ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

10 years ago - Marlom Tander

You won't like this but :-

Why is the header image on your web site out of focus? Don't answer that, I know why, but in the context of "book me for great images" it's a mistake.

Why don't the videos play - I just see black spaces. I run Ubuntu and Firefox and (in case your web guys fobs you off) this is NOT something I see much, indeed, EVER.

Why no location? A lot of potential people for smaller jobs will want someone local, but for those with big jobs they won't care where you are, so if you're in Norwich or Bristol or whatever, nothing to lose and something to gain by saying so.

Why no phone number? If I want to have a B2B chat about something where I know I am ignorant, I want to talk, not send an email that might be ignored.

Basically, as it stands, your site does you no favours - people who actually want a drone will probably move to the next operator.

The site is also dated and looks very home made, and as you are presenting a professional, I think you should get a new site design. Nothing complex - simple brochure is fine. But make it clean, and make it work.

Also - not sure what your marketing outside film biz is, but agriculture and forestry seem to be getting the message, and they need regular repeat surveys, at least during the growing season, so on a per client basis, good solid revenue earners. Maybe not as much fun as shooting the rapids at 0 altitude but still nicely outdoors :-) I'd def try and work up a marketing plan for that.

cheers

10 years ago - John Lubran

Why do the films on your site play back with such stagger? There's a refresh rate issue somewhere. I imagine it's to do with the playback to my screen but if that stagger is what one can expect on the rushes it would be entirely unacceptable?

10 years ago - Chris Wood

Hi Paddy,

Well, that's where I'm struggling. I've tried to improve on the technical side, given that I see quite a bit of aerial on TV that I'd have left on the floor myself; with prop flicker, vibration and wandering horizons in it, but even finding places to shoot to get together a decent showreel can be awkward. Want a nice imposing castle or country house? National Trust or British Heritage charge quite a lot for that if you're commercial, and if you're not: you're not welcome. Safety first makes perfect sense, but it's a little Catch 22 on the creative front.

Gear is becoming redundant at a ridiculous rate. Latest reasonably spec'd small systems are the Inspire 1 and the Phantom 3, but they both share the same camera with slightly limited options (several launch features still 'pending' after 8 months on the Inspire, iOS and Android Apps out of sync on features on both), a slightly over-wide 94 degree lens, wandering horizon problems, compression artifacts that pulse every 8 frames and a pre-emptive yaw feature on the gimbal that makes smooth pans impossible. But compared to Panasonic footage on a budget they do the job in B roll and I guess that's where people are going from the larger gear.

Main problem is they're locked out of flying too near airports - even with CAA permission - which limits their commercial use somewhat. You'd be amazed how many there are. I've recently flown - with the appropriate ATC permission - within sight of some major and minor airports - even waved at the Control Tower - which is why I've not yet 'upgraded'. Plus, The Hero 4's 2.7k @60 gives you scope to crop in and do some nice slowmo (can also do 4k@30, like the Inspire, but prefer the speed flexibility. 1080p@120 is also possible, but only in 'narrow' mode), whereas the various larger cameras are generally limited to 1080p@24/25/30. Granted there is less work to do in post on colour matching, better low light performance etc. with a bigger lens; but it's horses for courses. You want something flying out over a boat capturing some whales spouting, you'd be sensible to put something small and relatively disposable in the air rather than something with a Red Epic on it.

So, basically I'm hoping I can be flexible, cheaper than the 'fortune' you paid and offer my services to someone who's on a budget, get some footage we can both use and hopefully go onwards and upwards from there.

10 years ago - Marlom Tander

I take it back re the vids - went to YT for other reasons just after and the site seemed to be on a (rare) wobbly for a few moments. I have just gone back to yours and the vids work.

10 years ago - John Lubran

Much vaunted and prestigious award winning feature films have been shot with mini DV's and transmitted by major terrestrial broadcasters! There are good enough reasons why EBU specs are so specific but it is not beyond the wit of post production professionals to make the best of the most low grade of footage. We made good money from doing just that. One can over emphasize bit rates and all the other tech specs and the long list of successful productions proves it. Go-Pro footage from well operated drone platforms may not be the obvious choice for a big budget feature, even though it sometimes happens, however to say that such is only fit for the most down market projects is something that those who are selling pricier options and/or protecting market privilege might be expected to assert. This is not to suggest that the floodgates should be opened for any Tom, Dick or Harry with a Fisher Price camera (even though someone did just that to make a point). I've seen some lovely material from a £700 Maplins drone and a Go-pro operated by a precocious fifteen year old; and he sold it over and again. Just for the record, I have no pecuniary or any other 'incestuous interest in this issue. Content is always king.

10 years ago - Mät King

Stick with the positive, listening attitude Chris and keep going. Aerial footage has certainly become an option that customers now enquire about. We used some recently in a piece and think it's a great asset when used in the right circumstances. Our only concern with aerial footage is that it could become the new "timelapse", and be used to death. We used it sparingly in this one.
https://vimeo.com/131533642

10 years ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Hi Chris,

Just a year or so ago, I paid a fortune for Panasonic G4 footage from a £20k drone, since then I know at least 4 people who've bought smaller systems chasing the 'easy money' but who've found the market quite oversupplied now. Perhaps there's a way you can differentiate yourself?

10 years ago - Nigel Rogers

Personally I think the best thing to do is to look for new markets and opportunities. SUA's can be used on shots not possible on other systems, look for those. I also suggest don't look to be the cheap alternative for aerial work, offer something different, it is easier to do this with new tech. FYI Go pro just announced a new online resource for selling stock footage.

10 years ago - Chris Wood

Thanks for the suggestions, but I can't just fly wherever I want. That's what hobbyists think they can do, but they're wrong and the CAA aren't happy about it. Nor am I considering what it's cost to get certified. I did have someone approach me for stock footage, but he wanted it for free and a link back to my website, which didn't make good economic sense for me, given the restrictions in getting it in the first place. Helicopters don't have the same restrictions (others, of course), but: cost.

Yes, default GoPro isn't great - but still gets used everywhere - but shooting in Protune matches well with other cameras (I don't always use it though, I'll admit, as I quite like the GoPro 'look') and replacing that fisheye lens means many people can't always tell the difference between it and something bigger. Shooting in 4k and scaling down means the original 4:2:0 footage gets converted to something closer to 4:2:2, so you have more control over the image quality, 2.7K gives something almost as close, but with more speed options.

The Hero 5 (or Hero 4+) should be out soon - shops have stopped getting new stock of the Hero 4 and the price has dropped - and each generation improves the colour handling immensely. My Hero 3 looks very different to my 3+ and the 4 is better again, but you should also use some filters for best results. I use various NDs and a polarizing filter in bright light. You can't expect it to do everything.

10 years ago - Vasco de Sousa

My advice would be to practice every day, and attempt to sell stock footage. Whenever you go on holiday to somewhere interesting, shoot everything you can. Shoot all the interesting places within 100 miles of your base. There is a market for aerial stock footage of the right kind.

Beyond that, no, I don't use much aerial footage, and when I need it may decide to get stock footage. There was only one client who ever asked me for aerial footage, and when I said how much it would cast, that seemed to tune him off.

Also, GoPro drone isn't that great for what I do at the moment (I'd rather hire a helicopter if I could afford it), but I may consider something in the future for music videos, or filming re-enactments in a stylized manner if the quality was high enough. I haven't seen your footage, but I've had bad experiences with GoPro in general, it's kind of an amateur format.

(But for sports or something like that, you can get pretty fun shots.)

10 years ago - Chris Wood

Hi John,

Frame rate stuttering or vibration? They're all running at 30fps - a bit smoother than 24/25 for pans etc. - so I'd say it's possibly monitor refresh/ YouTube doing it's usual magic. If you download them with something like the Free "4K Video Downloader" (Google it, free and safe with very minimal ads which can be ignored) you'll be able to eliminate that from the equation and check on your machine or another. One or two earlier videos have a touch of vibration that crept in from the airframe in a couple of shots, but that's since been addressed. But as you implied 'all of them' I'm guessing it wasn't that you were referring to.

10 years ago - Claire Buckley

Chris, interesting thread.

First I should point out to people here that getting CAA approval to fly a UAV drone commercially here in the UK is about £2000 (UAV - Unmanned Aerial Vehicle).

A few training organisations with CAA acreditation are now available here in the UK and running courses around the country. They're often three-day courses. Okay, you get approved to fly commercially, as you have found, but then what?

I am a qualified glider pilot (which gives some CAA currency - but not much) and I am now in the process of getting UAV approved. However, I do have the work for exisitng clients lined up. My flight footage is for corporate not for broadcast, although we do keep to pretty high technical standards regardless. If I expand to a broadcast rig (up to 15Kg pay load) I will need CAA certification and approval on that rig too (I am a shooting producer).

Last year we were producing for broadcast and the two-man aerial rates to launch say a Lumix GH4 or above up to a 15Kg pay- load (giving a broadcast 10 bit 4:2:2 specc) two-man crewing is £1500 per shoot day with a £200 travel day to location or standby per day due to weather of £400 - a heck of a lot cheaper than a Bell Jet Ranger and rig at about £2000 per hour per flying day.

To really do it properly, you do need a two-person crew - one to fly and one to operate the gimbal camera either as second unit or under direction. You will get no broadcast work (perhaps a budget-strapped magazine programme) with a one-man operated UAV Inspire of Phantom with GoPro or Phantom 3 camera. The broadcaster is likely to reject your footage anyways.

The problem with GoPro rigs and the Phantom 3 (Professional) is 8 bit 4:2:0, as opposed to10 bit 4:2:2 (as I think you touched on). Although I think the new DJI Phantom does shoot at a 60mps sample rate which is quite good. But you are flying drone AND camera. DJI and their likes will sell tons and flood the market but you really need to be realistic about obtaining work with a GoPro or with the DJI kit.

All the best...

Claire

10 years ago - Chris Wood

Well, I wouldn't use a CP - weird effects when panning in sunshine - but a linear Polarising filter produces some nice punch to sky and clouds.

10 years ago - John Lubran

@Claire. Probably a bit to severe to say that one man operation Go-pro is not used for broadcast. Such material is used quite a lot. Nevertheless a lot of camera and filming know how well beyond the basic flying requirements of the CAA is essential. CAA could care less if all ones footage is crap! Smooth motion is one thing and properly focused and exposed is another. There is often a degree of broadcast tolerance for ariel footage if it's not too far from EBU specs. Good ND selection and avoiding gimmicky lenses makes things work. I doubt polarisors are appropriate at all for a moving drone shot!

10 years ago - Chris Wood

@Mät King, sparingly is right... :) 4 shots of between 1-4 seconds each? You show you don't always need a lot, and they're just another story-telling tool to add to your arsenal. ( I actually quite like well done timelapses though :) )

@Claire, Yes, I think probably paid about £2000 and it's Operations Manual resubmission time very soon which is going to cost another couple of hundred, plus a new CAA PFAW certificate, plus my £5Million PL insurance is due for renewal in about a month, so add another £1K for those.

You going above 7kg puts you in a whole new ballpark as far as equipment costs, restrictions and risk. The CAA are much more limiting on what they'll let you fly around in a city above that and you'll need more notice than I've been able to give to fly near airfields and airports, if at all. A 15Kg payload maybe also putting you over the next stage, which is 20kg, which has even more hurdles. Yikes. For that reason, my larger aircraft is still under 7kg.

You say Phantom 3 and Inspire 1 output is not fit for broadcast, but I see it everywhere, just everywhere. Before that there was a lot of Phantom 2 and GoPro work, with and without fisheye lens modification. Lots of nature programs flying around jungles etc. There is a guy in the States making a (not so) small fortune converting GoPros to various flat lenses for TV companies who don't want to do it themselves (not just for aerial of course: in car etc.), but if you've got a steady hand, the right tools and good eyesight: you can do it yourself.

Phantom 3 and Inspire 1 produce 4k@30, or 1080@60 and many TV programs seem to think that's just fine, given what I'm seeing broadcast for the few seconds the footage is on screen. Personally, I prefer my GoPro Hero 4 Black also giving me 2.7k@60/50/48 and 1080p@120/100 for more slowmo options as well as the ability to downscale to 4:2:2 (or more like 4:2:1 if using 2.7k >1080p). True, if you want it to stay at 4K@30, then you've *only* got 4:2:0, but it's Protune, so blends well.

Yes, it's true two man crews do make some shots easier, but you can almost always get the same, or similar shot flying the aircraft alone, with practice. POI circling a subject is probably easier done just by the pilot. Tracking an off-road car around some bends in a forest stage does need two people though, that's for sure, as is anything that needs 3+ hands to capture it.

3DR have just launched the Solo which adds some nice features - POI circling and Cable Cam - to make certain shots easier, but they're still getting the wrinkles out, as well as refining their gimbal, but the POI allows you to set the centre, radius and rotational speed and you control elevation and tilt while it does it itself.

Aerial is just a tool, and if you work out how much time it'll be on screen, calculate how much per second you want it to cost and see what your budget says you want to put in the air to get that footage. Spending thousands getting a Red Epic in the air for a total of 10 seconds of footage might be overkill.

I think it would be fair to say that 99.99% of people who see Mät's video could not tell if the aerial was done with a (flat lens modified) GoPro or not. You want just a little bling: you might just be able to go smaller and cheaper for *some* projects.

It's also interesting in how the 3-axis gimbals on aircraft are being used in lots of other ways (and with modified GoPros) to compete with the larger Steadicam rigs. This video does *not* use aerial footage, but my favourite shot is the continous one from 1:18 to 1:43 on 'Real GTA' by Corridor Digital on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZZquVylLEo although all the shots are pretty smooth, as they're emulating an 'in game' floating camera. They do a 'behind the scenes' which explains how they did most of it.

10 years ago - Chris Wood

Back from a brief holiday and....I think John put it very well. It wasn't my intention to spark a format/quality war, but surely the market can stand a range of options geared towards people's budgets and requirements?

@Claire, faster frame rates and larger image/frame sizes don't only sound good, they allow you to have more control over the result. Slowmo for emphasis on a specific section, perhaps - or cropping in slightly to allow for subject tracking in a traveling shot, which you can do more accurately with a larger 4k or 2.7k frame than you could with a 1080p source. E.g. flying backwards ahead of a horse/car and keeping the rider's/driver's head completely still in the frame so you can read their expression is a challenge that might be easier to do in post than repeatedly trying to fly at exactly the same speed as the horse/car and keep things fresh and within budget for the other assets.

If your final format is 1080p you'll never see the tracking work because you're scaling it further anyway; and if you stay at 4k, you've got so many extra pixels you'd be very hard pushed to spot the difference between a 4k shot and zoomed in 3.8k shot right next to each other, whereas a 1080p / 980p comparison might be more visible.

10 years ago - Chris Wood

Marlom,

First of all, thanks for the detailed replies. Time is valuable and it's incredible generous of you to break things down like that.

Feedback is always useful, and honest, direct feedback that I can actually address rather than "Meh, seen better" really helps.

I hadn't ever considered the out of focus header would be judged as an example of work quality, but if you've done it, so will others. When style over substance fails: time to fix it.

Thanks for coming back after you checked the videos do play after all. I'd tested on Safari, Chrome, IE, Firefox, iOS and Android, XP, Vista and Windows 7, and was wondering what Firefox wanted that was different when running on Ubuntu.

Location and Phone number: good advice and something I can easily fix.

Dated and Homemade. Well, yes. Homemade : check. Dated : My host is a bit limited on how their templates can be edited, and they don't offer a 'mobile' version where you can tune the page content specifically for mobiles, so it's a compromise on what will work best on the most viewing devices. I also wanted try to K.I.S.S., rather than have multiple pages. Changing hosts is an option, but: money? time? added value?. Something for me to think about, though and I can certainly look again at the style.

I've tried getting into agriculture and forestry with no success, but maybe I need to try harder, as it's time to pay this year's fees and PL insurance premiums soon.

Thanks again.

10 years ago - Claire Buckley

@John
Anything can be said to be broadcast just depends upon the necessity and need. News and Magazine - they don't care as they probably won't have the budget for post anyway.
In all of these gadgets it does come down to what's under the bonnet. And this follows on @chris It's still all All 8 bit. Too often falls apart in post if you want to do anything of value. It's not whether it's 4k or whatever if it's 4k 4:2:0 (chroma subsampling) and 8 bit then it belongs where it was intended and that's prosumer on YouTube. I'm not sure what image sizes and frame rates have to do with any of this - but it sounds good :)
Good luck with your Ops Manual Chris.