Jump to content
JetPilot

Hi Definition Video FPV - Can we do this ?

Recommended Posts

Its just a matter of time before 16 X 9 bullet cameras are being sold, and bullet cams that are capable of high definition :P Does anyone know of any small cameras like this that are being sold now ? And when they do come out, will they work with our current 2.4 GHZ video transmitters and receivers ?

I dont care to much about my system being "true" high definition in every technical aspect, but I would love to have a 16 X 9 FPV system, that would make a much better and more realistic flying experience :D

JettPilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that would make a much better and more realistic flying experience :D

JettPilot

Well, you would also need 16:9 video goggles. Otherwise it wouldn't do anything more than a wider angle lens would do (except at the expense of trimming the top and bottom of the image).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FMD-250W EyeTrek glasses have 16:9 wide mode option and I agree - it looks much better for flying than 4:3 mode. One of my buddies likes the wide mode so much that he flies with 16:9 display using 4:3 camera.

I don't know of any bullet cameras that will do 16:9 unfortunately.

I am also looking into getting HD transmission going for FPV. One idea is to use three separate video channels for component inputs. I haven't actually tried it but it seems feesible. The bandwith will be cut to the video channel bandwidth, so some specialized wide band equipment is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16:9 dose not interest me, I can crop a 4:3 picture if I want it but higher definition sounds interesting. I would also be interested in transmitting in digital.

Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice ! But its way low on power, so it would need an amplifier :angry: Also the price is not listed, and that usually means more than I am willing to spend !

Im not so interested in True High Definition, as just a good quality 16 x 9 system that I can fly with. In current or near future video goggles, I doubt I would see any difference between Hi Def or Hi quality normal. The 16 x 9 in non hi def is what I would want in the forseeable future.

JettPilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have this camera. ( I did not use to FPV yet )

KPC-HD38CZCM

http://www.ktnc.co.kr/product_07_02.asp

I Think that is one o the most HI definition micro cameras in the market today. The "CS" lens give more definition than the classical"board"

I tested it in my TV and it has more brillants colors and more definition.

The cam comes without LENS, you must buy it. I bought 3 lens.

a)Autoris, with manual zoom, autofocus.

B)Autoiris with FIX zoom, manual focus

C)FIX iris and FIX ZOOM and manual focus

I noted that the autoiris not give so better quality. So, the lens with FIX iris -FIX zoom - Manual focus is the best choise quality&weight.

The problem with this camera is that must be supply with exact 12V. ( dont work with 11V :( ) . So you need an anyvolt.

You have 2 version: PAL & NTSC.

In the rear side you can change the light winning, add digital zoom if you want, etc.

Very very good cammera for Hi denfinition FPV

COST? around 240 - 300$

Sergio

Edited by sergio00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not 2.5ghz, I think you saw 2.5mhz bandwidth, it says (2350 - 2500 MHz) . At 250mW it is very usable for me as it should give 1.5 miles easy but it dose look very heavy and my aircraft are too small to carry it. JP did you check out this page http://www.dtccom.com/uav-uvg-and-robots.html they have a 5W system for you. Bet your right about the price though ;)

Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you want 16/9?? You can just cover the top and bottom of your goggles' LCD's to get it ;)

EDIT: Sergio, I have that camera too, but took the board version. It's pretty good indeed, haven't had a chance to test it in flight yet though.However, I've been able to use it down to 7V...

Edited by Kilrah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KT&C.... good Korean made cameras! I picked up one of their bullet cam last year with the optional remote for zooming. Picture is really NICE! The zooming is just digital magnification but still it will be fun little project.

If your new KT&C 520tvl camera is similar to my EX-View 520tvl, it may consume more juice than 7 volts. Mine is quite happy at 9 volts so still that's ok! :)

I wonder if VRFlyer will try out his Sony camera with the vari-focal lens, auto iris on one of his planes? <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried running it on a small 2s/200 mAh lipo, it worked up to 7V, with 30mAh remaining in the battery. Pretty good :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would you want 16/9?? You can just cover the top and bottom of your goggles' LCD's to get it

FMD-250W adds pixels in 16:9 format. That extra area makes quite a difference. ;) But if talking in general, I don't care if the image 4:3 or 16:9 format. I do like more pixels and wider aperture of the screen :P .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here. I do enjoy 16/9 video, but when flying FPV the more area and thus field of view I can get the best it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same here. I do enjoy 16/9 video, but when flying FPV the more area and thus field of view I can get the best it is.

You seem to be describing a wide aspect ratio video as shown on a standard aspect ratio monitor (ie: black bars on top and bottom). But if the goggles are wide aspect ratio to begin with, then it's possible to get MORE viewing area. You could get a wider horizontal FOV, rather than a smaller vertical FOV that you seem to be describing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd get the same if after adding the black bars you chose a wider angle lens ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is 2 ways to look at this. 4:3 chops off the sides or 16:9 chops off the top and bottom. As Kilrah says the lens will decide what you see not the aspect ratio. I like to see from the horizon to as far under the plane as I can, as big as I can so 4:3 suits me but some will want to see a wider picture. If you use a pan or head tracker then there is no need for 16:9but the choice is yours ;)

Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chopping the top and bottom off the picture is a bad idea. If I wanted to do that, I could just crop it the video after shooting it, but the idea is to get a better bigger FOV, not a smaller one.

Look at HDTV, they did not take an old 4x9 set and crop the picture, that would just plain suck. What a true 16 x 9 system would need to do is to take what we have now and make it a lot wider, to give a greater FOV than our current systems do. That would give a more theater like experience, as opposed to watching an Old TV. Also 16 x 9 video would correctly fit modern wide screen TV's and wide screen monitors.

The old 4 x 3 is going the way of the diansaur, it will be obsolete very soon. One day, no one will want to see those " Old 4x 3 " videos.

JettPilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'd get the same if after adding the black bars you chose a wider angle lens ;)

I'm talking about extending the display screen to the sides, not shrinking it top/bottom. This would give you a more immersive FPV experience. Coupled with a 16:9 camera, this would be truly awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I get it. But I'd rather stay 4/3 with either higher FOV goggles or lens. I like seeing the horizon in the most possible flight attitudes. So if I was to widen horizontal view, having the height follow would seem even better to me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I have the 16:9 with extra top and bottom to give me 4:3 please. :)

Before we get bogged down on who likes 4:3 and who likes 16:9 I think we are all agreed that we would all like higher definition but some want it wide. Its up to you but my eyes are closer to 4:3 than 16:9 :lol:

Terry

Edited by Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sergio00 :

I think this is the camera you were talking about:

http://digitalsurveillancesolutions.com/se...KPC-HD38CZV.htm

I have ordered from them before, they carry a lot, but not all the options. I have one of these:

http://digitalsurveillancesolutions.com/se...KPCHD230CWX.htm

Which is nice, but it dosn't have 768(H) X 492(V) effective pixles, it's listed as:

NTSC - 510(H) x 492(V) I wonder what the difference is in picture quality? It's strange that it only has more pixles in the H direction, makes me wonder if it has a 16/9 mode that isn't active at the moment.

It would be nice to have a sticky thread somewhere with good screen shots of all these cameras, it's a pain to drop $200 on a camera just to find it's no better or even worse than what you have. I supose the capture method would probably screw up a really good analisis though.

Kilrah, you seem to have a bunch of cameras, how about an evalutation thread??

While I'm posting, any one try this one yet?

take a look at future hobbies 520 line sony camera, sure looks like the same one, a couple of the specs are a little off, so it's hard to tell. Nice price though.

http://www.futurehobbies.com/items.asp?id=14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilrah, you seem to have a bunch of cameras, how about an evalutation thread??

I might do that, that would actually be useful to me too ;)

I don't have anything stored, each time I receive one I usually just compare it with a reference one and that's it, I've never kept screenshots. If I do it I'll do it correctly with a resolution chart shot as the FOV differences would make it hard to judge that point from a standard image, and an outside shot on a sunny day for colors.

I'll wait a few more days as I'm waiting for a parcel with new ones ;)

Regarding your pixel issue, the effective pixel spec doesn't mean anything, you'd better just forget about it. Read the TV line resolution instead, it's the only one we can have some trust in.

Some CMOS I have states using 628x582 pixels, yet that doesn't include the treatment that goes behind and only gives out 380 lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem in getting Hi-Def video to the ground isn't a camera (there are plenty hi-res cameras around) but the downlink. I am yet to find TX/RX system that will do Hi-Def video stream. Some previous links posted here are not for Hi-Def, (digital doesn't mean Hi-Def). And even or when I find one I assume the price tag will be astronomical. Also keep in mind that many MPEG compressing systems (which at the core of today Hi-Def broadcasting) will introduce significant delay into the signal. And pure (non-compressing) Hi-Def require too much bandwidth to be practical. I believe a compromise needs to be found between compression and bandwidth. But I haven't seen anything viable yet (anything that will cost less than my car to be exact).

At this stage I am almost convinced I have to build my own TX/RX for Hi-Def FPV downlink, but I am happy to be proved wrong.

Edited by cyber-flyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×