- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 0
DiegoF said:Yes unwatchable jello.
I hope that in this case depends on the propeller
CunningStuntFlyer said:FPV col said:DiegoF said:Yes unwatchable jello.
I hope that in this case depends on the propeller
He is running unbalanced carbon fibre props.. Not really ideal for a Gimbal test ! Standard properly balanced props is the way to go..
The props are irrelevant. There are other examples of gimbaled Vision cameras, using stock props with plenty of jello in bright sunshine. This is clearly an issue with the isolation system and/or the limitations of the mediocre FC200 camera.
An ND filter should help.
CunningStuntFlyer said:Scottrod said:Jello has absolutely nothing to do with the type of camera.
You are posting nonsense once again.
Scottrod said:Plenty of hobbyists out there using those go pros with tons of jello. It has to do with the mount type. ;-)
I can capture video with some jello using a gimbaled gopro in bright light at 1080/30p.
The jello will disappear if I shoot in the same conditions at 1080/60p.
So yes, the camera has a great deal to do with whether there will be jello in footage captured in bright sunlight.
That's why folks with the aforementioned mediocre FC200 (that is limited to highly compressed 1080/30p - 1080/60i) would be wise if they used a more stable mounting platform or an ND filter to slow the shutter down to eliminate the jello.
Studiowise said:Has anyone found an ND that works well with the filter holder on the dronexpert gimbal?
I communicated with DE about my weight / imbalance concerns and they assured me the filter holder at 13g and a filter at say 30g should have no detrimental effect on the gimbals capability to perform as shipped.
All my stock of step downs and filters are metal and glass so i'd like to find some lighter options.
DiegoF said:this seems to work well, it weighs only 5,66 grams
CunningStuntFlyer said:Scottrod said:goofy pic
You're projecting again.
CunningStuntFlyer said:"The props are irrelevant. There are other examples of gimbaled Vision cameras, using stock props with plenty of jello in bright sunshine. This is clearly an issue with the isolation system and/or the limitations of the mediocre FC200.
CunningStuntFlyer said:Scottrod said:CunningStuntFlyer said:"The props are irrelevant. There are other examples of gimbaled Vision cameras, using stock props with plenty of jello in bright sunshine. This is clearly an issue with the isolation system and/or the limitations of the mediocre FC200.
You continue to confuse yourself. You simply said (and I quote), "The props are irrelevant". I suppose you're right. My engineering degree must have come out of a Cracker Jack box. Yet again, you attempt to come across as intelligent and you are simply making an ******* out of yourself.
The previous poster is correct. Unbalanced props will have a great affect on any test.
Context is key. You are misquoting me. Read the second and third sentences of my quote for context. If you are still struggling, go back and read the relevant section of the thread a few times.
Good luck.
Studiowise said:DiegoF said:this seems to work well, it weighs only 5,66 grams
Thanks for the info.
Nice to see a reply without any oversized pharmaceuticals! :lol:
DronePeter said:I hate to see your stupid face with the coffee cup on every thread.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.