FPV Camera Pitch Gimbal on a Miniquad

[kah00na]

When I choosing the frame for my F450, I was looking at a frame like this with a pitch/elevator gimbal for the FPV camera.


However, I've been thinking about how it could be implemented on to a miniquad. BlackSheep's Gemini made me think about it again. It looks like the Gemini has motors leaning forward about 10 degrees. What I'd like to figure out how to do is to somehow put the camera on a spring hinge that holds the camera in the upright position. Then a servo could be placed behind it that would pull the top of the camera back. The servo could be connected to a set of pins on the flight board and have it be controlled like an elevator/pitch gimbal. Or it could be controlled by a dial or slider on the transmitter that would gradually pull it back or let it lean back forward. This would allow the pilot to change the angle mid flight to adjust for the appropriate type of flying. It would add a little weight but if you found the angle you liked best, you could just hard mount it at that angle. Is this crazy or would it be functional?

 

[FinalGlideAus]

Have a look at my Blackout mini H build log. I've been flying such a setup now for a few months. It's the best mod I've done to my mini quad by a long shot. There are a few key things to take into account when building one as I have learned along the way but luckily I got the design perfect on my first try.

First is how it's controlled. Forget any auto controlled stuff. It just makes it impossible to fly. I have mine on a three position slider. Flat for hovering, 15deg up for normal flying and 25deg up for racing. I would like about 35deg but am limited by the top plate. M

Secondly is how the servo is mounted. I mount mine on about 8mm of double sided foam tape. This takes all the shocks from a crash. Without it you will constantly break servo gears. Check my build log for pictures.

 

[kah00na]

Amazing..... that is exactly what I was thinking about. Now I have to do it. I thought that was an original idea, oh well. At least now I know the concept can actually work.

 

[kah00na]

Yup, exactly like this. Nice work FinalGlideAus.

 

[Cyberdactyl]

A wide angle 2.0mm or 2.1mm lens will work without using a moveable camera. A slight angle up ~10 degrees or so. . but the negative aspect is you have to get used to the slight fish eye effect.

I've found I much prefer the wide angle, but I've yet to go really fast, probably not much past 30mph, so I'm not sure how a wide angle will work going through tight spots at 45mph.

 

[kah00na]

A wide angle 2.0mm or 2.1mm lens will work without using a moveable camera. A slight angle up ~10 degrees or so. . but the negative aspect is you have to get used to the slight fish eye effect.

I've found I much prefer the wide angle, but I've yet to go really fast, probably not much past 30mph, so I'm not sure how a wide angle will work going through tight spots at 45mph.

I started FPV with a 3.6mm lens and was having a terrible time going around objects because they would leave my FOV before I was past them and I worried about not seeing people walking into my path before I could see them. I moved down to a 2.8mm lens and have been real happy with its wider FOV. It has a FOV that is pretty close to what your eyes actually have. I'm not to inclined to go down any further because I think cramming that much view into the already not-high-res camera will make the resolution poor enough that it would make small branches nearly invisible until I was right on top of them. When I'm flying around trees, I want as high of a resolution as possible but I also need that FOV, so it kind of becomes a balancing act between the two. The 2.8mm is a good middle ground. It has a wide enough FOV and I can usually see small branches early enough to respond. I just need it to look up a little when I'm trying to go faster. Also, with a 2.1mm lens, the FOV would be so wide that it wouldn't give you that feeling that you are moving as fast as you really are.

 

[Cyberdactyl]

My 2.1 lens is somewhere around 110 degrees which allows me to hover in place and yaw and roll to the left or right without a lot of fear of blindsiding into tree branches. I recently had a mishap where I was WAY out from my house. Not really that far, but I'm in a box of high trees around my house, so when I dip down into the trees, my signal goes to static pretty quick. I was getting too daring and I was out about 840 feet and dipped down into the canopy and lost video, much like Flitest's latest video where they are flying in the mountains and it just goes to all static pretty much instantly. I pulled back to what I thought would be a hover and yawed hoping for the video to come back. It didn't. And I didn't want to throw on the throttle. I learned my leason on that, because if you're tilted, even a little, you can really travel, so I just cut power. I went and looked for it and did the disarm thing with my transmitter, listening for the beep. I found it pretty quick since I knew more or less where I cut power.

Here's my general routes I fly most of the time from my backyard. The green dot is where I started the beep check. The red is where I found it about 15 feet up in some heavy kudzu.

 

[FinalGlideAus]

If you can get used to it a 2.1mm lens is great for proximity but for racing you loose detail and have trouble seeing the other quads. Some guys I fly with are trying out a 2.5mm lens they've found online. The other thing we use is the Effio-V board cam. Apart from being a much better all round cam than the PZ0420 it also has a slightly larger sensor so has a slightly larger FOV with the standard 2.8mm lens.

 

[Cyberdactyl]

Yes, I noticed stuff more that 30 feet out gets hard to see. The great thing is under that 30 feet. But I cruise kinda slow over the treetops looking for open areas in dip down into, so I have become kind of addicted to wide angle. I imagine you're right, when I have something that can whip around quicker in the same space, I will probably want the FOV a bit tighter.