Category Archives: Reviews of Video Equipment

Field Testing a Phantom II Quadcopter for Scientific Research

Posted on by

When was the last time you had fun doing field research? What’s that you say? Not ever? Then you probably haven’t tried using a quadcopter yet.

A quadcopter is a remotely-operated, miniature helicopter that is lifted and propelled by four rotors. These unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly called “drones”, can carry high-definition cameras that are able to capture spectacular aerial video at a fraction of the cost of a full-sized helicopter rental. Quadcopters are increasingly used by business owners such as sports photographers, wildlife photographers, hunters (feral pig spotting), travel agents, and real estate agents (although commercial use of these aircraft was ruled illegal by the FAA in the US). Scientists are just getting started finding ways to use UAVs in field research such as these agriculture researchers.

takeoff_gopro_2-cine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last week, I had an opportunity to go out with some colleagues who were testing one, specifically a Phantom II sold by DJI. As you will see in the video, my colleagues are using the quadcopter to acquire low-altitude video of some coastal ecosystems, which can often be remote and/or difficult to traverse on foot.

I drove with two colleagues to Golden Meadow, Louisiana where we met Dr. Mark Byrnes of Applied Coastal Research and Engineering and his son Dylan, who is the expert at piloting their quadcopter. This group has been studying some of the salt marshes in south Louisiana and want to use the quadcopter to assess vegetative recovery from disturbance as well as changes in the geomorphology of the shorelines. We convened for dinner at a local restaurant and discussed the plan for the following day. After sampling the local cuisine (grilled shrimp and sweet potato fries for me), we headed to the hotel where we fired up the quadcopter in the hotel parking lot to check that all systems were functioning properly. Dylan flew the quadcopter, with its lights flashing red and green, around the hotel and periodically up to a couple hundred feet overhead. Before long, we had drawn a crowd of hotel employees and guests. The next morning, we drove to where the study site was located and spent several hours flying the Phantom II around the area. The main objective was to get an idea of how the quadcopter would perform and to begin working out a survey protocol to use on future field trips.

Here’s a video showing some of the highlights:

The following is a more detailed description of the Phantom II that we tested and how it performed.

Description. The Phantom II is a radio-controlled quadcopter (made by DJI) that is DJIquadcopter_KLMcKeeoutfitted with an HD camera. It is relatively small and light and has four rotors. There are also running lights that flash red and green. The system that my colleagues purchased came with a GoPro Hero 3+ (Black Edition) camera, which was attached to the quadcopter via a special gimbal. The gimbal is essential for steady video; earlier versions did not have a gimbal, and the resultant footage was quite jerky. There are also cinema-grade gimbals that can be purchased for more serious filming. The power source is a lithium “smart” battery with four LED lights to indicate charge status; it slides into a slot on the side of the quadcopter. One battery charge is supposed to last 20 to 25 minutes, although it’s recommended to stop flying when 15% charge is reached (our flights did not go longer than 17 min). There were two extra batteries, so we had a total of about 50 minutes of flight time initially; we were able to recharge the batteries for the afternoon flights when we stopped for lunch at a local restaurant.

The quadcopter is operated with a remote control console, which has altitude and yaw movement knobs that are operated with thumb motions. The viewing position (oblique/vertical) of the camera is operated via a lever on the console. Attached to the console is a viewing monitor that shows real-time video from the camera as well as flight information such as altitude, GPS position, distance. The Phantom also can be used with iOS devices (iPhone, iPad) to view flights and to control the camera. Manual navigation can be accomplished by watching the quadcopter (if within sight of the operator) or the monitor. The GoPro Hero 3+ camera can be set to shoot “narrow” (90 degrees), “medium” (127 degrees), or “wide” (170 degrees) fields of view at different frame rates (e.g., 24, 30 or 60 fps) and resolutions (e.g, 1080p or 2.7k). The camera, set to video mode, is turned on at the beginning of the flight and runs until turned off at the end of the flight. The GoPro will also shoot high-resolution, still images, but requires a way to control the shutter (the system we tested did not have this). Another option, which we did not test, is to use the time-lapse feature on the GoPro to shoot a series of still images. Images and video footage are stored on a micro SD card and transferred to computer with a card reader (or by connecting the GoPro via cable).

There are other Phantom packages that can be seen on the DJI website, some of which are equipped with a different type of camera and gimbal system (Phantom II Vision+).

Cost and Performance. This product is not a toy–at a cost between $959 and $1,299 (depending on model), not counting accessories such as extra batteries. However, it is affordable for the professional or serious photography enthusiast. If you already have a GoPro camera, you can save a few dollars by purchasing just the quadcopter and a gimbal. Extra batteries are a must–20 minutes is simply not enough time to do much, and charging takes up to an hour. The quadcopter body is constructed of plastic and is lightweight, weighing in at 1030 grams (2.3 lbs), which means that if it crashes into a building or parking lot surface, it may suffer some serious damage. The rotor blades are the parts that are easiest to damage, but are easily replaced. Neither the quadcopter or the camera is waterproof (unless the GoPro underwater housing is used), so using it in the rain or landing it on wet ground is probably not a good idea (although some people have apparently flown it in light rain or snow). Flying in a marine environment will expose both aircraft and camera to salt spray and high humidity, which will likely take a toll over time.

Even though the Phantom II is not a toy, it is loads of fun. We had a blast watching it fly around doing different maneuvers that one might perform in a field survey. The Phantom II could hover and remain remarkably stable even in moderate wind. I was blown away by the fantastic video this quadcopter and GoPro combo could capture. The gliding footage looked like it had been shot from a crane dolly or some other expensive filming set-up. Comparable footage shot from a helicopter using a gimbal-mounted camera would cost you thousands of dollars per day—little wonder that filmmakers and wildlife photographers are adopting it. The Phantom II can be set up to fly a GPS path on a map, although we did not do this; instead, transects were flown manually using visual cues (flags) and onscreen video as a guide.

Learning curve. I did not fly the Phantom II, but could see that one could learn fairly quickly. The controls are simple and if you get into difficulty, releasing the sticks will cause the quadcopter to stop moving and hover in place until you get your bearings again. However, people have crashed these things, especially when in tight quarters…near trees or buildings, for example. We were out in the open and only had a few power lines to worry about. It’s also possible to navigate using only the monitor and live feed from the camera, although it’s easy to get confused about direction when you can no longer see the aircraft in the sky. Some experts recommend learning to fly an inexpensive UAV before trying to operate something expensive like the Phantom II. Another option is to get a few lessons from an experienced Phantom II pilot before striking out on your own. Also, it seems obvious that a beginner should learn somewhere with wide open spaces–a park or field–where there is plenty of room. I’ve watched several videos of first flights attempted in an urban setting with numerous obstacles such as buildings, power lines, signs, trees, and people….quite a number of these end with a crash.

Fly responsibly. It became clear to me that a UAV should not be flown in a populated area by an inexperienced pilot, and even with an experienced pilot there is still the possibility of a crash due to mechanical failure or loss of communication with the aircraft. People and property have been struck by them, so liability is something to keep in mind. Stories of flyaway quadcopters abound on the Internet; there is even a Facebook site providing psychological support for folks whose aircraft have crashed or gone rogue and flown away. For many research scientists and outdoor photography enthusiasts, these quadcopters will more likely be used away from population centers where there is less likelihood of hurting people or damaging property. Probably a bigger concern in those cases is disturbance of sensitive wildlife.

Although the Phantom II supposedly can go as high as 1000 feet, the FAA in the US restricts UAVs to 400 feet or lower. Also, there is a built-in warning system that will not allow you to fly one near an airport (a warning sounds and within a mile of an airport, the quadcopter stops flying). We were mostly flying low altitudes (6 meters/20 feet) along transects across a marsh; however, it’s wise to have someone spotting for aircraft if flying at higher altitudes. In the US, the FAA allows non-commercial (i.e., hobby and recreational) use of UAVs as long as they are flown responsibly and according to regulations. Update: Research is not currently considered a recreational use by the FAA and may require a Certificate of Authorization (COA) (Public Operations-governmental) or Special Airworthiness Certificate-Experimental Operation (Civil Operations-nongovernmental) (see comment by Victor Villegas for more). At the moment, it appears that a researcher at a public institution such as a university will need a COA to operate a UAS. However, the FAA regulations regarding small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) are in a state of flux; a new FAA rule governing operation of sUAS is expected later this year to address the recent demand for their use for commercial purposes. Other countries may have different rules and regulations–best to check before purchasing or flying.

Well, that is a brief overview of my observations of the Phantom II Quadcopter. There are many more detailed reviews and videos online…so I recommend watching a few of these to get a more in-depth look. I see a lot of ways these aircraft might be used in scientific research and will perhaps write a followup post as more scientists publish their quadcopter videos and descriptions of how they are using them in research.

I wished there had been time to film in some other habitats, but it wasn’t possible on this trip. However, this brief taste was enough to make me consider buying one.

Where to find aerial footage.  A couple of handy sites to find aerial video shot anywhere on earth are www.travelbydrone.com and www.dronetrotter.com. Both sites feature a world map with site markers showing where a video has been shot. You click on the play icon and a player window opens with the video.

How to Shoot Fisheye, Wide Angle, and Macro Views with an iPhone

Posted on by

If you would like to take your videography/photography with the iPhone to the next level, you might be interested in the Ōlloclip, a 3-in-1 lens (fisheye, wide angle, macro) combination that clips onto the phone. It’s small, lightweight, and easy to use. My husband gave it to me as a gift, and I finally got around to testing it out on a recent trip. The version I have is the original Ōlloclip with three lenses for the iPhone 5/5s. The company has newer versions with four lenses (fisheye, wide angle, 10x and 15x macro). They also sell a telephoto and a few accessories (see www.olloclip.com). There is also an app for the Ōlloclip in the App Store, which helps to compose your shots during filming.

I’m still exploring ways to use the Ōlloclip, but thought I would do a quick video review/tutorial about it:

I was impressed with the design and quality of the device. Basically, there are three lenses fashioned into a double-sided clip that can be easily flipped around to access either the fisheye lens (one side) or the wide angle-macro lenses (other side). The fisheye provides a 180 degree view of a scene, and the wide angle approximately doubles the field of view from the normal iPhone camera. To access the macro (10x on my version), you unscrew the wide angle lens. You have to get within about an inch (10-15 mm) of the subject to focus the macro properly (the app contains a loupe that helps to ensure a good focus with the macro).

The clip slips onto the top edge of the iPhone so that the desired lens is covering the rear-facing camera. The clip fits over a screen protector, but is too snug to work with a standard phone cover (other than one that Ōlloclip sells). The clip also covers the power switch on the top of the phone, but this is not a problem as a slot in the clip prevents it from pressing on the switch. You can still access the phone menu through the “Home” button.

All in all, I found the Ōlloclip to be well-made and easy to use. It seems to be pretty rugged, although it probably would not survive a drop to concrete. Due to its small size, the Ōlloclip is convenient to carry in a pocket or purse; however, the Ōlloclip’s small size also makes it easy to lose–so be careful. I carry it inside the provided bag but then store that in a larger bag along with some other iPhone accessories.

I especially like the macro, which works quite well to get close-ups of objects. See the next series of photos (of a dried rose) for a comparison. I snapped all of them without the aid of a tripod to see how much blurring might occur with minor hand shake (normally with macrophotography, you would want to use a tripod and also a remote shutter to eliminate movements that would blur the image).

The first one was taken with the regular phone camera–as close as I could get and stay in focus. If you zoom in, you see that the image is blurred, which I could not see when I took the photo.iphone_regular

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The second one was also taken with the regular phone camera, but I used the pinch-zoom gesture to get a bit closer. The image is better but still out of focus.

iphone_zoom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The third one was taken with the Ōlloclip macro lens attached to the phone. I got the image in focus, and you can begin to see the individual cells of the rose petals; however, it was difficult to see if I had the focus just right while I was shooting (I was aiming for the crack in the center of the image).iphone&macro

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The final image was taken with the macro lens plus the aid of the Ōlloclip app. I set the loupe in the app for 3x, which let me better see how well I was focused on the rose petal (this does not affect the view of the final photo). Although the point I selected (crack in theiphone&macro&loupe image center) was in focus, you notice that surfaces in other planes of view are not in focus. The iPhone is limited in controlling depth of field, but The Ōlloclip app allows you to select which part of the image you want to be in focus (AF) as well as the point of reference for exposure (AE), just by sliding two targets around on the screen. This dual setting provides a lot of flexibility in composing a shot. The native iPhone camera app, by comparison, only allows you to set the AE/AF together by tapping on a point on the screen.

 

The app also works without the Ōlloclip, allowing you to independently set the AF and AE for filming through the native iPhone lens. Conversely, you can use the Ōlloclip with other photography apps, but I’ve not tested those sufficiently to say how well they work with the Ōlloclip lenses.

You can find out more about the Ōlloclip at www.olloclip.com.

 

 

 

Featured Student Video: Floating Water Bridge

Posted on by

Periodically, I feature a science video created by students. In this post, I would like to point you to a nice video produced by Reza M. Namin, an undergraduate student in mechanical engineering at Sharif University of Technology in Tehran, Iran. He is also doing research on the physics of fluids, specifically a phenomenon known as a “floating water bridge”, which was recently published in Physical Review and featured in Science Magazine’s ScienceShot. To better share their findings with others, Reza and his collaborators (fellow students and professors) created an informative and professional video, which describes the floating water bridge, how he and fellow students became interested in it, and how their research helps explain the forces behind the phenomenon.

Are you curious yet about what a floating water bridge is? Watch the video:

The video not only does a wonderful job of explaining the phenomenon but also shows how scientists go about testing hypotheses with a series of experiments. It’s a good example of how a video can complement a technical article and enhance understanding of the science. I liked how team members explained different aspects of the research, which were nicely illustrated with images, drawings, and other visuals. Most importantly, I was able to understand and follow the information provided in the video, even though fluid dynamics is not something I know much about. Great job, guys!

I hope to feature more student videos, so if you’ve produced one or seen one that you liked, please let me know.

On My Wish List: A Quadcopter Drone for Aerial Filming

Posted on by

Some of my science videos contain clips filmed from a helicopter, which I’ve used occasionally to conduct research in the Mississippi River Delta (this video, for example, showing aerial footage of both the Mississippi River Birdsfoot and the Atchafalaya Deltas). Such opportunities are rare for the average scientist (or videographer) because helicopter time is quite expensive. However, an aerial perspective can really add to a science story about an unusual or extensive landscape or a remote ecosystem.

We now have a viable alternative to expensive helicopters: remote-controlled quadcopter drones outfitted with cameras. Filmmakers are beginning to take advantage of drone technology to capture stunning aerial footage at a reasonable cost. In the video below, a film crew shot an unusual video in ice caves that riddle the Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska. They apparently were able to fly the drone (a DJI Phantom) into the caves and crevasses by using the GoPro Hero 3 camera to see how to maneuver. A wireless link between the camera and a viewing screen (on a smartphone or tablet) allows real-time viewing as well as camera operation.

I would have been pretty nervous about sending a drone and my camera into a deep hole from which recovery would have been impossible…..but they got some quite spectacular footage. Read more about the making of the ice cave film here.

From what I read, setup and operation of these quadcopters is not that easy. Several commenters on one site selling the Phantom described how their drones flew off (with the GoPro Hero camera attached) never to be seen again (even though there is supposed to be a fail-safe return mechanism). That would be quite disappointing, to say the least.

So, the quadcopter is on my wish list, but I may wait a while and do some more research before purchasing.

A Shutter Remote Controller for Your iPhone Camera

Posted on by

I often work alone and need to stop and consult my notes when filming an on-camera speech or demonstration. In such instances, I would have to leave my position in front of the camera to start and stop video recording, which is inconvenient and time-consuming. There have been other times when I tried to film myself from an unusual position or from a distance away from the camera and wished that I had a way to operate the camera remotely.

You can use wired or wireless remote controllers that operate the shutter on a camera, but I’ve just never gotten around to purchasing one. Recently, I came across an advertisement for a shutter remote controller that can be paired via Bluetooth to any iOS device. It’s called Shutter Remote and costs about $40. Since I often use my phone to record video and take photos, I decided to give it a try with my new iPhone 5s.

The device is small and easy to operate. I found that it worked well to start and stop the camera app on my iPhone, which made filming a whole lot more efficient. Below is a video I made showing how it works and how to pair it with an iPhone.

The Shutter Remote is supposed to work with any native iOS app and also with some 3rd party apps (although I have not tried these). You can also pair it with a Mac computer to, for example, control a Keynote presentation, video playback, or music. If you use iOS devices, especially to record video, this item might be helpful.

I’ve used the shutter remote several times, but not enough to say much about durability. The only problem I’ve encountered so far was that my phone camera app once got stuck in record mode, and I could not stop it with either the remote or phone controls. I had to power my phone off to stop the recording. However, that happened only once and was easy to rectify. Otherwise, it worked as advertised.

Using a remote controller to trigger the shutter on your camera will definitely make your filming a lot easier if you work alone. In addition to filming yourself, you might also need to remotely control a camera to film wildlife; for example, a bird nest high in a tree. Once the camera is set up, you can observe from a safe distance and trigger the shutter to record whatever activity is of interest without scaring your targets away. There are many other examples.

If you’ve tried this or some other shutter remote, please share your experience.