Aerial Photography - Best solution?

[Steeluloid]

Question: How best to use a rocket for low cost , reliable , stable and steady aerial photography?

My main hobby is producing hand drawn maps. Recently I've looked into other ways to obtain aerial photography which all have their own unique difficulties.

I've decided that the best camera is the lightest model which has any sort of decent resolution, so I'm opting for a plain and simple 808 keychain HD recorder.

So. Imagine that I want to produce a map of a castle. Or a priory. (If you don't have something like that in your neighbourhood, then maybe a mid sized school.) I don't have my own aeroplane, so it's likely that I'd use Google maps or Bing. The trouble with that is - I don't own the copyright. And although I could claim "fair use" of the images (because I'm producing art work BASED on the images, rather than selling the images in their original form) I still expect one day to receive a letter from some massive corporation telling me they would like my house to cover legal fees.

Here are my thoughts so far -

Weather Balloons and a very long string: Nice and cheap, but there is a global shortage of helium, and gas companies will not take orders from new customers at the moment. (at least the ones I've tried!)

Party balloon packs: Probably cheaper. But I'm trying to look professional here.

Chartering a flight: Good idea, but I'd have to add a considerable fee onto my maps!

Parrot AR Drone 2.0 : Easy to fly, except the camera is front facing. It could carry an 808, but they don't get high enough.

Other RC helicopter: The best solution by a long way - but the outlay is huge and I don't have the first clue how to fly RC. It would take months before I was ready to use it, I think.

Strap an 808 camera to a kite: Probably a good idea but again - I doubt I could get enough height for a whole campus.

Strap on an 808 camera to the outside of a model rocket - Now this idea I like - except that the cameras don't seem terribly stable. And in many cases I've seen on Youtube the camera is facing every direction other than the launch point.

What I REALLY want to do is find a way to get the camera INSIDE the body of the rocket, so that after final separation, it will be suspended from a parachute. This will ensure its field of view is not obstructed; but, I imagine it will spend ages twirling round before it eventually settles into a point where it is looking at the ground.

I've launched one rocket so far - (Snapshot with a built in 110 camera) but that was years ago.

So the question again is - How best to use a rocket for low cost , reliable , stable and steady aerial photography?

Over to you, ladies and gents....

 

[DaveHein]

I think the easiest solution is to use a kite as long as there are not a lot of trees and wires in the way. You could fly the kite up a couple of hundred feet and then walk it around the campus taking pictures along the way. You would then use a stitching program to assemble all the pictures into one big picture.

You could also use a rocket, but you would have less control over where the camera is pointing. I built a rocket a few years ago that took pictures as the rocket was descending under the chute. It held the rocket horizontally so that the camera was looking straight down.

 

[Steeluloid]

That makes sense. The advantage of using a kite is that it's controllable (to a fashion) it would take a long time..
As for mounting the camera to the horizontal body - I like that idea. Thanks for the tip. It makes sense that it would produce a less erratic image...

 

[luke strawwalker]

The best I've seen is a video that was on the boostervision site... using an RC GLIDER to take video... there camera can be "pointed" by flying the glider in whatever direction you want to film... then you can take "stills" or "screencaps" using whatever video program you choose. In the particular video in question, the glider overflies the launch site from several different directions and altitudes, and then lands...

I agree that getting decent video from under a parachute is problematical... it's not that the camera takes a 'terribly long time' to settle down under the chute, it's that typically while the rocket is descending under parachute it's spinning crazily and drifting or swinging, making the video unpredictable at best and unusable at worst. Gliders, especially RC gliders, provide a MUCH more stable camera platform...

The best video is usually obtained during the boost phase, BUT of course it depends on the rockets. Larger rockets are usually more stable than smaller rockets, and rockets with pre-made plastic fin cans (which minimize fin attachment errors which cause the rocket to spin under boost) makes the most stable camera view...

If you REALLY wanted a top-notch camera setup, there was a "anti-roll" system design on the Brittain Fraley website that he used to stop the rocket from rolling, and give GREAT footage during the boost phase... The system used fins moved by servos controlled by an electronic controller, which used photosensors as inputs... basically, it "sensed" where the sun was in the sky, and was set up to 'center' one sensor on the sun-- adjoining sensors, pointed in different directions around the periphery of the rocket, would produce less voltage because they're pointed in a different direction, and if the rocket began to roll, it would generate more "signal" from the "off center" sensor than the 'center' sensor, thus causing the controller to move the fins to steer the rocket back so the sun was falling directly on the "center" sensor... he had video from a couple of test flights showing the results... one with the system switched off, the other with it switched on... the "on" video was absolutely rock-solid...

Hope this helps and good luck with your project! Later! OL JR

 

[DaveHein]

If you use a very light camera you could just buy a bunch of helium-filled party balloons and fly it from a tether. Each small balloon should lift about an ounce, so you would only need 16 of them to lift a pound. You could use fishing line on a fishing pole reel to tether it. The only drawback is that there would have to be virtually no wind.

 

[BABAR]

Problem with launching a rocket with keycam in a neighborhood or city area may be in recovering the rocket-- may get stuck on a rooftop or a tree or drift into a yard with unfriendly puppies or owners. As for the stability issue, I have launched "fat" bodied rockets with 4 shock cords equally spaced to 8 shroud lines (2 each cord) to a chute with a spill hole. Gives you a nice relatively slow and smooth DESCENT that may get you good video.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...t-Video-from-ROCKET&highlight=NAR+regulations


Another option for you may be to attach a camera to an RC airPLANE. Hobbyzone Super Cub LiPo may work well, runs about $200 with a (cheap but fully functional) transmitter (

https://www.amainhobbies.com/produc...HobbyZone-Super-Cub-DSM-RTF-Electric-Airplane
)
These get can get pretty high and still stay in visual range, and are pretty steady flier. They can also fly pretty slow, particularly if aimed into a light wind can actually be stationary relative to the ground. Your recovery chances may be better with this than a rocket

 

[FastCargo]

Before you do any of that, I have to ask, what makes you think anyone would sue you for a hobby?

It would be one thing if you were using Google maps to sell a competing service. But hand drawn maps as a hobby? I don't think anyone would even notice. Also, some of those images aren't even owned by Google, but are public domain.

And what if you were on the ground, using a GPS to mark your position while you took pictures around the structures to build a map the old fashioned way?

Before jumping into this (as interesting as it sounds), maybe examine if all this effort would be really necessary.

FC

 

[Issus]

As someone who does a lot of AP and flying, I think we need more answers:

* How big of an area are you surveying?
* What resolution (how many pixels per cm)?
* Does angle matter, ie: does it matter if it's not straight down?
* Whats you're budget?

You can build a UAV pretty cheap these days that you can plot a course on a map with and it will go fly it taking photos at specified points. We use them for agriculture on a friends farm surveying hundreds/thousands of acres from the air very quickly and cheaply.

R/C Helicopters are great - but there is a massive learning curve to flying them - and you typically need at least a 600 size, better a 700 size for the lift and stability required for AP. Multicopters can be a good option too, and are getting vastly cheaper/smarter now.

I dont think that rocketry is the right choice here, as there are just too many variables you have absolutely no control over.

 

[scsager]

One issue with a rocket - no way to aim the camera.
I would think the best option would be an electric ARF type RC plane and an HD 808 camera with a WIDE lens. ARF Example. WIDE 808 Example.

One item to note on the 808 cameras. They are "OK" for resolution or sharpness. The true HD version boosting 720p has acceptable resolution for video, but it is NOTHING like a real HD camcorder.

Not my video - but here is an example...

[YOUTUBE]sn9o0vHHXPc[/YOUTUBE]

 

[V2rocketeer]

A Multi Copter with a Go Pro and FPV is unbeatable for this sort of work.

 

[JordanT]

How much are you looking to spend? I just looked at HobbyKing and - though it's not in stock you can get a near turn-key system with GPS tracking and camera stabilization for 2 grand (https://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking...uadcopter_Aerial_Photography_System_PNF_.html). Payload is 400g and it doesn't appear to require any real knowledge of flight mechanics (point and click with iOD or Android). Max elev is rated at 1000m - though I'm not entirely sure how you'll get a wireless link that far. There are several other places which sell quadcopters which are geared towards photographers rather than fliers.

That seems like a lot of cash, but if you're going to fly high with rockets you're going to want a tracker to make sure you get your rocket back. That's $300-400 right off he top. Plus to put up a decent sized camera (GoPro/Contour/Drift sized) you'll need a rocket costing a couple hundred dollars to build...and you have to come up with the mounting system. Then there's launch costs, a recurring cost that adds up pretty quickly, and the need to retrieve the rocket, and the very limited control you have.

If you do use a rocket, jut put the camera facing aft. It will see the ground on the way up and on the way down. If you can, skip the video camera altogether and get a still camera you can set to take pictures continuously at high resolution. You'll get better results for map making.

Good Luck!

 

[Pat_B]

Are you in the United States? If so, there's plenty of free mapping data from gov't agencies that is in the public domain. I've done some pretty significant mapping projects over the years and ended up using that. Nonetheless, with projections and all, it would be very difficult for an aerial photo provider to determine that your hand drawn map was derived from their data. After all, any aerial photo of the same area would look the same!

 

[Derek]

quadcopter. much more stable than a heli and should be cheaper and easier to fly, too.

 

[Steeluloid]

Thank you ALL for your feedback and supportive comments. I'm really sorry to have missed so many of you but I'd not enabled emails to responses and hadn't noticed them piling up!

I think Quad-copters might well be the best way forward. Although the AR Drone looks by far the easiest thing to fly, I really do need to get something that will have a better range. Therefore I'll need to invest some decent cash into something that will last, will fly at a decent height, and won't make me look like an escaped child catcher. (Sorry but I really can't imagine walking round a campus with arms full of party balloons!)

Since I'm doing this for hand drawn mapping, resolution isn't really a big deal. As long as I can make out the detail, it's up to me to draw things at a resolution that makes a pleasant map. I don't need to worry about the image quality being as good as google or bing because that's not my end product.

If this were a sole source of income for me, I'd invest hundreds in this sort of kit. However, since it's just a hobby, I'll have to be sensible about it. Maybe about £400 will be my ceiling (if you excuse the pun) for an entry level quad photo carrier.

Although I can't help thinking rockets would have been an awful lot more exciting!

I'll keep you all posted on how things go and maybe show some results when I have any. For now, please feel free to pop across to my page at https://steeluloid.com or check out Steeluoid Bespoke Cartography on Facebook.

 

[Steeluloid]

Issus - The area in question will vary with the client. I've been asked to do small villages but I think it's just as likely I might do a park or a stately home. I think the most value in my own images would be for "set piece" images of things like castles, abbeys, buildings, etc. So that I can put them onto my maps as pretty illustrations and know that nobody will be chasing me for copyright.

Pixels aren't much of an issue because I'm drawing everything anyway. The important thing is that I need to be able to interpret the image, so I'd need it to be at least understandable!

Angle is always a tricky one. Straight down is great for basic mapping, but it's a bit rubbish for churches and towers. In an ideal world I would be able to mix oblique and vertical images.

Let's assume a budget of up to $500 (£400). Where would you start?

 

[Steeluloid]

JordanT - That system looks great! A lot more than I wanted to pay, but if I can sell a few maps this year I could justify it. Thanks so much for taking the time to find and send me that link. I'll give it some proper research...
DS

 

[Steeluloid]

That's a fair point, FC.
I think the main source of concern is that I'm using a product (a google image) and using it to sell a map.
My argument is that I've used it as an information layer for artwork. Which means the product I sell is not the "actual" thing that they make a business from. But I'm not entirely convinced I would be able to hold onto my royalties in a court of law.
It may be a hobby, but it generates a (small) income. And I'm just trying to do things properly. You're right. I should speak with an IP lawyer. before doing much more!