts by SkyEyes
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2011, 01:34 PM
Worn-out the seat of my pants
Lomcevac's Avatar
Dorset UK
Joined Dec 2006
922 Posts
CAA enforcement branch have been actively investigating and persuing illegal FPVers over the last few months actually.
Lomcevac is offline Find More Posts by Lomcevac
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2011, 02:33 PM
Registered User
Cumbria in the U.K
Joined Jan 2008
1,923 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyEyes View Post
It's all very well well posting on here as a "know all", when it comes to rules and regulations from a UK perspective. However in reality, look on rc groups, you tube, vimeo, exactly how many FPV flights are carried out (and even posted up on the web) each year in the UK, by a 'sole' individual, with no spotter, flying FPV outside of visual range, instantly breaking all the rules you've just quoted, regarding the CAA.

Snip.....

Just a thought.
Of course there will always be a rogue element. The fun starts when the rogue has an accident.

Flying with the benefit of insurance cover ? If the answer is yes... then that shows sense.

Break the CAA regulations and.... your insurance cover will be invalidated.

Cause personal injury to people or damage to property and the no win no fee lawyers will fill their pockets, and their clients pockets, while definitely emptying yours.

Prepared to be a rogue and gamble on the outcome...... ?

Then don't complain when the excrement hits the fan !

A microlight pilot inadvertently strayed into "controlled airspace" some years ago, it was over a sensitive type of power station. His court appearance and the size of the fine imposed would cause anyone with any sense to pay more attention.... it would also make your eyes water if you "earned" a similar fine.

As for the idiots who post videos on youtube and such..... there was a guy in Australia who buzzed an airliner with a model plane and put the video on youtube. How long do you reckon it takes to track down the person in the video ? Well... as in his case not very long at all. How long will anonymity last when a few "celebrities" start kicking up about invasion of privacy ? The perpetrator is going to sell the photos/videos and leave a highly traceable route straight back to himself.

I see idiots doing stupid things everyday but that doesn't give me an urge to join in myself.
sparklet is offline Find More Posts by sparklet
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2011, 04:36 AM
Registered User
AndrésMtnez's Avatar
Madrid, Spain
Joined Dec 2004
2,097 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomcevac View Post
Ultralights operate under a set of rules and the pilots are trained to a standard. Most important of all they have a sense and avoid system!
I think nobody have said we shouldn´t operate under a set of rules but Ultralights don´t have one single safety measure, if something fails, they´ll hit the ground.

Why? Because they´re ultralights, and you can´t ask for the same requirements than you´d do with an airliner. The requirements have to be in keeping with the aircraft, weigth and size specially, that´s the reason UL´s don´t have not even a trasponder, if you start asking for safety measures they´ll end up at the same AUW than any other airplane, so the requirements depends on the aircraft.

The same should be applied to FPV aircrafts, they´re at least 100 times lighters than UL´s, so the safety requirements should be adapted to it´s size.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomcevac View Post
You dont seem to have much of a grasp of aviation safety. All these AP aircraft, paricularly multicopters are full of single point failures, have very low overall reliability and are often poorly assembled and maintained, modified and operated by incompetent people.

These crash very often compared to manned ultralights, therefore the main factor driving their overall safety is the manner in which they are flown and the competence of the operator.
I think I´ve never said anyone should be allowed to fly anywhere, but with some sort of licence and inspection there´s no reason to ban it

And please tell be all those single point failures with an okto with Return to Home. As I said they can keep flying even with a motor failure and/or a rc or video loss. They´re much safer than UL´s, I´m not sure wich one will have more chances to crash but the chances to hurt someone are obviously much much higher with a UL than with an okto with RTH.

So the safety requirements should be lower than with UL´s. If someone wants to fly over populated areas there should be some higher requirements, including an inspection of the aircraft and some sort of licence, but I don´t see the reason to rule it out and don´t even consider it....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomcevac View Post
...therefore the main factor driving their overall safety is the manner in which they are flown and the competence of the operator.
Exactly the same as UL´s, and you´re allowed to carry on people with a UL, IMO that´s a lot more dangerous than flying over people with a 2kg aircraft

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomcevac View Post
The only manned aircraft allowed to fly over congested areas are very highly certified (not ultralights) and are flown by competent pilots. It's ridiculous to suggest that the average AP aircraft is many times even though the likely severity of an accident is low.
Exactly, very highly certified. Why? because a crash of these aircrafts (mainly helis) would kill a lot of people.

That´s exactly what I´m saying about adapting the safety requirements to the ship and risk. If the risk is high, the requirements are high, if the risk is low, the requirments should be low.

So if you have a light aircraft wich can survive mechanical failures AND rc or video failures (and even all of them toghether), what´s the reason to do not allow them flying anywhere???


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomcevac View Post
Are you suggesting that FPV-only is safer than manned aircraft?

What do you understand with safer, less chances to crash (this would depend on too many things to compare in general), or less chances to hurt someone (in this case fpv aircrafts are safer than any real aircraft, always)?
AndrésMtnez is offline Find More Posts by AndrésMtnez
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale AR Drone remote control ssgtmacgyver Aircraft - Electric - Multirotor (FS/W) 9 Jun 30, 2011 09:01 AM
Discussion Remote control (shutter & video) for Sony NEX-5, NEX-7 by CAMremote linnar Aerial Photography 0 May 05, 2011 04:15 AM
Discussion what do i need for remote control of DSLR camera and video feed zyx123 Aerial Photography 3 Apr 08, 2010 06:15 AM
Discussion what do i need for remote control of DSLR camera and video feed zyx123 Electric Plane Talk 2 Apr 07, 2010 04:34 PM
Wireless Video for Remote Control Aircraft sargentw Aerial Photography 4 Jun 06, 2005 02:18 PM