Why don't companies start making Digital FPV?

[Robbie]

Hey guys,

I was wonding why FPV companies don't start investing in Digital FPV, becasue surely it would mitigate against bad sinals and signal degredation, if the reciever only has to read a 1 or 0. Espcially as almost all the big FPV companies push for 5.8 which lets face it has trouble penertrating a piece of paper, it seems to me that a switch to Digital would make sense, espcially as video quality isn't exactly the biggest issue, and i think 9/10 FPV pilots would prefer better video signal over picture quality anyday.

I can sort of understand why the cheap chinese companies don't bother investing in Digital because they never bother to innovate. But for the life of me I can't understand why companies like Fatshark, Immersion, Skyzone and Boscam don't, espcially since they charge an arm and a leg for there stuff (especailly the first two mentioned).

Is there some quirk of Physics which stops them or are they just too lazy to innovate and create a digital video transmitter and reciever.

Thanks,
Robbie

 

[tneun]

You'll get some sort of lag in your video, That's why. The video needs to be encrypted on the plane/quadcopter and need to be translated back to video on the ground. Because of this there will be a small lag and that lag will always be bigger than the one with radio signals.

 

[tneun]

http://www.getfpv.com/featured/connex-hd-video-downlink.html the price is also a reason

 

[Robbie]

You'll get some sort of lag in your video, That's why. The video needs to be encrypted on the plane/quadcopter and need to be translated back to video on the ground. Because of this there will be a small lag and that lag will always be bigger than the one with radio signals.

Oh wow yeh, lag is a good point, i guess one would have to put computer chips to try and mitigate it somehow

 

[Robbie]

http://www.getfpv.com/featured/connex-hd-video-downlink.html the price is also a reason

More sceptical about the price, i think half the reason connex charge that much is becasue they can, not because it costs that much, i think if more companeis did it than the cost would drop significantly.

 

[tneun]

Yeah I know, but for more people inventing and making cheaper digital FPV downlink, they first need to see that they will make some profit. And since I don't know anybody that will spend $1500 for an RX and TX combo. I don't think this part of the hobby will grow in the upcoming 2 years.

 

[bstanley72]

I imagine many companies are working on it, but have yet to bring to market. Certainly that's where the market is heading. However, there are challenges; among them size, weight and $$. One of the problems with digital verses analog is actually the opposite the OP states above. Analog signals degrade slowly verses a digital signal that one moment is fine, the next moment it is blocky and pixilated and then the next moment is frozen. With an analog signal you can still see enough to fly yourself to safety even when your feed is significantly degraded. With digital your receiver either gets the 1s and 0s, or it doesn't, there is no in between.

As far as the cost of current systems that is how the free market works. Sellers of a product base their prices on what they believe maximizes the ratio between volume and margin, not on how much it costs to produce. The prices will fall as there are more economies of scale and competition.

 

[Cereal_Killer]

Another big hurdle of digital FPV is what happened towards the end of the range. An analog signal can be partly picked up and displayed (albeit with snow, what we actually want to happen). A digital signal is either there or it isnt.

 

[jipp]

so why not piggy back them.. if you lose the digital it fail safes to analog.
of course im talking about in the same unit.. not extra weight etc. they have do a lot of engineering tho im sure to shrink it all.
chris.

 

[MrClean]

extra lag between switching between digital and analog. fly analog, record with onboard digital. However, as technology goes, I'm sure there will be a time in the near future where they will eliminate the delay and it will become both easier and cheaper to buy digital. I don't know how the local television station does it with their vans but they seem to be instantaneous on their communication with the in house folks so I wonder if they transmit on scene analog and broadcast digital. One of those trucks though cost a pretty penny and don't need to fly in a Bixler.
I'm just spitballing and I've been drinking grape koolaide, so it's colorful.

 

[Robbie]

so why not piggy back them.. if you lose the digital it fail safes to analog.
of course im talking about in the same unit.. not extra weight etc. they have do a lot of engineering tho im sure to shrink it all.
chris.

I don't think that would work because Digital tends to have further range, i think. so when your digital is out of range your analogue is garrenteed to be as well.

 

[tneun]

Hmmm I don't think so, but I don't know

 

[Cereal_Killer]

I don't think that would work because Digital tends to have further range, i think. so when your digital is out of range your analogue is garrenteed to be as well.

This is backwards...

You can send either signal type over any frequency. For example lots of us on DIY Drones are experimenting with RasPi based HD video using 5.8 wifi (to new to say "look here guys", still in it's infancy and not at all ready for linking people to). But it's the same frequency as what most people use now days for analog; 5.8ghz.

Anyway the range is determined by the TX power and the Rx gain only, not what type of signal is being broadcast... There will be no range difference using a (random example) 600mW 5.8ghz analog system as a 600mW 5.8ghz wifi downlink. Lag may be drastically different between the two, and as I mention towards the end of that range you'll loose the digital signal first, but technically range is the same.


Using an analog system allows the RX end to continue displaying only part of the data once it starts to drop out (it will be snowy but there), with a digital system one you start dropping bits of data the remaining data can no longer be assembled into a usable signal so infact you'll get longer range from an analog signal than a digital.

 

[jhitesma]

Short answer: Digital is a MUCH larger signal. That means slower processing and more bandwidth when transmitting. Which means higher prices and fewer channels on the same band. But basically you're looking at trying to transmit a lot more data with error correction in the same time/space and simple physics says something has to give. Someday it will be more commonplace and usable....I'd say probably 2-5 years but things move so quick it could be more like 1-2 years...unless the anti-drone regulations screw things up and slow development. We're not the only people wanting/using this tech but we are one of the more demanding user groups when it comes to wanting low latency, best signal and lowest price.

Long answer...I don't really have time to get into right now

 

[tneun]

Would be pretty cool if you can FPV at 1080p, without to much latency

 

[cranialrectosis]

Would be pretty cool if you can FPV at 1080p, without to much latency

FPV headgear will come with barf bags and a head injury disclaimer.

 

[tneun]

Hahaha