27 ms·

Parrot Bebop

218 points by balakk 12y ago

seth1010 12y ago
This is amazing. With some camera smoothing in post production you could have shots that were previously only possible with a helicopter shot. I can see this being just as influential if not more than the gopro.
- kayoone 12y ago
  yes, but many drones like the DJI Phantom already do that, and better than AR Drones and possibly the Bebop. They also feature GoPro Mounts but are obviously more expensive if you add the cost of the GoPro.
kirillzubovsky 12y ago
I had a parrot drone before. It went up to 30 feet, disconnected from Wifi, dropped from the sky, and when I was just about to catch it, it re-connected, turned and crashed into pieces.... Ever since then, I am not a very big fan of their technology. For slightly more, you can get much better drones which would be worth the investment.
- juice13 12y ago
  Which ones would you recommend?
  - dirktheman 12y ago
    The DJI Phantom is pretty much the standard in consumer-grade multirotors. It's plug & play, sold as a complete package with transmitter included, and for what you get it's actually not that expensive. If you're reluctant to fly a $500-$1000 UAV, get a cheap multirotor first and learn to fly. The Hubsan X4 is under $50, for instance. If you're a tinkerer you can build your own for a lot less, but be prepared for a LOT of fiddling to get it right (and the crashes that come with the fiddling). I fly a DIY F330 (same dimensions as the Phantom, only 'naked' frame) with an Arduino-based flight controller (APM2.6). It has some advantages over the DJI system, such as unlimited waypoints for autonomous flight. It can carry a gopro, and replacement parts/batteries are a lot cheaper if you get them from China. I don't get anywhere near the battery duration of the DJI, though. So: if you're looking for a new hobby: build your own. If you just want to fly: get the DJI.
    - lmm 12y ago
      Can I control the Phantom from Android? All their site seems to be talking about ipads.
      - newaccountfool 12y ago
        You might be able to but I would recommend it, using a good old 2.4ghz transmitter. You'll get more control and more range on that.
      - dirktheman 12y ago
        If it is possible, you would be severely limited by the WiFi signal radius. I'd highly recommmend a normal 2.4 Ghz TX since they're designed for this stuff. The phantom comes with TX, but if you go the DIY route I can really recommend the Turnigy 9X from HobbyKing. It's only $60, has 9 channels, comes with receiver and people won't laugh at you because you're holding an iPad or a toy-like transmitter.
        voltagex_ 12y ago
        I'm fairly sure I've seen ways to interface the Turnigy 9X with phones via a headphone jack.
    - bambax 12y ago
      Couldn't agree more. I had a Parrot 1.0 and it was of low overall quality. I have a Phantom (v1.1) and it's fantastic; a friend just bought the v2 which is even greater. Among the differences: the Phantom has an actual radio, with ranges of over 500m (it would be very surprising if Wifi covered the advertised 300m of this new Parrot); you can change cameras as you wish (or, after a crash), it can fly really high and really fast, etc. You can get a Phantom 1 for under $350 these days (without a gimbal), or a 2+ (camera and gimbal included) for around $1000. I would recommend buying the 2 without gimbal ($550) and the Zenmuse gimbal ($150-$200) -- and if you already have a GoPro you're all set. Alternatively, you can buy a Hubsan H107D FPV which comes with a radio with a screen, for under $150! I don't own that one, but I have the Hubsan X4 which is a lot of fun (and completely safe to fly indoors).
  - newaccountfool 12y ago
    Before you even start, have a look. You'll need a frame kit, motors, ESC and a flight controller as well as a transmitter and a reciever. You might also want an FPV kit so you can see where your flying and a GoPro so that you can film what you see. Have a look at the DJIF450 or DJIF550 frame kits, start with one of those cost me around £400GBP, you'll learn more with one of those than a Phantom and you'll be able to replace parts easier.
  - AirDroids 12y ago
    For learning how to fly in the sub $100 price range, get a Hubsan X4 H107C - don't be put off by the low price - they are crazy fun to fly. For the $1000+ price range, the DJI Phantoms are great. For the $500 price range, check out http://www.thepocketdrone.com http://www.thepocketdrone.com - the most successful drone Kickstarter campaign of all time (raised almost one million dollars). Disclosure: I work for AirDroids who manufacture the Pocket Drone.
- baddox 12y ago
  The first AR Drone was released before the tech was ready for an out of the box consumer experience, especially for outdoor flight. The technology has come a long way in a few short years, especially for hobby grade gear, and the Bebop looks pretty solid in the few demo videos I have seen.
- sytelus 12y ago
  My AR Drone had busted battery on arrival. But what really had disappointed me was very flimsy styrofoam construction. Looks like this version also continues to have styrofoam.
  - imdsm 12y ago
    Isn't that a feature? Joking aside though, isn't the Styrofoam to give it a low density structure?
    - sxtxixtxcxh 12y ago
      light, cheap, strong... pick any two!
    - sytelus 12y ago
      It's not a feature, its cost savings. You will never see good quality drones with styrofoams. The styrofoams makes drone lighter so that battery can be also cheap and manufacturer can claim bigger number for flight/charge. One advantage of styrofoams is that you can change it cheaply it breaks but in reality styrofoams makes drone much less stable because even small wind can now throw things off. It also makes it much more fragile.
      - baddox 12y ago
        Is there styrofoam on the Bebop other than the side guards? Those side guards are intended to be removed for outside flight.
- shtolcers 12y ago
  Often it's better to wait a bit and get Chinese copies :)
baddox 12y ago
I've built several "hobby grade" multirotors with GPS and first-person video, and while I find the process fun and satisfying, it's far from accessible to mainstream consumers. I was never impressed by Parrot's original AR Drone, but this looks much more promising as an accessible drone with a good feature set. The biggest problem with the AR Drone, the control latency over WiFi, is probably covered up by the Bebop's GPS stabilization. It doesn't look like there's any pricing information for the Bebop yet. They should definitely be able to keep it under $500, and if so (and if it works as well as their demos portray) I bet they'll sell well.
- radiorental 12y ago
  I thought I read either in the comments the last time this was posted here or in the original article that they were aiming for $6-700. That seems right for the technology
- AirDroids 12y ago
  For another multicopter in the $500 price range, check out http://www.thepocketdrone.com http://www.thepocketdrone.com - the most successful drone Kickstarter of all time (raised almost one million dollars). Disclosure: I work for them.
  - erikano 12y ago
    Didn't see any answer to what are, IMO, the two most important questions: * What flight time does it have? * If you pre-order today (not that I'm going to), when can you expect to receive it?
    - AirDroids 12y ago
      20 minutes with onboard camera (GoPro etc.) - longer without the camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYAKpmhMADI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYAKpmhMADI Shipping is due to begin late summer, but Kickstarter orders will be shipped first. I've been told there is going to be a price increase sometime this month, although I'm not privy to the exact date.
rjbwork 12y ago
I'm more interested to see a small drone that can carry a small load, say of a couple to a few pounds. This could start to disrupt the small package/food delivery industry on a massive scale while cutting emissions and increasing service quality. We have seen plenty of small drones meant to be used for surveillance; it's not very interesting anymore.
- cookingrobot 12y ago
  Current law doesn't allow commercial drones - meaning nothing that makes a profit or supports a business. Hobby photography is the only application that makes sense right now.
  - abritishguy 12y ago
    America isn't the only country.
    - laichzeit0 12y ago
      Well, except if you're American. (I kid, I kid..)
  - imdsm 12y ago
    What law are you referring to? Columbian law? Swiss law? Russian law! I really have no idea, being that I am from Earth and there are so many countries. It does make this thread hard to follow, just too much guesswork.
  - dkroy 12y ago
    If you do your homework or even a little googling you will realize that what you are saying isn't true. Hopefully this is good news for you! I think the link below may have even been submitted to HN, though I haven't checked. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/commercial-drones-are-completely-legal-a-federal-judge-ruled http://motherboard.vice.com/read/commercial-drones-are-compl...
    - 12y ago
captainbenises 12y ago
What beach is that in the header image? It looks nice.
- choult 12y ago
  That would be Miami beach.
- peteretep 12y ago
  ALL HAIL TIN EYE http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?src=PS5DwrRy6S3EBRIUs8iKRA-1-1&id=55216840 http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?src=PS5DwrRy6S3EBRIUs8... (it's Miami)
- yardie 12y ago
  That would be Miami Beach. South Point Park facing north to South Beach to be exact.
omarhegazy 12y ago
This with the Oculus Rift combined is going to make for some seriously awesome "tourism demos". Someone has to make a Bebop-as-a-service thing where you have warehouses full of Bebops across the world's largest tourist centers, then a paying user will have his/her Rift linked up with that Bebop, which will then fly high above the city's ground and let the tourist have a look at the city from the comfort of his/her home.
- kayoone 12y ago
  Wouldn't make much sense combined with the Rift though, as the camera on the Bebop can't move. You could move the Bebop itself based on head motion, but i am not sure if that would give a good feel of control. Besides you would still be quite limited in wifi range and i doubt people want drones falling into the pools or on their heads ;)
  - simias 12y ago
    The camera has a very wide handle so you can actually move the visible window by simply adjusting the software cropping. So you can actually track the head movements without moving the drone on a roughly 180degree angle in every direction. There's only one camera though, so you don't have any stereoscopic effect.
sytelus 12y ago
One of my startup ideas couple of years ago was cheap stabilized mini dolly/crane system for casual videographers. This space, I thought, was ripe for disruption considering tons of new professional grade cameras sporting HD video but other equipment remaining as expensive as ever. Shooting with this kind of system really makes even bad video interesting. Now I think drones could be just that dolly/crane system. I hope people make their control software open source. The key would now be software that can produce super stabilized flights in artistic trajectories automatically.
- david927 12y ago
  That was exactly what was going through my mind as well. I just make short films as a hobby, and I've been so excited over the years to watch these huge quality/price inversions for high quality video. There's still a ways to go, but the movement has been amazing; it's been thrilling. And now this?! There are so many shots I have in my head that I could pull off with this. The idea that I -- I alone! -- could essentially afford my own dolly/crane system blows my mind. I feel like I have just seen the future. As for the software you mentioned: it's clear, the stability has to get better (but there was clearly a lot of wind on that beach, as you would expect, so maybe it would be better in different conditions). But for the trajectories, you could also contract someone that worked remotely, to whom you could draw out the trajectory you want or model in another way, and be your camera operator. (Wouldn't that be mind-blowing? "The camera operator on this film never left their home in Madagascar.") Really -- I've just seen the future, and as a (hobbyist) film maker, I'm ecstatic at the potential!
unwind 12y ago
This passage: [...] Bebop Drone navigation computer features a Parrot P7 dual-core CPU, quad-core GPU and 8 GB of Flash Memory[...] was intriguing. I really don't believe that they really have a custom "Parrot P7" CPU since that makes very little sense considering their use for the CPU. Also, even if they had designed their own CPU, why would they include a quad-core GPU for this application? That doesn't make any sense, either. Does anyone know more about that CPU? I don't follow Parrot closely so perhaps I'm misjudging them.
- d3k 12y ago
  I worked on the development of the P7, and yes, it is a dual core CPU powered by ARM cores with a quad-core GPU. The CPU is meant to be used for other projects too, so a quad core GPU makes sense.
  - unwind 12y ago
    OK, cool. Thanks! I guess I kind of assumed it was an ARM, that does make it feel a lot less magic since (from my understanding) designing a SoC based on ARM is quite far from the same as designing a CPU from scratch in terms of complexity. I wish they had included the word "ARM" in their description.
    - yardie 12y ago
      They've been releasing SDKs for their drones for many years. Although the PR material doesn't make it obvious if you get a chance to download the SDK it becomes very apparent. My last AR.drone was ARM based with RTLinux as the kernel, not sure if it is the same now. You could SSH directly to the onboard OS and into Busybox. I was able to modify the wpa-supplicant so it could connect to the house wifi and be controlled from my PC, instead of using the crappy iOS client. From the SDK I wrote a small .Net app that used my Xbox controller, gave me telemetry, and recorded video.
mikeknoop 12y ago
The big innovation here over comparable camera-stablizied GPS-locked drones (eg. DJI Phantom II) is that there is no mechanical gimble which significantly reduces weight and battery consumption of the Bebop.
- bambax 12y ago
  But a mechanical gimbal is awesome; it can rotate to a horizontal position, so you can get satellite-like views, or simply look at the top of something; with a fixed front camera you will never be able to get those kinds of shots.
  - andygates 12y ago
    It must be said, some of the best shots I get are straight down. If in doubt, velcro more cameras to the thing. MOAR!
- dirktheman 12y ago
  It's a great innovation, but I still prefer my mechanical gimbal. It offers a lot wider angles and I won't have to crop my footage. When I don't need it I'll just leave off, the reduced weight makes the drone ripping through the skies like a ferrari.
yardie 12y ago
I had a Parrot AR.drone. After one too many crashes the motherboard wouldn't signal the motors to start. I sent it back to the store I bought it from, who promptly gave me $300 in store credit rather than another drone. Although I would rather have had another drone. When I asked the CSrep she explained they stopped carrying them because the high return rate. My son and high had a lot of fun flying it indoors and I'm looking for another. I'm fascinated by this drone[1]. Variable pitch rotors means it has the agility of a helicopter, including inverted flight (upside-down). Only downside is there is 1 motor so 1 single point of failure. [1] http://curtisyoungblood.com/V2/products/quadcopters/stingray-500 http://curtisyoungblood.com/V2/products/quadcopters/stingray...
- baddox 12y ago
  The Stingray is awesome, although I wouldn't trust myself flying it until my skills are much better (Curtis Youngblood is a beast). The motor as a point of failure probably isn't a huge deal, because those motors are themselves very reliable, it can autorotate like a traditional helicopter, and a traditional quadcopter can hardly survive a motor failure anyway (although software should be helping that soon).
andygates 12y ago
The software gimbal is a very nice trick: instead of moving the camera (with jerkiness and balance and extra control channels), they have a slightly down-angled 180-degree fisheye lens onto a big sensor. Then software stabilises and crops to present a slice of the view as if you were panning and tilting. Slick.
- gadders 12y ago
  Isn't that what the military do with their cameras on helicopters etc? Take a too big picture and stabilise the middle?
  - cushychicken 12y ago
    That's actually what cellphones do as well. Your picture represents about 80% of what hits the sensor.
- dirktheman 12y ago
  It is a nice trick, and the footage seems pretty solid. Will the quality match a real brushless gimbal with a good camera attached? I don't know, but for the majority of people this will do just fine I guess.
  - thisjepisje 12y ago
    If the resolution is high enough and the processing fast enough, I don't see why not.
- cuu508 12y ago
  I've often had problem with stabilizing shaky GoPro footage where the footage has geometric distortion, and after the stabilization it gets very noticeable: as the image is panned around, at the edges it appears wavy and flowy. A workaround for this is to account for geometric distortion when stabilizing. For example, in VirtualDub, use barrel distortion filter to "un-distort" the image, then do the Deshaker pass, then use barrel distortion filter to get the fisheye look back. This is a manual, error prone process, it takes time to get filter parameters right and to make sure no edges come into the view etc. Too much hassle if you want to process many videos. When stabilization happens in-device, they can tune it for the exact lens used, and they can work on raw video data, before compression. They can also account for rolling shutter and avoid the "jello effect". Plus there is one less post-processing step afterwards. So this has good potential and I'd like to see in-device stabilization in more action cameras too (Sony actioncams do have steady shot, but they also have some other shortcomings--lower max bitrate than GoPro, kind of bulky with the waterproof case).
sean-duffy 12y ago
Although this is interesting, I think DIY multirotors are where the revolution really is. I've built my own and it really isn't that difficult, assuming you're buying a kit for the frame and not manufacturing your own it's hardly more involved than assembling a custom PC and can result in a drone able to carry a camera such as a GoPro for less than $200. If you are planning to do this though I'd recommend getting a small, cheap quadcopter like the Hubsan X4 to practise with first.
- bambax 12y ago
  I have a Phantom and a Hubsan; I upgraded the Phantom with a new motherboard to install a gimbal; but I wouldn't have a clue of where to start for building my own from scratch? The $200 figure sounds optimistic since the frame and the radio each cost around $100, and then you have to add the motherboard, flight controller, motors and props...? Would you mind establishing a shopping list of what you built, and where you bought each part? I would love to give it a try! ;-)
  - newaccountfool 12y ago
    Have a look at Rotor Bones from Flite Test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_bDJ-esG4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_bDJ-esG4A Its a wooden kit you can buy, then have a look at Motors, ESC and a flight Controller and Tx/Rx you can pick them all up on Hobbyking.com.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - sean-duffy 12y ago
    Admittedly for $200 you aren't going to be getting anything fancy, but you'll certainly get something that gets the job done. Since this was my first RC project I went with a $23 radio system, which for basic control is fine. You can get a decent frame for $60, I went with a wooden one since it's pretty sturdy and unlike something like carbon fibre, if you crash you only have to go to a DIY store for replacements. The rest of the parts added up to $120 and were from HobbyKing. At the moment I have mine carrying a Mobius camera which is great, but it could easily carry a GoPro too. I have a blog post about it if you want more detail: http://www.seanduffy.co.uk/blog/2013/8/Project:-Quadcopter-Build/ http://www.seanduffy.co.uk/blog/2013/8/Project:-Quadcopter-B...
auvrw 12y ago
is this thing named after Cowboy Bebop? the controller design looks almost exactly like something from that tv show.
- evan_ 12y ago
  That's what I thought too- the Bebop was the name of the ship they lived on so it makes sense as the name of a flying machine.
MrJagil 12y ago
Did anyone else catch the "distorsion" typo in the video? What is it with typos that makes you want to point them out? Is it that important to us (me) to feel superior? Or is there a tiny bit of altruism hidden somewhere...
- mortar 12y ago
  Sure did. At least for me it's about identifying the error to the editor especially in the case of a business selling a product and trying to cast a sense of professionalism. Spelling like that just taints their image IMHO.
- Gmo 12y ago
  Parrot is built by a French company. In French, distortion is spelled distorsion. You should not look any further for the reason of the mistake, which is (very) hard to spot for a Frenchman.
  - MrJagil 12y ago
    Thanks for the info! Did not think of that at all!
jpdlla 12y ago
Owning an AR.Drone 2.0 the thing I most hate is using their mobile app to control them. The Bebop looks small enough to make it worth using my mobile to control it. I can see why the introduced the Skycontroller which looks pretty interesting. Saw a guy build something like this for his homemade drone. http://blog.parrot.com/2014/05/12/introducing-parrot-skycontroller/ http://blog.parrot.com/2014/05/12/introducing-parrot-skycont...
ilitirit 12y ago
I think this has the potential to be the next big thing. Not necessarily this particular device, but the idea itself. There are lots of applications for these types of devices. - News reporting - Surveillance and recon - Security (couple it with a wireless charger) - Entertainment All of these can be broken down even further into different industries etc.
lifeformed 12y ago
Tiny website design nitpick: the black vertical nav bar on the left side looks like I should be able to grab and drag the black circle, but I can't.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
amckenna 12y ago
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the IRIS by 3DRobotics. It uses a brushless gimbal to provide the image stabilization and is made largely of plastic components that can be replaced easily. I have their hexa-copter (built from a kit) and have been very happy with it. Two things worth pointing out that I think are very important: * The IRIS uses RC plane blades so they are cheap to replaces * The piloting software is open source
rodh257 12y ago
It all looks very cool, but that 12 minute battery life :(
iandanforth 12y ago
Because it hasn't been said. I love the name. A drone with really effective image stabilization? You might even call it "Rocksteady."
dharma1 12y ago
two thoughts.. what flavour of Linux? and 2km range with wifi, legal, how? We do similar stuff, just with big boy tools.. Red EPIC and octos, 3 axis gyros - http://londonhelicam.co.uk http://londonhelicam.co.uk

218 points by balakk 12y ago

This is amazing. With some camera smoothing in post production you could have shots that were previously only possible with a helicopter shot. I can see this being just as influential if not more than the gopro.

kayoone 12y ago
yes, but many drones like the DJI Phantom already do that, and better than AR Drones and possibly the Bebop. They also feature GoPro Mounts but are obviously more expensive if you add the cost of the GoPro.

kirillzubovsky 12y ago

I had a parrot drone before. It went up to 30 feet, disconnected from Wifi, dropped from the sky, and when I was just about to catch it, it re-connected, turned and crashed into pieces.... Ever since then, I am not a very big fan of their technology. For slightly more, you can get much better drones which would be worth the investment.

juice13 12y ago
Which ones would you recommend?
- dirktheman 12y ago
  The DJI Phantom is pretty much the standard in consumer-grade multirotors. It's plug & play, sold as a complete package with transmitter included, and for what you get it's actually not that expensive. If you're reluctant to fly a $500-$1000 UAV, get a cheap multirotor first and learn to fly. The Hubsan X4 is under $50, for instance. If you're a tinkerer you can build your own for a lot less, but be prepared for a LOT of fiddling to get it right (and the crashes that come with the fiddling). I fly a DIY F330 (same dimensions as the Phantom, only 'naked' frame) with an Arduino-based flight controller (APM2.6). It has some advantages over the DJI system, such as unlimited waypoints for autonomous flight. It can carry a gopro, and replacement parts/batteries are a lot cheaper if you get them from China. I don't get anywhere near the battery duration of the DJI, though. So: if you're looking for a new hobby: build your own. If you just want to fly: get the DJI.
  - lmm 12y ago
    Can I control the Phantom from Android? All their site seems to be talking about ipads.
    - newaccountfool 12y ago
      You might be able to but I would recommend it, using a good old 2.4ghz transmitter. You'll get more control and more range on that.
    - dirktheman 12y ago
      If it is possible, you would be severely limited by the WiFi signal radius. I'd highly recommmend a normal 2.4 Ghz TX since they're designed for this stuff. The phantom comes with TX, but if you go the DIY route I can really recommend the Turnigy 9X from HobbyKing. It's only $60, has 9 channels, comes with receiver and people won't laugh at you because you're holding an iPad or a toy-like transmitter.
      - voltagex_ 12y ago
        I'm fairly sure I've seen ways to interface the Turnigy 9X with phones via a headphone jack.
  - bambax 12y ago
    Couldn't agree more. I had a Parrot 1.0 and it was of low overall quality. I have a Phantom (v1.1) and it's fantastic; a friend just bought the v2 which is even greater. Among the differences: the Phantom has an actual radio, with ranges of over 500m (it would be very surprising if Wifi covered the advertised 300m of this new Parrot); you can change cameras as you wish (or, after a crash), it can fly really high and really fast, etc. You can get a Phantom 1 for under $350 these days (without a gimbal), or a 2+ (camera and gimbal included) for around $1000. I would recommend buying the 2 without gimbal ($550) and the Zenmuse gimbal ($150-$200) -- and if you already have a GoPro you're all set. Alternatively, you can buy a Hubsan H107D FPV which comes with a radio with a screen, for under $150! I don't own that one, but I have the Hubsan X4 which is a lot of fun (and completely safe to fly indoors).
- newaccountfool 12y ago
  Before you even start, have a look. You'll need a frame kit, motors, ESC and a flight controller as well as a transmitter and a reciever. You might also want an FPV kit so you can see where your flying and a GoPro so that you can film what you see. Have a look at the DJIF450 or DJIF550 frame kits, start with one of those cost me around £400GBP, you'll learn more with one of those than a Phantom and you'll be able to replace parts easier.
- AirDroids 12y ago
  For learning how to fly in the sub $100 price range, get a Hubsan X4 H107C - don't be put off by the low price - they are crazy fun to fly. For the $1000+ price range, the DJI Phantoms are great. For the $500 price range, check out http://www.thepocketdrone.com http://www.thepocketdrone.com - the most successful drone Kickstarter campaign of all time (raised almost one million dollars). Disclosure: I work for AirDroids who manufacture the Pocket Drone.
baddox 12y ago
The first AR Drone was released before the tech was ready for an out of the box consumer experience, especially for outdoor flight. The technology has come a long way in a few short years, especially for hobby grade gear, and the Bebop looks pretty solid in the few demo videos I have seen.
sytelus 12y ago
My AR Drone had busted battery on arrival. But what really had disappointed me was very flimsy styrofoam construction. Looks like this version also continues to have styrofoam.
- imdsm 12y ago
  Isn't that a feature? Joking aside though, isn't the Styrofoam to give it a low density structure?
  - sxtxixtxcxh 12y ago
    light, cheap, strong... pick any two!
  - sytelus 12y ago
    It's not a feature, its cost savings. You will never see good quality drones with styrofoams. The styrofoams makes drone lighter so that battery can be also cheap and manufacturer can claim bigger number for flight/charge. One advantage of styrofoams is that you can change it cheaply it breaks but in reality styrofoams makes drone much less stable because even small wind can now throw things off. It also makes it much more fragile.
    - baddox 12y ago
      Is there styrofoam on the Bebop other than the side guards? Those side guards are intended to be removed for outside flight.
shtolcers 12y ago
Often it's better to wait a bit and get Chinese copies :)

baddox 12y ago

I've built several "hobby grade" multirotors with GPS and first-person video, and while I find the process fun and satisfying, it's far from accessible to mainstream consumers. I was never impressed by Parrot's original AR Drone, but this looks much more promising as an accessible drone with a good feature set. The biggest problem with the AR Drone, the control latency over WiFi, is probably covered up by the Bebop's GPS stabilization. It doesn't look like there's any pricing information for the Bebop yet. They should definitely be able to keep it under $500, and if so (and if it works as well as their demos portray) I bet they'll sell well.

radiorental 12y ago
I thought I read either in the comments the last time this was posted here or in the original article that they were aiming for $6-700. That seems right for the technology
AirDroids 12y ago
For another multicopter in the $500 price range, check out http://www.thepocketdrone.com http://www.thepocketdrone.com - the most successful drone Kickstarter of all time (raised almost one million dollars). Disclosure: I work for them.
- erikano 12y ago
  Didn't see any answer to what are, IMO, the two most important questions: * What flight time does it have? * If you pre-order today (not that I'm going to), when can you expect to receive it?
  - AirDroids 12y ago
    20 minutes with onboard camera (GoPro etc.) - longer without the camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYAKpmhMADI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYAKpmhMADI Shipping is due to begin late summer, but Kickstarter orders will be shipped first. I've been told there is going to be a price increase sometime this month, although I'm not privy to the exact date.

rjbwork 12y ago

I'm more interested to see a small drone that can carry a small load, say of a couple to a few pounds. This could start to disrupt the small package/food delivery industry on a massive scale while cutting emissions and increasing service quality. We have seen plenty of small drones meant to be used for surveillance; it's not very interesting anymore.

cookingrobot 12y ago
Current law doesn't allow commercial drones - meaning nothing that makes a profit or supports a business. Hobby photography is the only application that makes sense right now.
- abritishguy 12y ago
  America isn't the only country.
  - laichzeit0 12y ago
    Well, except if you're American. (I kid, I kid..)
- imdsm 12y ago
  What law are you referring to? Columbian law? Swiss law? Russian law! I really have no idea, being that I am from Earth and there are so many countries. It does make this thread hard to follow, just too much guesswork.
- dkroy 12y ago
  If you do your homework or even a little googling you will realize that what you are saying isn't true. Hopefully this is good news for you! I think the link below may have even been submitted to HN, though I haven't checked. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/commercial-drones-are-completely-legal-a-federal-judge-ruled http://motherboard.vice.com/read/commercial-drones-are-compl...
  - 12y ago

captainbenises 12y ago

What beach is that in the header image? It looks nice.

choult 12y ago
That would be Miami beach.
peteretep 12y ago
ALL HAIL TIN EYE http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?src=PS5DwrRy6S3EBRIUs8iKRA-1-1&id=55216840 http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?src=PS5DwrRy6S3EBRIUs8... (it's Miami)
yardie 12y ago
That would be Miami Beach. South Point Park facing north to South Beach to be exact.

omarhegazy 12y ago

This with the Oculus Rift combined is going to make for some seriously awesome "tourism demos". Someone has to make a Bebop-as-a-service thing where you have warehouses full of Bebops across the world's largest tourist centers, then a paying user will have his/her Rift linked up with that Bebop, which will then fly high above the city's ground and let the tourist have a look at the city from the comfort of his/her home.

kayoone 12y ago
Wouldn't make much sense combined with the Rift though, as the camera on the Bebop can't move. You could move the Bebop itself based on head motion, but i am not sure if that would give a good feel of control. Besides you would still be quite limited in wifi range and i doubt people want drones falling into the pools or on their heads ;)
- simias 12y ago
  The camera has a very wide handle so you can actually move the visible window by simply adjusting the software cropping. So you can actually track the head movements without moving the drone on a roughly 180degree angle in every direction. There's only one camera though, so you don't have any stereoscopic effect.

sytelus 12y ago

One of my startup ideas couple of years ago was cheap stabilized mini dolly/crane system for casual videographers. This space, I thought, was ripe for disruption considering tons of new professional grade cameras sporting HD video but other equipment remaining as expensive as ever. Shooting with this kind of system really makes even bad video interesting. Now I think drones could be just that dolly/crane system. I hope people make their control software open source. The key would now be software that can produce super stabilized flights in artistic trajectories automatically.

david927 12y ago
That was exactly what was going through my mind as well. I just make short films as a hobby, and I've been so excited over the years to watch these huge quality/price inversions for high quality video. There's still a ways to go, but the movement has been amazing; it's been thrilling. And now this?! There are so many shots I have in my head that I could pull off with this. The idea that I -- I alone! -- could essentially afford my own dolly/crane system blows my mind. I feel like I have just seen the future. As for the software you mentioned: it's clear, the stability has to get better (but there was clearly a lot of wind on that beach, as you would expect, so maybe it would be better in different conditions). But for the trajectories, you could also contract someone that worked remotely, to whom you could draw out the trajectory you want or model in another way, and be your camera operator. (Wouldn't that be mind-blowing? "The camera operator on this film never left their home in Madagascar.") Really -- I've just seen the future, and as a (hobbyist) film maker, I'm ecstatic at the potential!

unwind 12y ago

This passage: [...] Bebop Drone navigation computer features a Parrot P7 dual-core CPU, quad-core GPU and 8 GB of Flash Memory[...] was intriguing. I really don't believe that they really have a custom "Parrot P7" CPU since that makes very little sense considering their use for the CPU. Also, even if they had designed their own CPU, why would they include a quad-core GPU for this application? That doesn't make any sense, either. Does anyone know more about that CPU? I don't follow Parrot closely so perhaps I'm misjudging them.

d3k 12y ago
I worked on the development of the P7, and yes, it is a dual core CPU powered by ARM cores with a quad-core GPU. The CPU is meant to be used for other projects too, so a quad core GPU makes sense.
- unwind 12y ago
  OK, cool. Thanks! I guess I kind of assumed it was an ARM, that does make it feel a lot less magic since (from my understanding) designing a SoC based on ARM is quite far from the same as designing a CPU from scratch in terms of complexity. I wish they had included the word "ARM" in their description.
  - yardie 12y ago
    They've been releasing SDKs for their drones for many years. Although the PR material doesn't make it obvious if you get a chance to download the SDK it becomes very apparent. My last AR.drone was ARM based with RTLinux as the kernel, not sure if it is the same now. You could SSH directly to the onboard OS and into Busybox. I was able to modify the wpa-supplicant so it could connect to the house wifi and be controlled from my PC, instead of using the crappy iOS client. From the SDK I wrote a small .Net app that used my Xbox controller, gave me telemetry, and recorded video.

mikeknoop 12y ago

The big innovation here over comparable camera-stablizied GPS-locked drones (eg. DJI Phantom II) is that there is no mechanical gimble which significantly reduces weight and battery consumption of the Bebop.

bambax 12y ago
But a mechanical gimbal is awesome; it can rotate to a horizontal position, so you can get satellite-like views, or simply look at the top of something; with a fixed front camera you will never be able to get those kinds of shots.
- andygates 12y ago
  It must be said, some of the best shots I get are straight down. If in doubt, velcro more cameras to the thing. MOAR!
dirktheman 12y ago
It's a great innovation, but I still prefer my mechanical gimbal. It offers a lot wider angles and I won't have to crop my footage. When I don't need it I'll just leave off, the reduced weight makes the drone ripping through the skies like a ferrari.

yardie 12y ago

I had a Parrot AR.drone. After one too many crashes the motherboard wouldn't signal the motors to start. I sent it back to the store I bought it from, who promptly gave me $300 in store credit rather than another drone. Although I would rather have had another drone. When I asked the CSrep she explained they stopped carrying them because the high return rate. My son and high had a lot of fun flying it indoors and I'm looking for another. I'm fascinated by this drone[1]. Variable pitch rotors means it has the agility of a helicopter, including inverted flight (upside-down). Only downside is there is 1 motor so 1 single point of failure. [1] http://curtisyoungblood.com/V2/products/quadcopters/stingray-500 http://curtisyoungblood.com/V2/products/quadcopters/stingray...

baddox 12y ago
The Stingray is awesome, although I wouldn't trust myself flying it until my skills are much better (Curtis Youngblood is a beast). The motor as a point of failure probably isn't a huge deal, because those motors are themselves very reliable, it can autorotate like a traditional helicopter, and a traditional quadcopter can hardly survive a motor failure anyway (although software should be helping that soon).

andygates 12y ago

The software gimbal is a very nice trick: instead of moving the camera (with jerkiness and balance and extra control channels), they have a slightly down-angled 180-degree fisheye lens onto a big sensor. Then software stabilises and crops to present a slice of the view as if you were panning and tilting. Slick.

gadders 12y ago
Isn't that what the military do with their cameras on helicopters etc? Take a too big picture and stabilise the middle?
- cushychicken 12y ago
  That's actually what cellphones do as well. Your picture represents about 80% of what hits the sensor.
dirktheman 12y ago
It is a nice trick, and the footage seems pretty solid. Will the quality match a real brushless gimbal with a good camera attached? I don't know, but for the majority of people this will do just fine I guess.
- thisjepisje 12y ago
  If the resolution is high enough and the processing fast enough, I don't see why not.
cuu508 12y ago
I've often had problem with stabilizing shaky GoPro footage where the footage has geometric distortion, and after the stabilization it gets very noticeable: as the image is panned around, at the edges it appears wavy and flowy. A workaround for this is to account for geometric distortion when stabilizing. For example, in VirtualDub, use barrel distortion filter to "un-distort" the image, then do the Deshaker pass, then use barrel distortion filter to get the fisheye look back. This is a manual, error prone process, it takes time to get filter parameters right and to make sure no edges come into the view etc. Too much hassle if you want to process many videos. When stabilization happens in-device, they can tune it for the exact lens used, and they can work on raw video data, before compression. They can also account for rolling shutter and avoid the "jello effect". Plus there is one less post-processing step afterwards. So this has good potential and I'd like to see in-device stabilization in more action cameras too (Sony actioncams do have steady shot, but they also have some other shortcomings--lower max bitrate than GoPro, kind of bulky with the waterproof case).

sean-duffy 12y ago

Although this is interesting, I think DIY multirotors are where the revolution really is. I've built my own and it really isn't that difficult, assuming you're buying a kit for the frame and not manufacturing your own it's hardly more involved than assembling a custom PC and can result in a drone able to carry a camera such as a GoPro for less than $200. If you are planning to do this though I'd recommend getting a small, cheap quadcopter like the Hubsan X4 to practise with first.

bambax 12y ago
I have a Phantom and a Hubsan; I upgraded the Phantom with a new motherboard to install a gimbal; but I wouldn't have a clue of where to start for building my own from scratch? The $200 figure sounds optimistic since the frame and the radio each cost around $100, and then you have to add the motherboard, flight controller, motors and props...? Would you mind establishing a shopping list of what you built, and where you bought each part? I would love to give it a try! ;-)
- newaccountfool 12y ago
  Have a look at Rotor Bones from Flite Test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_bDJ-esG4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_bDJ-esG4A Its a wooden kit you can buy, then have a look at Motors, ESC and a flight Controller and Tx/Rx you can pick them all up on Hobbyking.com.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- sean-duffy 12y ago
  Admittedly for $200 you aren't going to be getting anything fancy, but you'll certainly get something that gets the job done. Since this was my first RC project I went with a $23 radio system, which for basic control is fine. You can get a decent frame for $60, I went with a wooden one since it's pretty sturdy and unlike something like carbon fibre, if you crash you only have to go to a DIY store for replacements. The rest of the parts added up to $120 and were from HobbyKing. At the moment I have mine carrying a Mobius camera which is great, but it could easily carry a GoPro too. I have a blog post about it if you want more detail: http://www.seanduffy.co.uk/blog/2013/8/Project:-Quadcopter-Build/ http://www.seanduffy.co.uk/blog/2013/8/Project:-Quadcopter-B...

auvrw 12y ago

is this thing named after Cowboy Bebop? the controller design looks almost exactly like something from that tv show.

evan_ 12y ago
That's what I thought too- the Bebop was the name of the ship they lived on so it makes sense as the name of a flying machine.

MrJagil 12y ago

Did anyone else catch the "distorsion" typo in the video? What is it with typos that makes you want to point them out? Is it that important to us (me) to feel superior? Or is there a tiny bit of altruism hidden somewhere...

mortar 12y ago
Sure did. At least for me it's about identifying the error to the editor especially in the case of a business selling a product and trying to cast a sense of professionalism. Spelling like that just taints their image IMHO.
Gmo 12y ago
Parrot is built by a French company. In French, distortion is spelled distorsion. You should not look any further for the reason of the mistake, which is (very) hard to spot for a Frenchman.
- MrJagil 12y ago
  Thanks for the info! Did not think of that at all!

jpdlla 12y ago

Owning an AR.Drone 2.0 the thing I most hate is using their mobile app to control them. The Bebop looks small enough to make it worth using my mobile to control it. I can see why the introduced the Skycontroller which looks pretty interesting. Saw a guy build something like this for his homemade drone. http://blog.parrot.com/2014/05/12/introducing-parrot-skycontroller/ http://blog.parrot.com/2014/05/12/introducing-parrot-skycont...

ilitirit 12y ago

I think this has the potential to be the next big thing. Not necessarily this particular device, but the idea itself. There are lots of applications for these types of devices. - News reporting - Surveillance and recon - Security (couple it with a wireless charger) - Entertainment All of these can be broken down even further into different industries etc.

lifeformed 12y ago

Tiny website design nitpick: the black vertical nav bar on the left side looks like I should be able to grab and drag the black circle, but I can't.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

amckenna 12y ago

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the IRIS by 3DRobotics. It uses a brushless gimbal to provide the image stabilization and is made largely of plastic components that can be replaced easily. I have their hexa-copter (built from a kit) and have been very happy with it. Two things worth pointing out that I think are very important: * The IRIS uses RC plane blades so they are cheap to replaces * The piloting software is open source

rodh257 12y ago

It all looks very cool, but that 12 minute battery life :(

iandanforth 12y ago

Because it hasn't been said. I love the name. A drone with really effective image stabilization? You might even call it "Rocksteady."

dharma1 12y ago

two thoughts.. what flavour of Linux? and 2km range with wifi, legal, how? We do similar stuff, just with big boy tools.. Red EPIC and octos, 3 axis gyros - http://londonhelicam.co.uk http://londonhelicam.co.uk