Converting my CS gimbal to a brushless gimbal

Thank Bill. I agree. The point of these BL gimbals is to eliminate the need to do any post stabilization regardless of what lens or camera used. I've seen a few raw results from BL gimbals where the results we're mind blowing for example the footage in my original post. We should all be achieving similar Cineflex results.

 

Howard:I have direct drive on all axis as you can see from the pictures I attached to my post above.
Bill: Actually the lens is Canon EF 20mm f/2.8.

The PID´s are also attached above. Any hints on how to alter them? Especially pan axis. Not surprisingly I wish to make the need for post processing as small as possible.

 

Guys,

This whole thread is a very interesting read and I am looking at upgrading my CS3 to Brushless but using the G-Lock upgrade to the Radian as opposed to AlexMoss, however, I have a few questions based on what I have read:

1. Can someone recommend a supplier of the mounts and frames for the motors that appear to be needed to switch over as well as aluminium clamps that it looks like most people switch over to.

2. What are the best motors to buy as I am looking to fly Nikon D7100/D800's / D4 and also RED at some stage

3. I am currently using the HDMI/composite converter from Kopterworx, however, can someone suggest any other options, especially as when doing stills with the Nikon there is 3 second delay each time you take a picture before the image refreshes on the ground station which is very frustrating.

Thanks in advance

Gary

 

Bill I'm talking exclusively about stabilization post processing, a whole separate step from RAW processing. ALL footage should go through some form of grading post processing...stabilization shouldn't be one.

 

@Howard: I too thing colour grading should be the only post process, not stabilising. But so far I am not there. Are you? I think Movi might be the way to go if you want 100% stable image. Or DJI Zenmuse gimbals for smaller cameras. Lets hope Alexmos can achieve this in the future too.

@Bill. Thanks for the tips. The horizontal arms are pointing upwards because only that way I can achieve good roll balance.

 

This is the performance level BL gimbals should provide, no bouncing and horizon roll:

Both examples are using 5D3 with 16-35mm lens...this lens does not have built-in IS.

Brad Meier - Movi


Perspectiv aerials - not sure which gimbal but it's not Movi


I haven't reach either performance levels yet but clearly it is possible. I certainly won't be posting any videos until it's at either level...what's the use otherwise.

 

"The roll and tilt work reasonably well, but as you can see from the video, the pan is not moving smoothly. Especially when I pan slowly, the movement is jerky, as if the pan was moving in steps. When the copter is on a table, the pan is not still either. It is moving back and forth."

Have you tried reversing the motor direction in the GUI.

"Also the manual pitch control is drifting a little bit even when the transmitter stick is in middle position."

you can set the dead band center point in the GUI. also, obviously make sure all of your trims are center on the radio.

 

Yes, Bill is dead on. Horizontal tilt bars should be 90 degrees. Movi eliminated this adjustment with their updated gimbal...now it's fixed at 90.

 

Bill Much thanks

 

@ Bill and Howard.

Thanks for the opinions guys. I ordered these dual adjustable tilt bars a couple of days ago:

http://www.aliexpress.com/snapshot/6002992452.html

Hope they enable me to return the horizontal bars into 90 degrees.

I actually had to adjust the subtrim in my radio to keep pad and tilt still.

Merry christmas everyone!

 

Howard, I haven't seen any footage from reduction yet that is as good as direct. I had some decent results with smooth pulleys and belts without notches but there still is a difference from direct.
I supposed kevlar belts might help as well as they have less bounce.

I look forward to seeing some footage too!

 

Interesting coming from someone who actually have hands on experience with a belt reduction setup. I have always suspected that belt reduction using smaller motors like the 5208 wouldn't be as good direct drive performance.

I believe you won't see belt reduction's shortcomings when used as hand held where there is only slow corrections to deal with, like from walking. You will certainly see shortcomings when mounted on a copter and airborne where you have all sorts of fast corrections to deal with. Although there is loads of torque in a 5208/belt reduction setup to adequately stabilize slow movement like when walking, I think belt reduction using the 5208 or similar have issues with fast movements. Is it the actual belt that's the issue?

Could someone with a belt drive setup post unstabilized footage from a copter at altitude (approx 150 feet or so) to make it interesting, perform a similar test to the 'got stability' video. Please roll, yaw and tilt the copter while hovering in a fixed position. Hard mount something to the frame so that it hangs in front of the lens.

This should be the brushless gimbal performance approval test. No other test matters

 

I am converting one of my CS gimbals to belt driven brushless gimbal using the stock parts. So the ratio of the tilt and roll is 5:1. With this setup I find the responsiveness a bit slow; raising up the I value (which helps the motors to react faster to the changes), helps to some point but still direct drive performs much better. So, if I had to go with belt reduction, I wouldn't use bigger ratios more than 3:1 or even 2:1.



My initial thoughts on belt driven system :

* I would go with direct drive on tilt and roll. I can go belt driven on pan.
* I wouldn't use bigger ratios more than 3:1 on roll and tilt if I had to go with belt reduction.

I am testing the G-Lock BLD modules; what I can say is, their tuning screen is far more superior than the Alexmos.