EEVblog #653 - Sydney Maker Faire 2014 Highlights - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 20, 2014, 06:32:25 am
content: Highlights from the 2014 Sydney Mini Maker FaireIntroduction:Behind The Scenes:Growing Maker Communities:

author: Whales
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2014, 08:24:08 am
content: It was definitely a lot of fun this year. Little kids (<10) kept coming up to the CREATE stall and asking us amazingly complicated questions about our quad-copters. I only originally planned to stay one day -- I blame the childrenI had a wander around a few times but I didn't take enough break to fully enjoy everything. Looking forward to the other videos.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2014, 12:06:58 pm
content: There is something very wrong with the video qualityattached is a still frame from the #654 behind the scanedid it happen in post, or did you mess up camera settings? people complain about motion sickness on YT because whole thing is blurry due to 2-3 frames overlapping each other

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 20, 2014, 12:52:43 pm
content: Quote from: Rasz on August 20, 2014, 12:06:58 pmI shot this in 50fps on my HF G30 and 60fps on the Sony NEX VG30. No my usual 25fps.Apart from that I rendered in 50fps and IIRC uploaded the 50fps version to youtube.That part was probably blurry because I panned quickly?I'll have to check tomorrow when back at the lab.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2014, 01:14:55 pm
content: whole thing is blurry, even the interviews are blurry, you can see three hands whenever someone gesticulatesProbably YT doing something stupid and averaging 3 frames to make one blurry one

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 20, 2014, 01:18:23 pm
content: Quote from: Rasz on August 20, 2014, 01:14:55 pmI don't really see it as any worse than say last years one shot and uploaded at 25fps.But I'll have a look tomorrow.

author: dentaku
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2014, 11:12:49 pm
content: I feel nauseated now. I guess I shouldn't have watched the whole thingAny sideways panning looked horrible and was hard to watch.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 12:08:22 am
content: Quote from: dentaku on August 20, 2014, 11:12:49 pmWow, it is reallythatbad?I honestly notice nothing wrong with it at all?So just to be clear, is this the behind the scenes video, or the main highlights video?(I have a no problem with either)

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 12:15:05 am
content: OK, I can confirm that I tried to render to 50fps instead of my usual 25fps, but Sony Moviestudio could only do that at 1280x720 with the codec I was using and I didn't notice it switched back.So it was rendered in 25fps (from 50fps original) and uploaded in 25fps to youtube.Redoing it now and will re-upload.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 01:25:06 am
content: Ok, re-rendred the behind the scenes video at 50fps and it does lookmuchbetter on the pans on my monitor.Will see what youtube does to it once uploaded. If it still sucks, then nothing further I can do about it.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 01:52:41 am
content: @daveYour shots have really improved over the past year. I don't mind the framing and pretty steady handheld shots. I don't really watch you stuff in HD so didn't notice the blurring.I bet you'd have a great deal of fun with a handheld gimbal (aka brushless gimbal).

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 02:24:50 am
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on August 21, 2014, 01:52:41 amYou mean like one of these?http://gyromatic.com.au/Sure, but ultimately how much stuff do I want to buy and lug around, and much value do I get out of it?I already took 5 cameras and associated gear to the Maker Faire.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 03:18:07 am
content: That is the type of device, the ones that could handle the weight of your camera would probably be way heavier, have more wires and would be bigger. Like one of the Movi clones. Not cheap either.The platform is basically a quadcopter variant and the controllers are for that type of platform.I have to admit I really like the steadicam like shots.I tried one out last year (movi clone) and they are really impressive. All I can say is that if you can find one to borrow for a day, do it. Go to the park with Sagan and chase him around.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 03:39:15 am
content: Here is the Chinese version of the small hero variant. It's apparently pretty popular with the quad copter people. They rip the handle off it and mount it on a quadcopter.http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Nokitek-G3-3-Axis-Handheld-Brushless-stabilizer-for-GoPro-Hero-3-3-/331277420582?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4d21ac4826This is similar to what I got to try, it will carry 3kg and had the AlexMos software. Took 30 seconds to figure out, really easy to operate. Amazingly fast reaction time.http://www.ebay.ca/itm/3-Axis-Handheld-Brushless-Gimbal-Kit-w-Motors-AlexMos-Gimbal-Controller-DSLR-/281376570558?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item418359bcbe

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 03:42:14 am
content: Here you go, uploaded to youtube at 50fps.Seems much better when panning.Not sure what frame rate youtube is actually playing it at though.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 10:26:16 am
content: its much better now, you can compare old frame to the attachement:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-653-sydney-maker-faire-2014-highlights/?action=dlattach;attach=106188but its still pretty bad. On one hand Im used to hi quality footage (sharp even with lots of motion, gopro/sony actioncam etc), on the other this does look like recorded with a potato when you pause during movement. There must be some options to tune to make it look better in motion (exposure comes to mind, personally I rather see grain than blur).

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 10:53:16 am
content: Quote from: Rasz on August 21, 2014, 10:26:16 amSorry, that's the best you are going to get.I don't agree, I think it's nowhere near "pretty bad".BTW, this was a low light indoors environment, not outdoor action with tons of available light.QuoteProbably. But when in this sort of environment getting footage in a hurry you just whack the camera on auto and hope for the best.This is a top of the range Canon camcorder shot at the top 50fps, so obvious it's a limitation of the low light environment forcing a low shutter speed.Put a Gopro in the same low light environment and I'm pretty sure you get much worse footage.

author: bookaboo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 11:04:12 am
content: Bugger all wrong with the footage, especially as its on the go in low light levels.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 11:32:21 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 21, 2014, 10:53:16 amIts pretty bad for top of the range Canon. Im not saying clips are shit and you should delete them(I love the content), just that its something to work on.You probably have some favourite 'this worked for me for couple of years so im sticking with it' camera settings, and those work great in the static lab, but could use some tuning when you go outside.Maybe we got some camera geeks in here to help with fast motion setup?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 11:46:19 am
content: Quote from: Rasz on August 21, 2014, 11:32:21 amThe problem is that when you are getting footage like this you have no idea what lighting (and colour balance etc) environment you are going into from one minute to the next. So trying to pick a manual setting at the start of the shoot it fraught with danger. That's why it's simply easier and safer to whack it on auto everything and you get what you get.In low light environments this is going to mean a low shutter speed is selected. Same same thing happens with cameras like GoPro's etc. Take then into low light environments and you'll get exactly the same bluring on a fast moving object, or fast panning with a static background.I think you are making something out of nothing here, I think the footage it perfectly fine, more than fine in fact.It's not rocket science, if you absolutely don't want motion blur then you manually set a fixed higher shutter speed for the entire shoot. Tradeoff will be that you get grainy crap footage when you are not moving. Take your pick. I for one do not prefer noise grain over motion blur, and think the auto settings are the best way to go when under pressure and just want to get some footage when on the go.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 02:13:45 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 21, 2014, 11:46:19 amwell, this is what you wrote at the start>I don't really see it as any worse than say last years oneYou thought first one was fine tooand look at the before/after screencaps now.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-653-sydney-maker-faire-2014-highlights/?action=dlattach;attach=106188https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-653-sydney-maker-faire-2014-highlights/?action=dlattach;attach=106261First one had literally three frames whacked on top of each other.Is there any blur in individual frames in the source material (file directly off the camera)? Im asking because frame I used for comparison is from a perfectly/fully lit room (room with skylight?) - there just has to be something wrong with the post processing.Re-uploaded one has ~two merged pictures. You uploaded 50fps file, youtube converted it to 25fps by simply blurring it?My guess is first time blur was added by your post processing program when converting to 25Hz, second one was converted on YT end and is a little better. They both look nothing like a footage from $700 camera, framerate conversion is destroying quality. Maybe dropping every second frame would look better.I guess its highly subjective, I still believe you can do betterAnyway, great coverage so far. I hope there is more, I wanna see some robot fights

author: German_EE
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 04:56:42 pm
content: The footage through my 55 year old eyes looks just fine, even after cleaning my spectacles. I suspect that there may be a minor conflict between the image stabilization and the desire to pan the camera that causes the problems mentioned.

author: alimirjamali
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 09:23:10 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 21, 2014, 03:42:14 amWe still get the same 25fps for both videos on Youtube. Final RAW data size of youtube internal render for the 2nd upload is slightly higher (i.e. 379.64MB for 2nd upload vs. 358.45MB for the 1st upload @720P / Youtube format ID #22). However, it really makes a difference to upload panning videos at higher FPS as internal render will be much smoother.Are you followingGoogle's official recommended bitrates, codecs, and resolutions?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 11:30:27 pm
content: Quote from: Rasz on August 21, 2014, 02:13:45 pmYes, exactly the same/ From the original 50fps original file from the camera:QuoteNo, you are wrong, it's the original footage.And no, it was not a perfectly lit room. Not that it would matter because even a well light indoor room has vastly less light than outdoors, even on a dim overcast day.And if you think it's the Canon HFG30 camera, try this, which was shot in a similar light environment, possibly better than the above example:That's from the $2500 Sony NEX VG30 with a huge APS-C size DSLR sensor shot at the full 60fps capability.http://store.sony.com/interchangeable-lens-hd-camcorder-and-lens-zid27-NEXVG30H/cat-27-catid-All-NEX-CamcordersQuoteThen you don't know enough about how cameras work.Cameras are not magic, when you pan quickly, as in this case you are fussing over, this is what you will typically get in an indoors type light environment.There are ways to avoid it manually but it requires a lot of setup to get right and compromises.In auto mode you have no such luxury and you get what you get. Don't want the blurring? pan very slowly and carefully. Good luck doing that when you are getting ad-hock walking around footage.Welcome to the world of videography.QuoteYes, but it takes alotof time and effort, something you don't have when you are getting footage like this.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 01:24:13 am
content: PSoC 4 Pioneer board hooked to a breadboard @1:13 although I'm watching #654 instead of #653. Not sure why a different episode number if it's the same thing. Maybe it should be #653-take-twoAnd a La Cierva autogyro (autogiro) C.19 @5:57 from around 1930, I don't know how safe those things where, the helicopter blades were a substitute to fixed wings and unpowered to generate lift not as in modern helicopters. The first one was from 1923. Of course in school we were taught that Spain invented the helicopter, but that was during Franco's time so of course Spain invented everything including the submarine according to the school history books at the time.I have a powerglove @17:27 with the ir light mount that goes around the monitor in a box. I should interface it to something.Edit, didn't find the box but now that I think about it, it probably was sound based because as I recall the TV/Monitor tracker device looked like speakers. Yup, looked it up and it used ultrasound. Maybe I can harvest it

author: JoeN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 03:46:35 am
content: Anyone know what the technology is at ~ 6:40 where a bright light appears to be "writing" to some sort of phosphorescent cylinder that excites and then radiates light back out for a period of time? Never seen that before. Is that just a cylinder made of a phosphorescent material? Any idea where to get one of those?

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 11:55:19 pm
content: Quote from: JoeN on August 22, 2014, 03:46:35 amGlow-in-the-dark paint -excited by UV LEDs.

author: JoeN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 02:12:45 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on August 22, 2014, 11:55:19 pmI might try a project based on this idea. Anyone know a specific paint brand they have used that they can recommend? Can anyone recommend UV LEDs? Thank you for the information so far.

author: alimirjamali
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 04:46:42 am
content: Quote from: JoeN on August 24, 2014, 02:12:45 amHi Joe,We use this material frequently at work. It is available as paint, pigment, vinyl and even recently as filament for 3D printers. I think it could be easier for you to go for vinyl if you want to warp it around a cylinder. We usually buy in bulk quantities from China. You should be able to buy small quantities from e-bay or Amazon. The price varies based on the amount of rare-earth metals added to zinc sulfate copper mix to make it glow longer. Different colors available but yellowish green glows best. Major brands such as 3M or Avery Dennison sale glow-in-the dark vinyl. Marabu-Inks sales Glow-in-the-dark paint for screen printing applications. We have used Marabu-inks, 3M and Avery Dennison.If you want to create a non-cylindrical shape & you live in north America, TAP Plastics sales pigments which you could mix with their clear casting resin. I have heard good feedback from their customers.Quality should not be that much important in this application as the glowing effect should not last until the next revolution of cylinder (should be the opposite!).Ali

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 11:39:17 am
content: Quote from: alimirjamali on August 24, 2014, 04:46:42 amI have a vague recollection that with some glow materials, you can "discharge" the glow with different light colours

author: alimirjamali
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 04:22:54 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on August 24, 2014, 11:39:17 amIf my memory serves me well, some photoluminescent materials could be discharged by temperature. I will check this in our text books and consult with experts at work tomorrow. We usually do not want to discharge them as we make Exit Signs, Muster Station signs and other photoluminescent signs in places that emergency rechargeable electric signs are not allowed by safety standards.Even if discharging via heat/different light/electricity would be hard/impossible, it would be easy to PMW UV LEDs during ON phase to assure natural discharge by the next revolution. Piece of cake with micros or CPLDs.

author: alimirjamali
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2014, 06:00:40 pm
content: Referring to my previous post on photoluminescent materialsAfter talking with colleagues at work, looking into text books and discussing with suppliers; I should say that people in HSE (Health, Safety, Environment protection) do not know a photoluminescent material which could be discharged with heat/electricity/other light or cooling. Either such material does not existor has no application in HSE field. Maybe in some other industry.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2014, 06:21:35 pm
content: IIRC IR light can be used to shorten the glow period of some materials. Bright IR illumination stops it glowing. Easiest will probably be to try an IR remote control on a glowing piece and see if it dims when held against it in the dark.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2014, 06:47:35 pm
content: The term for turning photoluminescence off is quenching.Google "photoluminescence thermal quenching" and you'll get some hits.