Idaho Airships

"Howdy" From Beautiful Boise, Idaho!

I'm very excited about the groundswell of interest in remotely controlled imaging, and I'd love to provide some "how and why" of our successes: www.idahoairships.com. Unfortunately, I don't have the time presently, but may over the Christmas break.

Please allow me to make a fundamental instruction that may save many of you a great deal of frustration, needless expense, and opportunity cost.

The world we live in is "Binary" in that every question can be distilled to yes or no, make or break, sufficient or insufficent. If your imaging operation is not paying for itself and generating significant profit or potential, it is technically a "Hobby." There is a vast area between "hobby" and profession, and I have watched a shocking number of operators fall flat because of their inability to deal with their "binary" situation.

1. Do not expect economical/hobbyist or "prosumer" gear to provide you a commercially viable image. Small camcorders or digital cameras are great for economical convenience and some internet applications, but they are wholly insufficient for truly commercial grade production.

2. You get what you pay for...assuming an ethical foundation for any transaction. Do not expect a $325 35mm camera and lens to perform like a $900 camera and lens. Do not expect a 35mm camera to perform like a medium format camera. Do not expect a $2,000 helicopter setup to perform like an $11,000 helicopter setup (the best of everything: gyros, servos, correct tools and techniques in assembly, etc.).

3. A commercial grade of image requires bona fide expertise, particularly in aerial imaging where you are shooting in "available" light. If you do not know what a histogram is, cannot explain spatial vs. tonal resolution, colorimetric conversions, Screen vs. Multiply, or Modulation Transfer Function, you are at a distinct disadvantage in attempting to be a professional imager. You absolutely must generate a foundation of sound technical knowledge to reliably produce a merchantable product.

4. Effective marketing can compensate for an inferior product...tentatively. Then you flat spin.

5. There are a large number of "manufacturers" and suppliers of equipment present on the internet. Beware! This industry is below the RADAR of regulatory vigor presently, and it is painfully obvious that there are some very unscrupulous folks with a significant presence in the community. Due diligence should include contact with a state's Attorney General, investigating forums like these, and speaking with folks in the industry. Those folks should be successful operators. Someone making $2,000 per week in aerial imaging, in my opinion, does not fall into that category. Be intelligently critical and aggressive in your questions. Protect your assets...you will need them down the road.

Respectfully,
Leo A. Geis
CEO, Idaho Airships, Inc.
Proximal Aerial Imaging (TM)

Skycam

Well I disagree with most of the comments. There are a lot of 30 and 60 second commercials shot on 3 chip DV as well as some 30 minute TV shows. DIY and the Outdoor channel are shot on probably 50%DV or more.

What I reccommend is to investigate the market and the equipment you need and try to keep the start up cost under
10,000 which is very easy. Buy from company's that use the equipment and not just brag on what they manufacture.
Get a demo tape and see the product in action, this is a must.

Our company helps with contacts and promoting your company once your up and running with a demo tape to send to your customers.

Get to know the people you are buying from.
This is just my opinion but we are a manufacturer plus we work full time for WGEM or NBC station and shoot storm damage for KHQA our CBS station in the spring time.

We would be glad to help you get your business up and running. Check us out at www.airfoilhelicam.com

Thanks John

Idaho Airships

Heya, John!

I trust you're not being treated too violently by the storms back east!

Tell me, which comments do you disagree with? I love the dialogue because I learn so much from interacting with other operators.

Not being a manufacturer or equipment supplier, I am very interested in your "take" on equipment. I have a number of associated operators (Sacramento, Tucson, Jacksonville, and others) whom I intend to usher into rotorwing platforms to replace their tethered blimp and giant pod systems. However, having developed my own rotorwing equipment and methodologies to tend the the markets that I serve, I'm certainly inclined to use the types of ships that I'm having success deploying presently. These involve components and systems that a simply unavailable for less than $10,000-our reasoning being that we cannot lose a multi-thousand dollar shoot assignment because of a $250 engine or $300 video link. In fact, we not only acquire the higher quality gear, but have "redundant everything!" The markets we serve demand, and fund very high quality images. I do understand that if folks are tending to markets that pay modestly, the more costly equipment is perhaps out of reach.

I don't envy your position as an equipment supplier...can't even imagine the finances and attorneys' fees for registering in so many states to offer a business opportunity, etc. Wow!

Looking forward to your replies!

Respectfully,
Leo

StarskiPZ

Hell Guys,

Your both right in what you say...

I'm into still photography, and I dont have any interest in video / motion pics. But the equipment argument is the same.

I'm looking to eventually set up an airbourne digital camera.
The equipment market is vast for still cameras, for sure. Having been used to slide quality - even in 35mm format, I still find digital cameras some way behind - but the gap is closing.

This is one point - to get a certain standard in your result.

But the point against this - is that some customers don't need it.
Examples of this are the large Ad-boards shot on 'grainy' black&white, other images are doctor'd anyway. So the quality aspect can be considered as second to getting the pic in the first place.

So, do I go and 'play' with a typical couple of mega-pixel compact camera, or do I buy a HEAVY SLR and use my existing lenses etc...

In this set-up the model is built for the purpose, and even so would not be the major expense.

At present - your right; its a hobby whilst I explore the market...

I'll let you Know....

Forgues Research

My Feedback: (7)

I found that a 35mm SLR is the way to go. Even though I love my digital camera, it is harder to fire from a remote area. While for instance, the Pentax MZM SLR, is auto wind, and the Bulb for remote is electric. Easily adapted with an electronic switch . At least that's what I have done.
http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/carrier.html

StarskiPZ

I can see this thread going.....cameras!

The Pentax Mz are light ??

I intent buying the Canon EOS '1000' - in the USA I think their the old Rebel?

I can buy them used only now, they were cheap, basic auto-focus cameras, with loads of features - but no flash..

This was what made them ideal as they had little weight, fitted many, many lenses etc... ( & built -in flash are useless )
.....so cheeeeaaap.

The auto=focus is not used either... just set manualy...

I just need to build a suitable plane purely for aerial work....

The hardest choice is Film Speed / shutter speed combos.....which depend on many things... from weather to your engine vibration ( if its a problem )

I let you know how things go...

Forgues Research

My Feedback: (7)

I found the Rebel to be on the heavy side. The Pentax weighs 10 oz. without lense.
I use a 28mm lens set focus to infinity.
I used 400 ASA film and the shutter speed was set at 125. Leave the lens opening in auto mode.

I still have the camera if your interested with the lens.

StarskiPZ

Thanks for the offer
-but I need to shed a load of geay myself - too many non-compatibles.

Your SLR / 28MM /400asa/ & 1/125sec is a good combo..

I take it you set the camera to give auto exposure with apperture control?

The good thing with a wide angle lense ( apart from small & light ) is that they don't need much focus ( they have a tremendous 'depth of field' ).

An average day should give f8 & 1/125sec for 100 asa

........AND THAT IS HERE IN THE UK!!

You should get good results, but if yor try a sharper film / lower asa rating such as common 100 asa. you should make gains.

Most lenses work best around 'f8', but on w-angle lenses you should only need to close down to 'f4' or f5.6. -you don't get improvements in quality beyond this, only an improved depth of field.

It also depends on your altitude when you take your pics and what your trying to achieve....

Have you any pics you can show?

Idaho Airships

Heya, Gang!

I agree-film rules-for many reasons. I shoot medium format (6cm x 4.5cm) instead of 35mm because of the increase in image quality associated with the larger negatives and the medium format lenses.

I do have a few 35mm setups: Pentax PZ-1P's with the Pentax SMC series lenses, which are excellent for existing light images where you might be/always seem to be forced to shoot high contrast situations. The PZ allows complete control over bracketing in 1/3 f-stop steps. I have some associates who shoot Canon (L-series) and am impressed with the images.

Tell me if you think the following observation is true or if I'm way off base:

There are a number of tangible markets for R/C aerial photography. Some, such as Residential Real Estate, do not support higher fee structures (shoots >$1,000) in any real volume. There are some mid-level markets, such as architectural imaging, which do support the higher shoot fees, but you tend to deal with a much more sophisticated customer...one who will give your products some very critical scrutiny. If you deliver a "snapshot" for $1,000, they'll promptly hand it back to you and never call again. There are other markets in which a $2,000 shoot is considered quite a bargain. I like those gigs, and I would think others would, too . However, they usually require significant logistical and strategic involvement, have a number of significant challenges such as hostile lighting, and the final images may endure extreme scrutiny from people with bona fide scientific backgrounds. We haven't yet found a market where people will pay $2,000 and accept "snapshot" grade images...the world just works that way, I guess.

Pentax 645 with 220 back: 3lbs, 3.5oz
75mm lens with hood: 9.7oz
45mm lens with hood: 14.9oz
70mm roll back: 1lb 5.3oz
Shutter circuitry: 2.5oz
Video/viewcamera system: Varies, but <1lb

We operate from Sea Level to >5,000 Above Sea Level and in a variety of temperature and humidity ranges.

This obviously requires very aggressive power:weight and configurations.

BillHarris

Dang, Idaho, you have just about every (state)Airships trademarked!

I do nature photography ( http://www.mindspring.com/~woharris/top.htm
) and am starting to do a little aerial residental and commercial photogarphy, in addition to aerial views of some of my woodland scenics. My current photo aircraft is a BTE Flyin' King, which is capable of carrying just about any photo equipment necessary.

Interesting discussion about camera types: the bottom line is that the equipment needs to fit the job at hand. I started out using a Yashica T3 P&S, and now use a Nikon 8008. If need be, I can go to MF later on.

--Bill

Idaho Airships

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BillHarris
[B]Dang, Idaho, you have just about every (state)Airships trademarked!

We do work in quite a few states because of the nature of the markets we serve, not because I like to travel-bank on that! Ha! We have problems with people trying to emulate our business, and that's the reason for the published TM's.

I do nature photography ( http://www.mindspring.com/~woharris/top.htm

Your Boldo and Dora images are absolutely magnificent! In fact, for what it's worth, I think you are a superb technical photographer! I avoid making input on composition unless I know the criteria...not because I consider myself a good judge of composition...in fact, I'm probably the worst on the planet. But I do know the technical side, and I think your stuff is stunningly good!

Interesting discussion about camera types: the bottom line is that the equipment needs to fit the job at hand. I started out using a Yashica T3 P&S, and now use a Nikon 8008. If need be, I can go to MF later on.

Perhaps the question is more relative to the application than I am admitting, but I do believe that as a general rule the MF product is more desirable... Good, really good, 35mm (Zeiss/Contax, Canon L, Pentax SMC et. al.) gives a product that, depending upon the film and exposure, is virtually indistinguishable from MF up to about 800% enlargement, but then the race is over. My standard print is 34" wide, so I am compelled to use MF. With that said, I think that 35mm may have some distinct compositional advantages because of its convenience, particularly in the macro realm.

See Ya!
Leo

BillHarris

Leo--

On my nature photography, composition has always been strained, I am more of a "scientist" than an artist, anyway. And many of my images-- the bugs and buds and stars-- are for guidebooks and tech publications, so my "vision" is geared towards that end.
I appreciate the comments.

I'm getting more involved in the "RPV Aerials" this year, but I've done a few demonstration aerial images and I need to take then around to local engineering and real estate firms and hustle. <g> I've made some initial inquiries and there may be a market for low-cost, moderate resolution aerials. If I can develop a niche market and clientele, that will be great. I'm set to retire in a few years and I'm looking at various ways to supplement that income.
I'll admit, though, that there is no substitute for film area. Most of my work is 35mm, but I'm working on some of the woodland scenics in 4x5, and wildflowers with my field 4x5 with a rollfilm back.
You have an interesting site, as well as an interesting business. I like your "architectural" (construction) and "environmental" (wetlands) photos and you have a professional approach to the art.

--Bill

StarskiPZ

I dont know how current film sales fare, or how the Yellow Giant is doing?

But you cannot deny the boom in digital cameras, and this also makes in-roads into both medium & large ( MF/LF ) formats.

My interest will remain for the moment in model aircraft no more than 1/4 scale size. Thus I'l stick to quality 35mm, with experiments with good digital SLR's.

35mm SLR can also feature high firing rates - even budget ones can reach 5 frames per second. Most Digitals have to 'think' before they 'take', with more time there-after to process. But they progress all the time....

Idaho Airships

Wow! I didn't know you were so...ancient! Ha! Tell me about the olden days, Bill!

Getting ready for retirement? I'm jealous... I'm in my mid 40's and have to admit that "middle age" has a very firm grasp upon me, while the "light at the end of the tunnel" is still a too long way off.

There is a market for low cost, moderate resolution aerials, absolutely, agreed, though my own experience with it/them was pretty frustrating. We've focused elsewhere (isn't that a delicate way to put it?), which leads me to my appreciation for your comments on my website and business. However, my website is "plain vanilla" and does not describe what I do, and only alludes to our core markets. For example, I do no none nada Residential Real Estate home shoots (I do occasionally shoot developments and large homes for their constructors or owners).

StarskiPZ is right on...digital is coming on in a big way. My Pentax 645's, by the way, feature both single and continuous shutters at "up to" a 2 per second "burst rate," which is more than enough for my assignments and methodologies.

I'd love to see an "economical" ($2.5K) back for the Pentax 645 that can capture 50MEG or so...my film and processing (Develop-Only) costs can go to several hundred dollars a month...so it would be enticing!

Gotta Zoom-
Leo

BillHarris

Leo--

I'm not quite a geezer, yet. I'll be 55 when I get eligible for my Pennies and it's not too early to plan since I didn't make a killing on soybean futures...

Yep, the low end market will kill you with squirrelly customers. That's
why I don't do weddings and portraits. But then, this is just one of the "odd jobs" I'll be doing to give me "minner money", so I don't have support myself 100%.

Digital camera have indeed come a long way in a short time. I recall not long ago when they were expensive toys and you had to plunk down $5K for something useful. And/or pay dearly for Iris dye-sub prints.
I am planning to buy a "midrange" digital camera after the first of the year, they are nice for grab shots.

Take care,

--Bill