Dronexpert gimbal for Phantom Vision

Booo. I've heard just under $600 and that was with all the fees including PayPal.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2
 
Man from 2:00-2:25 the jello is horrible. But other then that it's a great video.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2
 
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..
 
I just don't understand why people put up videos demonstrating a new product while making disclaimers that their equipment is sub par. What's the point? Many people will look at this and assume the gimbal is at fault. Get it together people. There's enough P2V bashing out there without adding fuel to the fire (not to mention misrepresenting the product being highlighted).

Oi!
 
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.

Jello has absolutely nothing to do with the type of camera. Plenty of hobbyists out there using those go pros with tons of jello. It has to do with the mount type. ;-)
 
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.

uzanytuh.jpg
 
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.
 
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.

this seems to work well, it weighs only 5,66 grams
 

Attachments

  • nd.jpg
    nd.jpg
    266.3 KB · Views: 397
CunningStuntFlyer said:
Scottrod said:
goofy pic

You're projecting again.

Sorry but there is no nice way to say you're wrong. The quality of the camera has absolutely nothing to do with jello. The jello is caused by the vibration from the props, hence the reason DJI put rubber dampers between the vision camera and the body of the machine.

I see you across this forum repeatedly talk out your ***. You have no clue what you're talking about yet you repeatedly talk to people across the forum like a typical I-think-I-know-it-all.
 
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.
 
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.

LOL. I'm misquoting you? How so? Maybe my quote button works differently than yours. ;-)
 
DronePeter said:
I hate to see your stupid face with the coffee cup on every thread.

You don't have to, pretty sure that's why the Foe list exists.
I use it to hide the posts of those who's info I don't value or those that think directing abuse at others somehow makes them right.

(Waits for f@ck off Studiowise)
 
DronePeter you get to join CunningStuntFlyer on my Foe List. I'm sure you two will enjoy each other's company.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,102
Messages
1,467,651
Members
104,991
Latest member
tpren3