What's the verdict of on-robot cameras?

[maddoctor90]

I was more or less curious about the $400 rule applying then actually wanting to put our camera on the robot. The camera we access to is expensive because it is built for extreme industrial conditions. I think with a little common sense it would be fine.

[synth3tk]

That makes a lot more sense, then. I just wanted to make sure you didn't duct tape your team's fragile reward from the last ten bake sales to a machine being put into a violent situation.

[Tytus Gerrish]

I lost my GoPro in the Atlantic ocean. smashed by robot is not as bad.

and cooler

[EricH]

Originally Posted by maddoctor90

I was more or less curious about the $400 rule applying then actually wanting to put our camera on the robot. The camera we access to is expensive because it is built for extreme industrial conditions. I think with a little common sense it would be fine.

Yes, it would apply. The camera goes through inspection with the robot, and is therefore to be considered as part of the robot. (Note: Just because the camera is considered as part of the robot does not mean it has to be present on the robot in every match.) As I recall, GoPros are less than $400--but the extreme industrial conditions camera probably would be a *little* bit more.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I see the cost limit a little differently. Since the camera we are discussing is generally not a permanent part of the robot and is used for recording only (not live video), I see it as a "non-functional" decoration. As a temporary decoration, it is hard to claim it must fit in the budget restrictions for functional parts of the robot. It is included in the weight since it does change that part of the robot when installed.

[ToddF]

Al,
Would you have any pull with the rules committee that might allow your view on this to be written into the rules? It would help eliminate any controversy during robot inspections.

I tried to mount a Kodak playsport on our robot two years ago, and was told by the lead inspector at the event that it would require a call to national headquarters to approve a special waiver.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Todd,
I follow the GDC direction and the rules that they make. In this case there is some established guidelines. LRIs are trained to get in touch with me if they have questions. All of them will have my email and phone during the event season. Lacking contact with me, they also have other contacts that they should attempt to get a decision from, including my boss at HQ, and the the Director.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by ToddF

I tried to mount a Kodak playsport on our robot two years ago, and was told by the lead inspector at the event that it would require a call to national headquarters to approve a special waiver.

It appears that at least some Kodak Playsport cameras have wifi, which could cause the inspector to invoke [R67]. Additionally, the rules about devices with batteries were loosened last year.

[Phyrxes]

For Gopro cameras the Wifi capability is an addon that can be removed for field usage. Otherwise it allows you to control the camera with a smart phone or even stream video.

[Mark McLeod]

Here is pertinent 2012 season Q&A. The add-on camera would have counted as part of the total robot cost.
This is the only direct reference I found.

Can we mount cameras on our robot to record the robot's point of view for public relations and not count this on our "on robot budget" as long as we do not use the recording during the competition and the data is not sent to the cRIO or driver's station? Also, do mounts to these parts count as well? FRC4084 2012-02-05

The cameras and their mounts would count towards the budget constraint outlined in Rule [R13] as they do not fall into one of the exemptions listed in Rule [R13A-G].

[eliman47]

I lost my go-pro skiing, getting it crushed by a robot is WAY cooler n that

[ToddF]

The models we use are storage to SD card only. It's good to know we'll be able to shoot video this season. We were up against the budget cap last season, so we would not have been able to slip a camera onboard.

[jvriezen]

From a common sense point of view:

On board cameras during real competitions provide a great public relations aspect to promoting FIRST and FRC. My thoughts:

• Restrictions on WiFi are certainly reasonable
• Restrictions against using the recorded footage for a competitive advantage within the same competition are reasonable (but hard to enforce, like many other rules.)
• Including camera in bot weight, height, volume limit is reasonable
• General safety considerations are reasonable
• Disallowing due to battery is unreasonable
• Disallowing due to budget limitation is marginal, but this should not usually be an issue anyway, since cameras can be had for <$400.

Of course the GDC's answer is final, but I would hope the rules are arranged so that we don't have to jump through hoops like getting waivers to get good video, like our Duluth Double Shot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2KIVicKIOk

[Gary Dillard]

Most of the discussion I've found from searching deals with using cameras for recording for post-match use. But it doesn't appear that there are any limits (other than those mentioned to pass inspection) regarding using something like a smartphone as a camera / processor for image processing and tracking and then feeding that information to the cRIO. Assuming we can find a smartphone for <$400, is it legal to use it as a custom circuit?
Also, regarding the $400 limit, I assume it would need to be the cost without an associated data plan subsidy which makes them pretty expensive; however, since refurbished phones are so readily available for <$400 (especially older models), what do you think about using the advertised cost from OEM's or major re-sellers of a non-subsidized refurbished phone as the cost for accounting purposes?

[pathew100]

FYI, the latest generation of GoPro cameras (Hero3) has WiFi built in. It can be disabled (and must be on an FRC robot, obviously).