Comments on: Unmanned aerial photography sentinel bot thingy

Unmanned aerial photography sentinel bot thingy

riffola — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 10:41:43 -0800

RC Aerial Photography. Oh so pretty!

By: malaprohibita

malaprohibita — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:33:46 -0800

Wow. Some of these are better than I expected.

By: PossumCowboy

PossumCowboy — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:37:58 -0800

I am sooo gonna have to get a toy like that.

By: numble

numble — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:50:47 -0800

What these guys seem to be doing are rigging up RC planes with light digital cameras, resulting in the ability to take the great visuals...

By: DrJohnEvans

DrJohnEvans — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:52:48 -0800

Wow.

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:53:27 -0800

[this is good] thanks, riffola

By: AlexReynolds

AlexReynolds — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:55:41 -0800

How do they know what is in the viewfinder before they take a picture? Or do they just take pictures on random timing and hope for the best? Trained hamsters?

By: numble

numble — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:58:23 -0800

The link has a picture of a nuclear facility, and another of the Golden Gate bridge... anybody think this will cause some new problems for homeland security? (Since they have apprehended and interrogated people in the past for just taking ground photos of buildings/landmarks...)

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:04:21 -0800

The link has a picture of a nuclear facility, and another of the Golden Gate bridge... numble, actually the pictures are of a UK coal-fired plant and the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan.

By: plemeljr

plemeljr — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:06:21 -0800

This is awesome! And it looks like it is a fairly inexpensive hobby for beginners. Compare this with Kite Aerial Photography.

By: LordSludge

LordSludge — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:12:44 -0800

Wow, *great* post! Wireless video systems (from the linked banner ad) are pretty cheap, too, which I'd think you'd need for framing some of those amazing shots. Anybody know whether a wireless video system, such as the aforementioned, could be used to beam video from a race car to the pits? I'd think line-of-sight would be a problem.

By: LordSludge

LordSludge — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:13:58 -0800

Aerial Videos

By: numble

numble — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:14:58 -0800

pardonyou: The captions seemed to indicate differently... but regardless, my point wasn't to those specific photos themselves, just that if this new cheap aerial photography trick would become a new security complication... But I do think it's pretty awesome and something I'd want to do.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:17:50 -0800

These are totally cool. And I will look forward to checking out the videos tonight. Very cool post!

By: defcom1

defcom1 — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:41:07 -0800

numble, actually the pictures are of a UK coal-fired plant and the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan There are some other pictures, one of the Golden Gate bridge and a nuclear facility in California... (just to be picky) Anybody know if these are framed, or just lucky shots?

By: DrJohnEvans

DrJohnEvans — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:45:40 -0800

The Oxford picture is stunning.

By: SteveInMaine

SteveInMaine — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:14:57 -0800

Great link, riffola. Thanks! I was looking at the cameras listed that they used to snap the pictures. Some of them are fairly pricey (Nikon, Pentax) - I'd be paranoid about crashing with one of those babies aboard. That said, the cheaper cameras took some pretty awesome shots as well.

By: freebird

freebird — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:28:07 -0800

Awesome. I've been wanting to justify getting an R/C plane for years, and I think you just did it for me! Thanks everyone else too for what looks like a veritable cornucopia of pointers on getting started. I bet half of MeFi takes this up now... Thanks (I think...)

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:29:07 -0800

numble, I apologize -- you're right about the Golden Gate picture. But the power plant picture (if you're referring to this one) does indicate that it's a coal plant, and in the UK, not the U.S. I would be very surprised if someone could get that close to a U.S. nuclear power plant, RC aircraft or not.

By: TimeFactor

TimeFactor — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:31:43 -0800

Wow! I especially like the ones of kind of mundane settings but made interesting by a different perspective, e.g. the church and cemetery in Iowa and the parking lot in Illinois. And I wonder also about the homeland security paranoia aspects and if there is any control of what's in the shot or is it just random luck.

By: CCK

CCK — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:33:23 -0800

WOW, Truly Metafilter living up to the best of the web.

By: pivotal

pivotal — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:37:24 -0800

Anybody know if these are framed, or just lucky shots? I was trying to get into this a while back, but I mainly fly R/C gliders, which aren't as good at hauling the weight of a digital camera... That said, I'm pretty sure these guys do one of two things: If you have a nice R/C transmitter with several channels (more than four), you can hook up a spare channel to control the camera shutter (either with a servo physically pushing the button, or an electronic connection to the shutter release). If you think the camera is pointed somewhere interesting, you hit the shutter release switch on your transmitter. The other option is to rig the camera to take shots at regular intervals (30 secs, 1 minute, whatever) and then just fly around for a few minutes. Either way, these shots are usually just opportunity shots - not framed, which (IMHO) lends them an extra level of amazingness (amazingicity?).

By: Busithoth

Busithoth — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:54:50 -0800

this rocks. too bad this stuff is taboo in NYC... thanks!

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:26:48 -0800

That is pretty awesome, considering how much effort the alternative is (real helicopters or planes).

By: carter

carter — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:30:47 -0800

Excellent, thanks riffola!

By: kavasa

kavasa — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:18:04 -0800

[this is good]? Are you kidding? This is brimming over with sweet sweet justice.

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:16:04 -0800

There are some other pictures, one of the Golden Gate bridge and a nuclear facility in California... (just to be picky) You're right. I'm an idiot today.

By: pekar wood

pekar wood — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 05:22:42 -0800

Most of these are taken with a remotely controlled shutter. After a bit of practice, it's not hard to get a good idea of where the camera is actually pointing. Having a viewscreen on the ground to frame a shot is possible, but is much more complex and costly. It would add weight, probably require a larger more costly plane, You're adding a video transmitter to the plane at the least, if not a camera as well. You also need to power these items, usually requiring larger batteries, a reciever on the ground, and the ability to monitor it and fly the plane simultaneously. If you're seriously interested in this, realize that the first step is to learn to fly a plane without a camera. A good first choice for a trainer plane that can later be pressed into service as a camera hauler is the Slowstick, about $350-$400 set up (no camera).

By: afx114

afx114 — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 18:35:10 -0800

Actually, this shot shows the San Onofre nuclear facility in Oceanside, CA (see the upper left for the 2 bulbous structures.. we call it the Dolly Parton Monument around these parts). So, yes, they can fly these things very close to nuclear facilities in the US.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 10:54:38 -0800

Thanks pekar wood. I couldn't for the life of me figure out what a slowstick was from reading the page.