Camera Cover, with or without video

[sdharris]

Never sure where to post this sort of video, I tend to think the photos and video section of the forum is more for admiring output whereas here is more discussion.

I was having fun testing the Mavic again this afternoon and noticed a white flickering with the camera cover on so thought I would compare without. Of course we all know it'll be better without but just how much and what are the effects of using the cover in certain environments or conditions?

Here is one example that I have found.

 

[The Editor]

What idiot flies POI on an, as yet, unproven UAV platform at low altitude over a road with passing traffic?

I have no idea where this was taken but it breaks about every rule out there and in many countries like the UK, the law as well!

 

[sdharris]

Hmmm you seem to have double standards looking at this post Great video showing Active Tracking...with obstacles too! some guy uses an unproven UAV to track a moving object while driving that moving object I suspect down a suburban street. While I use a mode that has existed for about 2 years over mainly a lake with about 5 cars passing.

Thanks for your comment though. Be sure to keep that bird of yours within line of sight, away from buildings, people and other objects. What I am saying is, have fun in the desert by yourself.

 

[The Editor]

Hmmm you seem to have double standards looking at this post Great video showing Active Tracking...with obstacles too! some guy uses an unproven UAV to track a moving object while driving that moving object I suspect down a suburban street. While I use a mode that has existed for about 2 years over mainly a lake with about 5 cars passing.

Thanks for your comment though. Be sure to keep that bird of yours within line of sight, away from buildings, people and other objects. What I am saying is, have fun in the desert by yourself.

I didn't comment on that video (only the screen recording software) since it was shot in the US which comes under different rules and statutes.
The CAA which governs and regulates UK airspace have the Air Navigation Order (which is law) and a defined set of rules under which RPAS may be operated.
The posted video clearly breaches those on several counts.
I was unaware whether it was your video or not but if it is it is individuals such as yourself with that attitude that will get the hobby banned for many.
You clearly do not hold PFAW/PfCO otherwise not only would you not post a video like that, you would not even have made the flight in the first place without the correct safety procedures and permissions in place.
Please do the everybody a favour and do not post or make flights like that that are clearly against the law - it will ruin it for everyone and gives the authorities even more ammunition to regulate the hobby out of existence.

 

[chippie]

Actually I was under the impression that the Law stated it is illegal to fly over a congested area (5 cars is not congested) and/or within 50 meters of people, vehicles or structures. Looks like it was further than 50m (at least to me) for most of the footage. Would be grateful if you elaborate on exactly what laws were broken to prevent others following suit?

EDIT: @The Editor

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I am a US part 107 UAV pilot. In the US, even for commercial pilots, there is no restriction for flying over vehicles, only unprotected people not involved in the operation. As for recreational users, there are even less restrictions, but lots of suggestions, which fall under the poorly defined category of "careless or reckless" use. I see nothing here which appears to be either.

While I myself am reluctant to fly over vehicles, there is actually no law against it here, and certainly not against using new or "unproven" technology, to do so.

Accidents might occasionally happen, and there is something here called liability to address that. Sounds like the UK could lighten up a little to me.

As for your test: Hands down better without the cover.