AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Read the latest news and announcements.
KerryG
Strange wobble
Posts: 229
Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 02:48

Re: AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Post by KerryG » 25 Jan 2012, 04:30

Good results with GoPros? Thats certainly debatable. Personally I think the jello-effect makes me want to toss my lunch up. Its virtually impossible to stabilize a camera as light as a GoPro. Are the results "acceptable to them", possibly but its still far from "good". I don't know what previews you have seen outside of marketing info from Parrot. Yes, the specs are better and the claims from Parrot are better, but there are no real-world tests to look at.

Nowhere, in any Parrot material is there any description of being able to "fly a predetermined path" since that would require GPS. All you get extra is "fly sideways for x seconds" "climb slow" and "flow forward/back for x seconds".

The extra range that 802.11n gives you may well be worthwhile, assuming your mobile device has 802.11n ability.

knoxploration
Chased the cat
Posts: 439
Joined: 26 Dec 2011, 23:08
Drone Type: AR.Drone
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee

Re: AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Post by knoxploration » 25 Jan 2012, 06:50

KerryG wrote:Good results with GoPros? Thats certainly debatable. Personally I think the jello-effect makes me want to toss my lunch up. Its virtually impossible to stabilize a camera as light as a GoPro. Are the results "acceptable to them", possibly but its still far from "good".
Rolling shutter can be corrected to some degree in post-processing. So can the overly aggressive fisheye effect of the GoPros, which personally I find more objectionable. I think many would consider this quality to be good, especially at the pricepoint we're talking about for the AR.Drone and GoPro:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Srfs2gAcvks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...and even in the hands of somebody who clearly is less of a pro, pretty acceptable results are possible -- there's not much more than slight shimmer from rolling shutter in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBjPhDdz7To" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
KerryG wrote:I don't know what previews you have seen outside of marketing info from Parrot. Yes, the specs are better and the claims from Parrot are better, but there are no real-world tests to look at.
There are plenty of hands-on previews out there, not just people parroting the Parrot marketing materials (pun intended). Here's just a handful:

"The original Drone required the skill of an expert, because there was a serious learning curve in order to get good at flying it, but version 2.0 is much easier to control." -- The Verge

"Perhaps best of all, it's now even easier to pilot ... It's incredibly intuitive. We got some hands-on time with it and we couldn't believe how easy it was to gently maneuver it around a room, carefully weaving around people will cocktails and hors d'oeuvres." -- Gizmodo

"It is much easier to fly" -- Geek.com
KerryG wrote:Nowhere, in any Parrot material is there any description of being able to "fly a predetermined path" since that would require GPS. All you get extra is "fly sideways for x seconds" "climb slow" and "flow forward/back for x seconds".
...which is a predetermined path. The Drone 1.0 couldn't fly a certain direction for a preset duration, could it? No. You're just nitpicking.
KerryG wrote:The extra range that 802.11n gives you may well be worthwhile, assuming your mobile device has 802.11n ability.
Glad to see we can agree on one thing (although this one is questionable -- it's perfectly possible there's no range advantage at all, depending on how Parrot's implemented this.)

KerryG
Strange wobble
Posts: 229
Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 02:48

Re: AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Post by KerryG » 25 Jan 2012, 07:25

The only hands-on references were from people flying in a very small area at CES, not really real-world scenarios there. The new relative control mode will certainly be easier for newbies.

When I think of a pre-determined path, I am thinking setting waypoints. "Flight for 5 seconds" isn't so much a path as it is simply a direction.

It's interesting that you picked that example as it is almost ideal conditions for a GoPro. Bright daylight with no shade is the worst because it forces the GoPro's shutter into high speed. You can eliminate a lot of the jello effect simply by cutting down the light, you can do this with a neutral density filter. Still, I wish it wasn't so freaking wide.

I hope that the new interface on the 2.0 allows easier modifications like 2.4ghz systems.

bluntnose
Up and hovering
Posts: 123
Joined: 24 Dec 2011, 11:04
Location: Nevada desert

Re: AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Post by bluntnose » 25 Jan 2012, 18:56

I agree with your general conclusion about the drone's limits (and the GoPro) visavis pro aerial photography, but my standards are lower. I admit I'm easy, and not particularly sophisticated when it comes to real film-making standards. My son, who's a pro filmmaker, would never settle for this setup. And I have friends who are chagrined at my standards for sound quality. They can really hear the differences in sound quality, while I'm happy with a little scratch, if I like the artist.

I think I'd be proud to show my family some cheesy aerial videography from our southwest area, thump my chest and say "I, I make moving picture!" My son will no doubt clap me on the back and say something like "Wow! That's great, Dad--what's for dinner? And please don't be playing that Godawful Dylan record." And while he's eating I'll be making sure that his kids plague him forever by repeatedly telling him what a great filmmaker their Grampa is. It all works out.

I will, of coure, have to rely upon post-processing to sort out my faux-pas. :mrgreen:

knoxploration
Chased the cat
Posts: 439
Joined: 26 Dec 2011, 23:08
Drone Type: AR.Drone
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee

Re: AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Post by knoxploration » 25 Jan 2012, 19:32

KerryG wrote:The only hands-on references were from people flying in a very small area at CES, not really real-world scenarios there. The new relative control mode will certainly be easier for newbies.
Depends what you consider "real world". Some of these folks have tested the original AR.Drone; they say the 2.0 is significantly easier more stable. That's good enough for me to know it's worth waiting if you are considering buying, *unless* you can get a significant discount over retail pricing. You'll kick yourself in a couple of months if you don't, that's for sure.
When I think of a pre-determined path, I am thinking setting waypoints. "Flight for 5 seconds" isn't so much a path as it is simply a direction.
But it's still something that your drone and mine can't do, isn't it?
It's interesting that you picked that example as it is almost ideal conditions for a GoPro. Bright daylight with no shade is the worst because it forces the GoPro's shutter into high speed. You can eliminate a lot of the jello effect simply by cutting down the light, you can do this with a neutral density filter. Still, I wish it wasn't so freaking wide.
One example was in shade. One was in bright daylight (sunny, cloud-free day) with no shade (high altitude and direct sunlight visible on the ground). Neither had much rolling shutter. (The bright daylight one had very minor shimmering in the video that's caused by vibration-induced rolling shutter, but it was very minor and barely objectionable for most people.)
I hope that the new interface on the 2.0 allows easier modifications like 2.4ghz systems.
Me too...

KerryG
Strange wobble
Posts: 229
Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 02:48

Re: AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Post by KerryG » 25 Jan 2012, 22:13

It remains to be seen how useful the new flight commands are. There was only about a 20x20 space at CES so "fly for 5 seconds" wasn't really an option. There are apps available that can do this today.

I didn't think it was much more stable than my 1.0 drone. The new relative flight mode is certainly MUCH easier for inexperienced flyers to get the hang of. Drone Ace already has that feature, so nothing new there. (unless you are on Android like me in which case you do not have any software to do that.

The rolling shutter will continue to be the major issue, even in those examples, its far too distracting "for me" but for casual recreational use, I can see where it may be "good enough", I will give you that one.

knoxploration
Chased the cat
Posts: 439
Joined: 26 Dec 2011, 23:08
Drone Type: AR.Drone
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee

Re: AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Post by knoxploration » 26 Jan 2012, 16:55

KerryG wrote:The rolling shutter will continue to be the major issue, even in those examples, its far too distracting "for me" but for casual recreational use, I can see where it may be "good enough", I will give you that one.
You are aware that quite a few real TV programs are shooting with GoPro gear, right? (Most recent one I saw was one from the Beeb with James May in it, forget what the program was called.)

bluntnose
Up and hovering
Posts: 123
Joined: 24 Dec 2011, 11:04
Location: Nevada desert

Re: AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Post by bluntnose » 26 Jan 2012, 17:38

How did you find out they were using GoPro for that? Is there someplace on the web where they detail using the GoPro or similar for that quality of video (i.e. broadcast footage?), other than the Parrot page where they show a couple of videos from CNN or somebody on after-disaster destruction of chapels etc? Might be kind of interesting to see if there is a viable competitor for GoPro which is no heavier than it is; I've seen a page showing footage of car racing shot with the Replay for broadcast, but I've concluded that the Replay is no better than GoPro and a little more expensive. Saw a side-by-side comparo of the 2 that came out in GoPro's favor for me.

BronxDrone
Ready for take off
Posts: 48
Joined: 24 Jan 2012, 22:13
Location: obvious

Re: AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Post by BronxDrone » 26 Jan 2012, 18:14

"An Idiot Abroad" also uses the GoPro quite extensively for close up action shots, POV and helmet cams. It is also used for similar production work in "Alaskan Gold Rush", "Survivor Man" and a few other docudramas on the Discovery networks.

knoxploration
Chased the cat
Posts: 439
Joined: 26 Dec 2011, 23:08
Drone Type: AR.Drone
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee

Re: AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Post by knoxploration » 26 Jan 2012, 21:04

bluntnose wrote:How did you find out they were using GoPro for that? Is there someplace on the web where they detail using the GoPro or similar for that quality of video (i.e. broadcast footage?), other than the Parrot page where they show a couple of videos from CNN or somebody on after-disaster destruction of chapels etc? Might be kind of interesting to see if there is a viable competitor for GoPro which is no heavier than it is; I've seen a page showing footage of car racing shot with the Replay for broadcast, but I've concluded that the Replay is no better than GoPro and a little more expensive. Saw a side-by-side comparo of the 2 that came out in GoPro's favor for me.
For the James May thing you clearly saw the GoPro several times, although being a Beeb production it was never identified by name...

KerryG
Strange wobble
Posts: 229
Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 02:48

Re: AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Post by KerryG » 27 Jan 2012, 01:25

Also Mythbusters and Deadliest Catch. The rolling shutter is really only an issue for us because of the AR Drone's vibrations. Sitting in the back of a storage locker on Storage Wars doesnt introduce much in the way of rolling shutter issues.

knoxploration
Chased the cat
Posts: 439
Joined: 26 Dec 2011, 23:08
Drone Type: AR.Drone
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee

Re: AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Post by knoxploration » 27 Jan 2012, 02:05

KerryG wrote:Also Mythbusters and Deadliest Catch. The rolling shutter is really only an issue for us because of the AR Drone's vibrations. Sitting in the back of a storage locker on Storage Wars doesnt introduce much in the way of rolling shutter issues.
Rolling shutter is an issue for anything with fast motion, to be honest. It doesn't matter whether it's vibrations, or just a head-mounted camera -- if the person isn't sitting near-stationary and keeping their head near-still, you're going to see it. Most of the places where these cameras are being used, rolling shutter is visible.

Which is why it surprises me that GoPro hasn't addressed it with a CCD-based camera yet. They're much less prone to rolling shutter, and there are CCD-based cameras out there that are capable of high quality 1080p capture. I presume it comes down to them not wanting to add the slight cost difference to the bill of materials, and the slight difference in power drain to the battery.

szuu
Strange wobble
Posts: 249
Joined: 05 Sep 2011, 03:04

Re: AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Post by szuu » 01 Apr 2012, 13:31

with the new 2.0 drone, can we see more or less?
fieldofview.jpg
and that's what i meant, saying that in most cases, the more correct name for the modern and trendy "widescreen" devices would be "low screen" devices :P of course this case is not completely bad, because at least we a little more horizontal FOV and not only lose the vertical FOV.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

knoxploration
Chased the cat
Posts: 439
Joined: 26 Dec 2011, 23:08
Drone Type: AR.Drone
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee

Re: AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Post by knoxploration » 02 Apr 2012, 03:54

szuu wrote:with the new 2.0 drone, can we see more or less?
fieldofview.jpg
and that's what i meant, saying that in most cases, the more correct name for the modern and trendy "widescreen" devices would be "low screen" devices :P of course this case is not completely bad, because at least we a little more horizontal FOV and not only lose the vertical FOV.
...and also, because we have two eyes side by side, humans have a much wider horizontal angle of view than our vertical angle of view. Supposedly, most people settle on 1.7:1 as the most comfortable; 16:9 is 1.78:1, 3:2 is 1.5:1, and 4:3 is 1.33:1, making 16:9 the closest to what's typically considered comfortable. (The actual field of view for typical human eyesight covers around 180 degrees horizontally, but only ~135 degrees vertically, which can't be directly equated to an aspect ratio, but that I believe includes peripheral vision where towards the extremes we see progressively less detail, have worse shape and color recognition, and reduced depth perception).

User avatar
Jhawk19
Made it over nextdoor
Posts: 274
Joined: 11 Dec 2010, 17:30
Drone Type: Bebop
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Re: AR.Drone 2.0 - What looks new and/or improved.

Post by Jhawk19 » 02 Apr 2012, 15:50

Pre-Ordered my Drone 2.0 yesterday.

I've heard rumors about early shipping from Brookstone. Can anyone confirm? I saw, on another forum, a ship date of 4/9/2012.

BTW, the pic below is on Parrot's site. The batteries from the old Drone and all of the 3rd party batts we've purchased WILL WORK in the 2.0.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests