Can we use a gopro helmet camera?

[brysonhicks]

Hi, I had a few questions about if we can mount and use a go pro camera during the competition.
-Does the fact it has its own internal battery pack cause a problem with the rules?
-Can we start it recording when we turn on the robot? (Will will auto record when you turn on the camera.)

It will be totally separated electronically. It is simply for recording the game.
There are a few videos of people using them last year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKQ6vksrLDU

Thanks!

[savage]

First off i would read through the rules one more time because I dont know. But I think aslon it is on the robot during inpection then I whink you will be ok.

[Marc S.]

The use of a camera with a separate powersupply from the main robot is leagal as long as it does not transmit or recieve data during a match.

[Brandon Holley]

Ours will be donning 2 GoPros all season.

-Brando

[jyh947]

The YouTube video you linked to is the MSC competition, where every robot in the Semi-Finals and Finals had to have a camera mounted on the robot because a television channel (I can't remember which one) was making a documentary about MSC.

[billbo911]

Ours will be donning 2 GoPros all season.

-Brando

Ditto here Brandon. One HD Hero 2 and a standard Hero. The fun part is trying to figure out which to put where.

[Dusk Star]

Ditto here Brandon. One HD Hero 2 and a standard Hero. The fun part is trying to figure out which to put where.

One on the rotating turret, (the HD one) and another facing forwards?

[andreboos]

The use of a camera with a separate powersupply from the main robot is leagal as long as it does not transmit or recieve data during a match.

Can a camera (video or otherwise) be considered a COTS computing device?

[Marc S.]

Can a camera (video or otherwise) be considered a COTS computing device?

That's a good question(off to read manual...). The cool thing with the camera is that unless you modify it, it's concidered a cots item and won't add to your 30lbs.

[cgmv123]

Yes, but it's not exempt from weight or cost restrictions.

My dad had a goPro attached at various points during our test run. Witness the results: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=276200042453874

[brysonhicks]

Thanks for you help! It appears that the camera should not cause any problems then and it does not cost over $400 so cost should not be an issue. I plan on using it during the competition.

[farmersvilleRob]

Sorry I'm on my iPhone, but we asked this exact question to the Q&A and found based off this that we cannot mount then because our robot costs too much.

[andreboos]

Its separate power supply would disqualify it per R36, regardless of cost or weight, unless it is classified as a COTS computing device (arguable).

[brysonhicks]

Have any people done it before? If so, then it seems like it would be allowed. Also, what is a cots computing device?

[andreboos]

A COTS computing device would be something like a laptop or PDA mounted on the robot. COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf) means that it is not modified from its original state (apart from software). The intent of R36 is to prevent non-approved power sources from being used, while permitting the use of portable computing devices that operate on their own battery. An example use might be to perform advanced image processing without slowing the cRIO. However, per R52, the device cannot control the robot in any way besides perhaps relaying information to the cRIO to use for its control decisions.

[farmersvilleRob]

Sounds like a judges question. Do it. Ask questions later

[brysonhicks]

Sounds like a judges question. Do it. Ask questions later

I like your thinking... That does seem like the best option though.

[farmersvilleRob]

Just make sure when you put them off that it won't take an hour to take off and that it's not crucial to anything. Also I wouldn't point out the Q and A I posted lol. Just do it.

[Alan Anderson]

Sounds like a judges question. Do it. Ask questions later

What would the judges have to do with it?

[bduddy]

I guess the GDC answer above says otherwise, but I gathered by some of the rules that a camera not used during the match could be considered a "non-functional decoration" and thus exempt from the cost and transmission rules. Specifically...

[R05]

Any non-functional decorations included on the Robot must not affect the outcome of the match and must be in the spirit of Gracious Professionalism.
I would think a GoPro camera intended for PR only would fall within this rule.

[R67]

Any decorations that involve broadcasting a signal to/from the Robot, such as remote cameras, must be approved by FIRST (via e-mail to frcteams@usfirst.org) prior to the event and tested for communications interference at the venue. Such devices, if reviewed and approved, are excluded from Rule [R55].
Thus, it is possible to have a "decoration" that broadcasts a signal. And it is allowed to broadcast...
[R55]

One D-Link DAP-1522 is the only permitted device for communicating to and from the Robot during the match. All signals must originate from the Operator Console and be transmitted to the Robot via the official Arena hardware. No other form of wireless communications shall be used to communicate to, from or within the Robot (e.g. radio modems from previous FIRST competitions and Bluetooth devices are not permitted on the Robot during competition).

And...[R13]

The total cost of all non-KOP items shall not exceed $3,500.00 USD. All costs are to be determined as explained in Section 4.1.3: Budget Constraints.



The following items are excluded from the total cost calculation:

items listed on any KOP Checklist (qty is limited to the total listed in the most recent checklist),
items obtained via a Product Donation Voucher included in the KOP,
items ever distributed to the team via FIRST Choice,
any non-functional decorations,
individual fasteners, adhesives, or lubricants that are less than $1.00 each,
spare parts, and
parts of the Operator Console.

...exempt from cost rules.

I guess the GDC thinks otherwise, though...

[EricH]

What would the judges have to do with it?
For those that don't understand this (rookie teams/students), there are 4 distinct groups of official competition people that will be evaluating either your team or your robot.

Judges: Blue polo shirts; they evaluate your team/robot for awards.
Safety Judges: Green polo shirts; they evaluate both for safety (and the safety awards).

Neither type of judge can make any call regarding legality. If one does, see the nearest inspector to double-check. (If the inspector says you're legal, and the judge still says you're illegal, call the LRI over.)

Refs: Striped shirts; they see whether you are following the rules on the field. This is one of the groups that could possibly determine that a camera is illegal; however, that call would depend on use in the competition and be confirmed by the inspectors. Refs only call game and tournament rules; some of the game and tournament rules involve passing inspection and showing up with a legal robot.

Inspectors: Standard volunteer shirt (other than the LRI's vest) and armed with clipboards. These guys are the ones that make sure your robot is legal to compete. These guys also love to see you early on Thursday morning so they can get you passing inspection faster. They make the call on robot rules.

This particular question is going to be an inspector's call, assuming the GDC doesn't weigh in soon (via Q&A--which hasn't been asked yet). (And then... the inspectors get to help enforce the GDC ruling.) Failure to point them to a ruling, whether in your favor or not, is not going to make the inspectors' job easier, or their ruling necessarily correct.



The biggest question, as pointed out earlier, is whether a camera that is not connected to the robot's power system and does not transmit wirelessly is considered to be a computing device, or a non-functional decoration (NFD), or both. If it's an NFD, cost does not apply ([R13]), but power ([R36]) and weight ([R03]) do, barring exceptions that aren't currently clear, obvious, or otherwise spelled out so a reasonably astute observer can find them. If it's a computing device, cost and weight apply, but power does not. It's an interesting question.

As the rules stand right now, barring a Q&A response or Team Update to the contrary, I would call a camera of this type a NFD, which makes it subject to the power rules, and therefore illegal. However, if it is also considered to be a computing device (by the GDC), then it is an NFD computing device, which can utilize its own power source and still be exempted from cost rules, making it legal.

Note: I am not on the GDC, not familiar with their intent, and not official in any way, shape, or form. Hence my calling this both ways--call it playing GDC advocate and PR advocate at the same time.

If I could use precedent here, I'd say legal due to similar setups--but I could just as easily say that it would have to get power from the robot under a different set of conditions. Again, very interesting and challenging question.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Sounds like a judges question. Do it. Ask questions later

Just make sure when you put them off that it won't take an hour to take off and that it's not crucial to anything. Also I wouldn't point out the Q and A I posted lol. Just do it.

These responses bother me. The GDC has made a ruling (albiet only towards the cost accounting).

While I agree that you should do it. I would also point it out directly to the inspector and give him a copy of the GDC ruling as well as a cost accounting of the device on the BoM.

We're here to show Gracious Professionalism. As a professional I would not try and knowingly 'hide' something that may not fit the specs (FIRST rules) I have been given.

JM(NS)HO.

P.S. I love this idea and may try it get it through inspection (pointed out as above) at GSR.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Everyone,
Cameras used to record Point of View (POV) seem to fit best under non-functional decorations except for the those that have an integral battery. An inspector will evaluate the camera at every event under the safety guidelines and all other robot rules. There are a few guidelines we use when checking all cameras at all events prior to authorizing their use.
1. If the camera derives power from the robot battery, all electrical rules must be followed. (wire gauge, breakers, insulation, etc.)
2. If the camera contains a battery, and it is of a type that could cause fire or chemical spills if damaged during a match, it must be sufficiently protected.
3. The camera, it's battery and lens must be mounted securely to the robot frame in such a way that it will not become detached and/or pose a hazard to participants. Wire ties do not constitute a secure attachment.
4. The robot must be weighed and sized with the camera and accessories in place.
5. The camera will be required to go through inspection at each event in which the robot is entered and the camera is used.
6. It is understood that such a camera is merely to record POV video and will not be used for any reason other than entertainment purposes.
7. In all cases, if the camera is capable of transmitting wirelessly, even if not enabled, you need to show proof that it was pre-approved by FIRST Engineering. See R67, and it will need to be checked for interference at each event.
Be sure to check the entire manual for any rule that may apply in addition to the robot rules.
To answer another question, a camera will not be considered a computing device regardless of the type of media used to record video and/or audio. Those with integral batteries will inspected on a case by case basis at every event.

[brysonhicks]

Ok, a few details about the go pro camera:
-It costs about $200
-It is not capable of transmitting wirelessly unless you buy a separate accessory that is not available yet.
-It does have a internal lithium ion battery.
-The battery and camera are protected with a heavy duty case. (Made to be a rugged helmet camera.) The only way the battery or camera could cause damage was if this was in a robot wars competition and it got cut in half.
-It will be attached securely.

Cost and weight wise it should not affect our team.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

-The battery and camera are protected with a heavy duty case. (Made to be a rugged helmet camera.) The only way the battery or camera could cause damage was if this was in a robot wars competition and it got cut in half.
That is yet to be determined. Your definition of not causing or receiving damage is bound to be different than an inspector. We are looking for things based on our experience and collectively we have seen an things that would curl your hair.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

<SNIP> ... and collectively we have seen an things that would curl your hair.

... Of that I have no doubt.

People, remember that the inspectors are trying to get your robot onto the field ... safely.

Argue your positions quietly and calmly. If you still disagree ask for the LRI. Be prepared to modify your robot should the LRI disagree with you.

This is supposed to be a fun, inspirational and enjoyable event.

[farmersvilleRob]

And if he does disagree: go behind his back and lawyer up for later.

[EricH]

And if he does disagree: go behind his back and lawyer up for later.
NO. You do not do this.

If you don't like an inspector's decision, call the LRI over. If you don't like the LRI's decision, then you just have to deal with it. The only way to change it is to convince either the LRI or the FTA to call HQ. And you're only going to be able to do that if you can raise reasonable doubt in either of their minds.

If you take an illegal robot onto the field, the refs can call you for it; it's worth a red card.

[cgmv123]

And if he does disagree: go behind his back and lawyer up for later.

I didn't know the rules were legally binding. :confused: :D

[brysonhicks]

NO. You do not do this.

If you don't like an inspector's decision, call the LRI over. If you don't like the LRI's decision, then you just have to deal with it. The only way to change it is to convince either the LRI or the FTA to call HQ. And you're only going to be able to do that if you can raise reasonable doubt in either of their minds.

If you take an illegal robot onto the field, the refs can call you for it; it's worth a red card.

If the inspectors dont agree, them I will explain my point, if they still dont, then I will take it off. This isnt that big of a deal. I agree that "This is supposed to be a fun, inspirational and enjoyable event." I dont want to make a big deal out of a little camera that is not crucial.

[brysonhicks]

Go pro cameras are getting really popular... I expect that more people will want to do this next year. They should defiantly mention it in the rule book.

[R3P0]

We are looking for things based on our experience and collectively we have seen an things that would curl your hair.


...quickly reviews the external pneumatics pump rules....
:p

[andreboos]

...quickly reviews the external pneumatics pump rules....
:p

... so if we time the pneumatic venting just so, and have it pass an uncooled Victor...

[brysonhicks]

We used it and the inspectors did not have a problem. I also saw at least 10 other teams using them. :-)

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Bryson,
Your inspector did not have a problem with the method in which you mounted your camera and the way it was used. That is not a blanket statement that every cameras will automatically pass inspection.

[billbo911]

Here are some POV movies I put together from the HD Hero 2 on out robot during build, calibration and at the Sacramento Regional.

Build and calibration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRnE1pevuVI&list=UU6ii38AN2Qt9Dqs2nWMwWvw&index=2&feature=plcp), Practice day (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBrCLM2-iMM&list=UU6ii38AN2Qt9Dqs2nWMwWvw&index=3&feature=plcp), and a compilation from all three days at Sacramento (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuKg1aTt6uI&list=UU6ii38AN2Qt9Dqs2nWMwWvw&index=1&feature=plcp).

[R3P0]

Bryson,
Your inspector did not have a problem with the method in which you mounted your camera and the way it was used. That is not a blanket statement that every cameras will automatically pass inspection.

Hey Al,

What a great ad for GoPro cameras! ( this is a satirical opinion)

First judges that know
say you are ready to go
cause of the way you used GoPro.

Thanks now I am grabbin one for my kayak.

heh.::safety::

[jvriezen]

We had two GoPro cameras on our robot at Lake Superior, and our robot was inspected by "Big" Al, the head robot inspector for all of FIRST.

I think he was unaware of the Q&A cited earlier, because he said the camera need not be included in the BOM (we had done so). He also said it was not a COTS computing device. He classified it as a 'decoration' It does need to be included in weight, and it does need to be inspected for safety purposes and any other applicable rules.

[Doc Wu]

I saw several used this past weekend. None on any robots that I reviewed, so I didn't have to make any decisions.

I'm familiar with the GoPro cameras, having lusted after one for use in my cycling hobby. I haven't broken down and bought one yet, but for use in the application on the robot, I don't think you could ask for better. There are several other, similar, helmet-cam setups that would be equally at home on a bot, so this isn't an endorsement of a particular brand.

Pluses are they are nearly indestructable (made for sports use) self-contained power, small, light, and getting pretty cheap. So they are coming close to meeting all concerns about use on the robot. The GoPro mounting hardware is also good. No worry about wire-tieing it on when you have a choice of several types of brackets.

I think in the future, these might be more specifically addressed in the rules. The benefits of making POV video during matches can only help promote FIRST and the excitement of the competitions. Teams can use the video in creative ways to promote their team and FIRST as well as to diagnose the robot and strategy.

As long as they remain self-contained and the team has the room in their weight and cost budgets, it seems like they are enhancing the competition more than doing any harm.

[billbo911]

I think in the future, these might be more specifically addressed in the rules. The benefits of making POV video during matches can only help promote FIRST and the excitement of the competitions. Teams can use the video in creative ways to promote their team and FIRST as well as to diagnose the robot and strategy.


There is an additional bonus that we had not anticipated. While watching the video's after the matches, you can see exactly what the system was doing, sometimes the drive team didn't even realize they were doing it. Also, sometimes the audio reveals a problem you might not have noticed until a hard failure took place.

As examples: We noticed the co-pilot was cycling the shooter wheel when there was no need, he also had the ball collector running when there were no balls anywhere near. These two behaviors have an impact on driving by draining the battery needlessly.
We also noticed a quick drop out of the shooter wheel drive about 1 second before a shot in Autonomous. It came back up immediately and we made the shot, but without the video, we might not have diagnosed a logic issue in our code.

[jvriezen]

I think in the future, these might be more specifically addressed in the rules. The benefits of making POV video during matches can only help promote FIRST and the excitement of the competitions. Teams can use the video in creative ways to promote their team and FIRST as well as to diagnose the robot and strategy.

I provided GoPro videos to our local news station and they incorporated them into a story on our team (see the video story on the upper right.)

http://kaaltv.com/article/stories/S2551880.shtml?cat=10151

[brysonhicks]

I put all of our go pro videos on this you tube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiwILR3n-Xhrl7sm_rVp4ug/videos
I put them together with the recorded match using sony vegas.