I've been asked on a very short notice (tomorrow) to shoot some aerial footage of a dike from a small plane. I've never done aerial filming before and have a few questions. I am considering using my GH4 coupled with the Panasonic 12-35 (OIS) and will shoot handheld.

1) It would seem that shooting 4K is the way to go, obviously because of the detail I hope to get. But I am worried about camera shake. Maybe it's better to shoot 1080p/50 or do the in camera slowmotion at 96 fps. That would perhaps handle the micro-jitters a lot better... Any ideas on this?

2)I am a little worried the camera is too light. Should I use something to weigh down the camera? I plan to improvise with a larger eyecup.

3) I have a Tiffen variable ND but no sunhood. Bad flare problems? The forecast is partly cloudy with a chance of sunshine.

4)I have a semi-shoulder camera, a Sony EX3. I would shoot 1080P but may be suited better because it has a proper viewfinder, built-in ND's, heavier body, a built-in sunhood and a longer zoom range.

5)I'd appreciate any and all tips! (I thought of bringing some wind-ex to clean the plane's windows...)

Shooting through the aircraft windows is not a great idea, there will be a lot of distortion through the curved Perspex and you will need to shoot downwards at an angle to the window. Even if the aircraft is banking steeply you will still need to shoot at an angle through the glass which will likely lead to distortion and reflections. Lens flare shouldn't really be a problem, as you will be shooting downwards away from the sun.

The few aerial shoots I have done have mainly been with the door removed on my side, or if that wasn't possible, some light aircraft have the top half of the door removable or can be folded upwards. It would be down to the pilot what he feels comfortable with but definitely try to avoid shooting through the window.

As regards holding the camera, a light aircraft is not smooth in the way that an airliner is and it will be subject to continuous small bumps and minor turbulence. If the forecast is partly cloudy with sunny intervals, then there will be quite a lot of thermal activity which will be moving the aircraft around. Hand or shoulder mounting alone may not be sufficient to absorb the bumps, which is why serious aerial filming uses sophisticated gimbal mounts. You need to be able to dampen the movement in some way, and some people have used an elasticated bungee cord suspended from some point above the camera position, and attached to the camera to absorb some of the movement. You can then concentrate on pointing it in the right direction rather than having to support the full weight. A heavier camera may help but it may also be bigger and more difficult to handle if the aircraft is very small.

Finally, try to do a couple of circuits around the subject you are shooting, to plan the best flight height and angle, where the sun is etc. Don't forget that the pilot will probably be the opposite side to you and may not be able to see the target while you are flying around it, depending on the bank angle and height.

Hope some of that helps,

Roger

Use a really high shutter speed to eliminate motion blur. Like 1/500. You may then be able to stabilize in post. You want to embrace the unintended camera movements and capture them cleanly - they will definitely be there.

Bungee cords are popular, and I've also used pillows to rest my arms on.

Also, if shooting through a window, figure out some way to mask off the lens from reflection. This product comes to mind but you could make one with a piece of black fabric, some tape and a rubber band I'm sure. LENSKIRT - Block reflections when taking pictures through glass (http://www.lenskirt.com)

If they can provide a Cessna 172 it has a window that can be propped open during flight. Fly early in the morning for best light, least turbulence. High wing aircraft have a strut to support the wing so the best view is to toward the rear. A focal length with an angle of view of about 85mm on a full frame stills camera works well for the type of shot you describe. Here's an example, shot at about 2000 feet agl.

Thanks for all of your input, greatly appreciated.

Interestingly, nobody commented on whether to shoot slow motion (96 fps) or 4K at 25P. I talked to a buddy of mine and he said to shoot at 96 because it really helps to smoothen out the shot and you can always decide to speed up in post. Actually, I should probably shoot 75fps if you need the option to play back at (normal speed) 25fps.

And Nate: how will a shutter speed of 1/500 play back? Wouldn't it look choppy?

If you've got the data capacity shooting high speed would help smooth out the bumps - there always seems to be a little instability, even disturbed air from the aircraft you're in if you fly a circle.

Shoot 4K and crop in to an image stabilised 1920 x 1080 frame, the results will be great. the 12-35 mm lens should do the job well but take another longer lens with you and try to do two or three passes.

I had the door removed when filming in Kenya, it was hair raising especially when the pilots banks so you can get a downward shot. Check your safety belt is tight and use your legs to wedge against the aircraft frame - just in case :-)


Good luck

It's also worth checking your pilot is actually experienced enough to fly the manoeuvres you want. Asking for high yaw angles, or perhaps being offered them to get the right angles is fine if the pilot is comfortable with them. Many private pilots have little experience at high angles of bank, it's the opposite of what they normally do - which is nice easy turns, and straight and level!

Be aware that any contact with the airframe introduces HUGE amounts of vibration, so whatever you do, contact is bad. A friend who runs an aerial video business told me that a foam lens hood works well - you cut a piece of foam so that it acts as a windshield and soft barrier. Then you squish it up to the window to cut out the reflections, but the foam stops the vibration. Some aircraft have a grab handle above the door and a bungee cord can take the weight off. If you work with the window open, make sure everything loose is tethered. A bean bag on the open frame can work, but not when it falls out! If you can arrange a monitor that the pilot can glance at, you might find it gives them a better understanding of what the camera can see, so they can assist the framing. The direction of the camera also impacts the jitters - sideways, looking out is worst as the image tracks past quickly while looking back seems to slow the passage down.

The wing strut on Cessnas ALWAYS gets in the shot, but is better than an aircraft with a low wing. If you have one, a gopro on the window is also a very useful backup. The pilot may well allow you to use it outside, but the tether is critical, as they do fall off! The CAA in the UK do not allow physical attachment to the aircraft unless it uses approved hardware and is fitted properly, but loads of amateur pilots seem to abuse this rule.

I shot this out the door of a JetRanger helicopter with a handheld C100 resting on some foam on my lap. It was my very first time shooting from the air.

Private Video on Vimeo
password: fly

It was at 30p, later conformed to 24p. My shutter speed was about 1/320, my F-stop was about F8 and the focal length was 24mm to about 70mm using a Canon EF lens with IS turned on. The footage was stabilized using CoreMelt Lock and Load X. It definitely needed stabilization as there's so much going on with wind hitting you, the aircraft moving about, general handheld shakiness, etc.

I guess you could argue using a slow shutter speed to take out high-frequency vibrations (as a ND filter does for GoPros on Drones), but when you go and try to stabilize the footage in post, which is pretty much a necessity in my opinion unless you're shooting on a gyro, you're pretty much toast as the software stabilizer will fight with the motion blur (caused by YOUR low-frequency movements). At the height you'll be at, there really shouldn't be any perceivable motion blur anyways, which negates the need to use 180˚ shutter for that "look." Of course there are exceptions, like the wind turbine in the video above, but in my (limited) experience, the higher shutter speed really give the software stabilizer concrete images to latch onto and stabilize. YMMV...

Not sure about the 25P 4K or the 96P 1080. If it were me, I would opt for the higher frame rate, as I found that often your windows of opportunity when doing low-budget aerial shots is limited. With a higher frame rate, just 1 or 2 seconds of a "good shot" could be stretched in a 25P timeline to a very usable piece of footage. Getting 8-10 seconds of continuously usable handheld aerial footage from a plane will be challenging to say the least.

+1 for Jim Michael's comment about [hoping it is a] Cessna.

Like he mentioned, the strut will surly be a problem but not nearly as much as a low wing plane. Trying to keep the strut out of the frame is possible but with difficulty. If you shoot wide it may not be possible but with telephoto it would be possible but with much more shake.

The Cessna typically has front seat windows that will open. They are hinged at the top and open out to probably 45º or so. That will give an opening to shoot through but not much of one. If the cam has a removable top handle it would be good to take it off in this case so there is more room to maneuver the cam.

The plexiglass on a Cessna, at least the later models, will have a green tint that will cause a coloration problem.

Not mentioned so far: Noise. Not video noise but aircraft noise. Maybe the pilot has a second headset you can wear. If not, some ear plugs will help.

A dike will probably be near water. Water causes a downdraft while land, if it is warm, could provide a bit of an updraft but this time of year probably not much of one. If the plane is flying over a mixture of water and land then obviously the plane will experience a mixture of draft events.

Try not to fly too slow. If the plane starts emitting a loud whistle noise tell the pilot to fly faster!
[Edit: be sure to ask him/her what I mean by this. You can tell him you read this on the Internet.]

May want to take a few passes at varying distances from the dike.

Seems like a challenging assignment.

I'm getting dizzy from all this advice and I haven't even entered the plane yet...

I think I will shoot 75 fps at a high shutter speed.

One really nice factor though: the man behind the wheel is an astronaut so I would think probably one of the best pilots on (or rather, 'off') the earth ;-)

I think I will shoot 75 fps at a high shutter speed.

I would not shoot at that high of a frame rate. I would shoot either 4Kp30 if you're okay with confirming that to the end frame rate of the project it's going to be used in, or 1080p60. No higher. Here's why: you start doing a quicker method of taking your 16MP sensor down to 1080p when you go higher than 60. That kills your resolution, which is a problem when you are shooting wide vistas. Frankly, I would shoot as wide as I possibly could. If I could get a hold of a small, light gimbal system, I would use that.

If this is your first time, hopefully it is not also your pilot's first time. The pilot's first priority should always be with the aircraft but sometimes an element of trying too hard to please enters the equation and dangers may arise.

The workload of piloting any aircraft has its moments of high intensity and remains high. Be aware that the last thing a pilot needs is insistent distraction.

Low and slow is a lethal combination in turns. It is early yet in the investigation but this may have factored in the recent Tasmania tragedy. A pilot and stills photographer were lost in a Cessna off the coast whilst shooting the Sydney to Hobart yacht race. If your pilot is not experienced in camera airmanship, please do not tempt him or her to go the extra mile.

A sweet fixed wing aircraft for air to ground imaging is the Maule.

BOB GRIMSTEAD'S MAULE 2 - YouTube

The wing struts are positioned well forward when the rear seat or cargo area is used.

OLD ROLEY AIRSTRIP AERIAL VIEW - YouTube

Doors on the right side can legally be removed and it has a generous centre of gravity envelope. This permits operating from the floor within the rear of the aircraft with the seats removed.

In this example, the right rear passenger entry door was removed. The rear seat remained and was used. I cross-held the camera and used a separate monitor which has its challenges. Out of an abundance of caution, the owner-pilot installed a sort of thick rope cargo net arrangement against the possibility of me slipping through the seatbelt and falling out.

FOURNIER AIR-TO-AIR IMAGES - YouTube

You need an appropriate restraint harness to keep you from falling outside. It is best to keep the rear seats fitted. If you fly in a Maule and sit on the rear floor, be aware that a cabin heat outlet will be under your butt and if heat is selected on, you will become most discomforted. If not properly seated as the manufacturer intended, you are at a greater risk of injury if things go wrong.

Your camera should also be tethered short enough that it cannot go outside of the cabin on the tether and batter the airframe

Your videocamera viewfinders may be awkward or impossible to use when shooting through the opened right-side window of a Cessna. You have no choice but to use a front seat. Your head position is fairly high, almost within the overhead wing structure.

The left-mounted LCD will be on the "blind-side" of the camera. This may require you to use another monitor screen with all its inconvenience of power and cabling all of which can hang up upon and foul flight controls. Otherwise you may be compelled to shoot "wide and blind", which makes for only passable images at best.

The rear seat of the Cessna is a friendlier workspace but then you have to contend with the window transparency unless it has been modified or removed.

More ideal for your Cessna adventure might be a skydiver's plane. They have a modified door which can be removed or opens upwards against the wing. These aircraft are usually the larger more powerful models like the 206/Stationair and are more costly to hire.

To get yourself around a camera to view a side LCD, when in the right front seat, you risk interfering with the flight controls unless the right-side yoke has been removed. If you are fortunate, your pilot may be a qualified flight instructor endorsed to fly from the right seat which would then put you in a more user-friendly situation with a side LCD-style camera like the EX3. I think the EX3 may be less comfortable to use within the confined space of a light aircraft cabin.

If you can attend at the airfield to rehearse and practice moving about and working within the tight space of your aircraft whilst it is on the ground, you should do so.

There will be better people to advise you in this craft than I so heed their advice over my comments.

So this was the assignment that never got off the ground- at least not today. The day started out perfect for aerial shooting: clear and sunny here in Amsterdam but as we we drove out to airport Lelystad, some 45 kilometers east, things started to get hazier. By the time we met up with pilot André Kuipers -former astronaut- he had just returned from a testflight and said visibility was bad and getting worse... It was straightout dangerous to fly.
Sooo... I was disappointed but also relieved. I was worried about the haze muddying up my shots and there was a strong wind which would cause extra shake. I also would get a chance to prepare myself better. And... I discovered we were flying a Piper and I got a look inside. That thing seats 4 and it is TINY inside. No way I could have used my EX3 in there. No possibility of opening or removing doors/windows.

We will give it another shot as soon as possible. I told my client about all the obstacles when shooting from a plane. He is going to try and raise some money to get a different aircraft. I think both the Maule and Cessna are better options than this Piper (in addition to the option to remove glass, higher wings for better stability, so I learned) but I don't know about availability here in the Netherlands. This is not a commercial production, by the way, so there will be a tradeoff between quality and expense. Perhaps the Cessna is the best option. (I saw one standing in the hangar)

After the last responses to my questions about format/framerate/shutterspeed, I decided to shoot UHD 25P around f9 at the highest possible shutterspeed- and let them stabilize in post for use in a full HD project. (Shooting from the car today I could not go higher than 1/80 and I believe that was after I upped ISO to 400 so unless it's a real sunny day I assume shutterspeed won't be too high)

I learned a lot in a mere 1 day! Great response here guys...

When I shot in a small two pilot plane, I used a DSLR on a mono pod. But that's just me. I wasn't going to get my XF300 in to that plane and be able to move it around. My 2cts.

Interestingly, nobody commented on whether to shoot slow motion (96 fps) or 4K at 25P. I talked to a buddy of mine and he said to shoot at 96 because it really helps to smoothen out the shot and you can always decide to speed up in post.

I'm the editor on a project that had a 2-camera light plane flight - DSLR out one side and FS700 on the other. I threw out everything except the FS700 100fps footage.

The problem is that, even once stabilised, the rolling shutter introduces some horrible high-frequency jello on all the footage. The 100fps clips got conformed to 25fps and look great, no stabilisation needed.

I haven't shot much with the GH4 so I don't know how bad jello is in 4K, or how much quality you lose in 96fps, but my general advice would be to go for more fps over more resolution.

Yes. A Piper is a bit tight inside. There is slightly better workspace compared to a Cessna if you are in the right front seat.

I found I was only able to work the EX1 from the front right seat viewing out via the rear left transparency in a line behind the pilot to dodge the wing. I was in the green and white Piper which you will see in the linked video below.

I soon felt the strain from being all twisted up. It was only workable if the aircraft was in a steady left turn.

However, in that turning motion, the aircraft was sweetly steady, more so than the Cessna. The Cessna was also steady in a turn. Because you are not having to "track" your subject in a turn centred upon it, you make less inputs of your own, therefore less unwanted movement occurs, a double win.

Optical steadyshot was as much a curse as a blessing. I tried a home-made manual gymbal a bit like a cut-down steadycam. It was too squirelly and impossible to control.

If your camera is light, my personal preference would be to fasten it down to a divebelt weight and hand-hold that combination. Be aware that this then becomes a mass that in turbulence might get away from you and injure your pilot. If you want to add mass using a piece of scrap steel, enquire with your pilot first as it is magnetic and may deviate the backup compass if you are in a front seat.

The great thing about memory cameras is there are no magnet motors in tape drives, However lens servos may still deviate a compass. It is unlikely to be an issue but ask anyway.

There is a hand-hold method which will help you in an aircraft with a small camera. It is awkward and unusual but converts most of inadvertent movements of the camera from off the optical axis to parallel with it in the tilt direction.

Imagine bringing your hands together in prayer, then opening them outwards whilst maintaining contact at the wrists. Now rotate your hands clockwise so you left fingers are at front and your right fingers at rear.

Clasp your camera in this grip. Use your left fingers for the lens, your right number four or number five fingers for the run-stop button. Contact with the camera body by the palms of your hands must not be disturbed or the steadiness is lost.

Hold the camera out about 300mm - 400mm and allow your arms to "float" with the bumps a little like a steadicam. Practice in a car to get the feel of it. The mechanism of your arms will look much like the iso-elastic arm of the steadicam.

This method works best if facing the camera dead ahead. You can work across your body to the left side but a roll movement may be introduced into the image. To work to the right, your must change your grip from left hand front to left hand rear.

However you must practice until it feels less uncomfortable for the method to work at all. If your camera has a rear LCD screen like a DSLR, then you are going to have to peer through opened fingers at it.

I used a steadycam "floating" grip whilst experimenting with the gymbal gadget here. I have included this clip with all its faults as it provides an over-water view.

FORMATIONS AND CAM STABILISER TEST - YouTube


Nowadays we have these sweet motorised gadgets called Ronins.

This link might be of interest to you.


Eye in the Sky Productions (http://www.eyeinthesky.com.au/)

http://www.eyeinthesky.com.au/behind-the-scenes/

I'd shoot the 96fps if you can do it, audio isn't being used so not a issue, but shoot wide will reduce the amount of motion. This may be a problem as it means you need to be closer, the pilot must observe their PANSOPS height restrictions anyway.
One rig I saw in times past on the cheap which seemed quite good, is a simple aluminium plate, with 2 pistol grips suspended on a bungie cord with the camera mounted on the plate. This may help reduce the engine vibration etc.
Ive done foam on the legs, it does reduce vibration, but you need to be in a plane that lets you shoot clearly from that position. There are dedicated planes out there with proper mounts and clear view ports for this purpose, you'll need to check your yellowpages etc.

It seems like opinions are split right down the middle as far as shooting highest possible frame rate (in this case 96 fps) or high resolution (UHD @ 25P) and stabilize in post for use in HD timeline. I talked to the editor who says AVID has a great stabilizer (compared to FCP X)

I like the idea of holding onto the resolution. Plus a high shutter speed should really nail the landscape sharpness.

Lots of experience here but no scientific winner, I guess...

We're set to fly on wednesday and we have rented a Cessna 172. Plan to remove a window, or at least open it. The pilot will check it out tomorrow. Unfortunately former astronaut Andre Kuipers is too busy this week to fly the plane...

But at least I have these pics as a souvenir! 'Andre and I just before we didn't take off'...

I rented a Sony X70 with OIS in the lens and an extra Active Electronic Stabilzation for good measure. A rental company suggested this. The form factor is nicer than the GH4 for handheld, with a better and bigger LCD screen and a proper top handle and greater zoom range. Also built in ND's, although I doubt I will need them when shooting high shutterspeed.
It's not 4K but the image is tack sharp. XAVC 1080 50P. I also rented a GoPro 4 Black to shoot 4K. I will attach it to the plane with a super clamp. Then I have a buddy of mine holding a NX30 that I happened to have borrowed from a colleague. Unfortunately he will only be able to shoot through the window. I also have a GoPro HD2 I can attach somewhere on the outside with another super clamp, just for fun.

I will sit in the pilot seat on the left with the window removed. The pilot will fly the plane from the right front seat.

Question about the GH4: when you focus manually on infinity, you will see a red zone if you focus too far away. What does this mean?

It'll be soft.

Something to look out for with the GoPro is the shutter speed if it's pointing to the front of the aircraft. On a bright day the shutter speed will be high enough to stop the prop and the rolling shutter will make it curve. You can put some ND over the lens to fix that. Prop turns about 2500 rpm.

It'll be soft.

Have you shot with the X70? With the GH4 without extra stabilizers there's a good chance of image degradation as well.

Jeroen.


My footage shot of the dam and the abandoned airstrip was with a Sony EX3 using the BBC picture profile. It was entirely handheld. You can count on only about 30% or less of your footage being usable.

My personal preference would be not to indecisively jump from camera type to camera type. Work with whatever camera you are most intuitively linked with as an operator. That way when airbourne, you can better concentrate upon everything else which will overwork you.

The Panasonic GH4 camera I understand is shorter front-to-rear than my EX1. If you are able to have the window removed or locked fully up, then you are in with a better chance of getting your 4K images. 4K is going to leave you with a lot more wriggle room for stabilising in post-production without losing apparent resolution.

As a hedge, if you can shoot stills with the GH4, I would ask for another pass over the subject and pop off a bunch of wide-angle still images which you can crop and maybe animate in post-production for brief fillers across gaps in your motion footage without losing apparent resolution.

At best, my guess is that you will not be able to hold your camera steady enough to use a unstabilised lens which is more in focal length millimetres than about half to two thirds of the sensor width in millimetres.

If you can, test all the camera/lens combinations by shooting from a moving car to get the feel and get the practice.

You will find that you may have to shoot with your camera angle rearwards to dodge the wing strut and the trailing edge of the wing which will drop into your shot during corrections in turns.

Be aware that your camera may chill during the flight and later become covered in moisture when back on the ground. Let it warm up for a while indoors before taking the lens off.

To avoid damaging the window transparencies in the aircraft, it is good manners to run a narrow strip of gaffer tape over sharp edges like front rims of lenses which will make contact and scratch. The aircraft owner may appreciate this gesture and may be more co-operative with you next time

Please trust more, the comments of other experienced people better than myself who comment here.

As no one has added these suggestions, I will toss them into the mix...
Another aerial photography method used for air-to-air shots is to use a Cessna with the rear seats and baggage door removed. The photographer/videographer can lie on their stomach and shot through the baggage door opening, completely inside the airplane with little risk of falling out. I have friends who have done it using Cessna 210s and 182s. The 210 baggage door is higher, so it would enable the shooter to sit instead of lie. Other, more expensive options for air-to-air shooters are using Beech Bonanza 36 models, Baron 56 models and Piper Cherokee 6 and Saratoga models with the rear doors removed. These allow the shooter to sit in a seat and shoot through a large opening.

Sorry i wasn't clear with my last post Jeroen,
I was referring to going past the red focus point on the GH4. It tends to make everything soft.
I haven't shot with the X70.

Ed.

Yes. The Cherokee Six. I know one. It was a skydivers plane and I shot film of a jump in it about 30 years back. They stuck a harness on me and tied me off to the pilot's seat so I wouldn't slide out. So if anything went astray I was there for the ride all the way down. It was a sweet plane.

It was a bit of a heartbreaker to see the aircraft worked so hard and operating off an unpaved bush strip, which was dusty and covered in loose flints. The leading edge of the horizontal stabiliser was ruined by the stones flying up off the wheels and prop wash. I guess the plane was been parted a long time ago and at best, some of it may be a letterbox on the side of the road or fencing straps by now.

I know about the rear cargo door on the Cessna 210 and 182. It solves the issue of the wingtip and strut getting in the shot. I decided I would not mention it for reasons of adding risk to new players in the aerial videography game. There apparently be will be three up in the aircraft.

The Maule has a forgiving CofG envelope. I don't know how safe the Cessna 210 and 182 are with both the weight of two persons offset to the left, one person's mass to the rear plus low and slow flight as a combination.

What he really needs is a J-3 Cub.
Take off, open the doors, loosen seat belt, turn and sit sideways with feet hanging outside.

So the shoot was a real b*tch, as expected and was predicted. I had my buddy shoot the X70 from behind and I shot UHD at 25P with my GH4 from the front left seat with the window open. I thought I was really steady but when looking back on a 5K screen there is so much movement it's unbelievable. It also becomes a lot more apparent at this resolution..? I fiddled around with the stabilizer filter for a short while in FCP X, but it looked horrible. But I guess trying to stabilize a 7 minute clip with different focal lengths and turbulence, angles etc didn't help... Anyway, the thing is going to edited in AVID, which has a better stabilizing filter, so I heard.

The X70 shooting 1080 at 50P with the OIS and EIS steadyshot functions on looked a lot smoother. If I had known what a difference it was, I would have operated that camera. But in the end I went for resolution. (and several claims that with al, that extra real estate I would be able to stabilize in post for use in a HD project)

The GH4 shots are more suitable for still use at f9 or so and around 1/400. Pretty sharp.

Just saw a review of the Nebula 4000 Lite- that would have been a great match with my GH4. Perfect for this assignment.

Jeroen - Hey, thanks for the field trip report!

Just wondering how was the turbulence? Seems like it might have been a little bumpy. Were you able to get up early in the morning before the wind kicked up?

Also wondering about the strut and landing gear - was it a problem shooting past them? From a FCPX stabilization standpoint, I've found that when there is something like that in the foreground that has one motion and the background has another, the stabilization has a tough time with that and the video becomes jello.

Was there enough room with the open window (it doesn't open that wide) to get the shot you needed without interference?

One of my favorite jello stabilization jobs was a buoy (on the water) in the foreground that was swinging from wave action and land in the far distance (not moving at all). The resulting stabilized video almost could make someone seasick just watching it. Well, the boat and the waves were moving too so it must have been a challenging job. It would be nice to select a part of the video that was solid, like the land, and have the stabilizing feature use it to fix everything else relative to it. Of course, in your case, the land is really moving past fast.

Well, chalk this up to a really good experience. Maybe a good business opportunity to take some videos with other pilots flying their plane.

John, this entire week started out with mist in the morning, slowly dissolving by a nice bright sun around noon. So even though we rented the plane from 10.00-13.00, we couldn't actually leave until around 11.45. We were in the air for one hour and 16 minutes and did 2 runs down the dike: one going from south to north over the sea and one going back shooting from over land. About 10 minutes per run.
Altitude was around 1000 feet- it's birdie breeding season there and big flocks of geese are migrating as well- we weren't about to shoot wildlife, if you know what I mean... There are also a lot of small planes flying from Schiphol airport to the islands north with nice weather so we had a lot to look out for, besides the dike... ;-)

I thought turbulence wasn't too bad but that's probably because I was so concentrated on the shot I didn't even notice! Certainly over water it felt smooth. The second run over land was more bumpy but also the more interesting one, visually. It figures... Luckily the light was good either way because the sun was at its highest and pointing west.

The pilot moved to the right so I could use the only window that opens in a Cessna 172. It's big enough to shoot through, especially with my GH4. My EX3 would have bumped the jamb and caught a lot of wind. I sat twisted aiming side/backwards to my left, in order to keep metal out of the frame when shooting wide. I think I had to zoom in very slightly with the 12-35 to get a clean shot. It wasn't comfortable but definitely manageable for a 10 minute stretch. Occasionally I couldn't resist to zoom in but that was almost always a mistake. (unless you want stills)
Shooting forward was really not an option without zooming in considerably to get beyond the wing and propellor. So I didn't.

When we flew over land, the pilot flew slightly in and out of the coastline which changed my focal point. Refocusing was not an option. I just kept everything 'peaking'. Sometimes I would try to shoot downward more and inadvertently leaned out of the window - wham... then before you steady yourself and recompose you lose another 10 seconds of usable footage. That's how critical it is.

I had the camera stuck to my face the entire time but could not avoid making contact with the door. That probably accounts for most of the shakiness...

Anyway, I'm glad I had an extra camera operator and rented the X70. Knowing what I know now, I would have gone for steady shots first, resolution second.

My aviation colleague looking at this with a quizzical look. He has the necessary permits and certification mount external equipment to particular aircraft, and his question was simple. Not the video part, but the pilot part. His UK view is that the act of removing doors and windows to allow video or stills photography is not within the Private Pilots License terms and conditions - we all know people fudge the 'reward' element and shoot pictures, but is your pilot insured to fly while these have been removed? It can have an adverse impact on handling, and make the aircraft response different. Has PPL the experience to do this? removing doors requires equipment tethers on anything that could exit the aircraft. These need connection to specific load rated points, not wrapped around seating components. Taking a door off exposes the passengers to additional risk, and isn't something every pilot would wish to do. On some aircraft, including Cessnas, removing a door is acceptable for things like parachute drops, but the pilot can't do that on a PPL. Even a cable being attached to the aircraft constitutes a modification.

On a rotary wing aircraft there are even more concerns. One of the most dangerous manoeuvres is flying around in a circle - like the wind turbine shot. There is an inherent risk in doing this if the windspeed is appreciable. At two points in the 360, the airflow through the tail rotor will suddenly drop, and 'an uncontrolled' decent is probable.
In the US there is an advisory - http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/ac90-95.pdf

and you can see it happen Helicopter crash due to LTE - YouTube

The point here is that it is a known, but rarely experienced phenomena - and most helicopter pilots spend most of their time flying forwards, not sideways or around objects in tight turns. Do you really want to be onboard if your pilot experiences this for the first time, and doesn't react appropriately?

I went on a helicopter course, and quite frankly, was horror struck by the accidents caused indirectly by the needs of the cameraman!

Try a different stabilizer. The free version of Resolve worked well for my difficult shots. You could also try tracking a specific point (like the bouy) in After Effects or Apple Motion and using that to stabilize. That would eliminate the tracker trying to use things like airplane struts for the stabilization.

My aviation colleague looking at this with a quizzical look.

What, exactly, did your colleague look at quizically? The advice to remove doors etc?

Because we never removed anything- we just opened a window. We also didn't fly a helicopter...

Try a different stabilizer. The free version of Resolve worked well for my difficult shots. You could also try tracking a specific point (like the bouy) in After Effects or Apple Motion and using that to stabilize. That would eliminate the tracker trying to use things like airplane struts for the stabilization.

I'll tell the editor!