More Cheap Aerial Photography

Geocaching aerial geekiness! by garcia · 2004-09-21 08:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

I used to live in Bowling Green, OH and while I was searching around for caches to do in the area (and talking to someone I knew from Toledo) I was directed and half stumbled upon this cache. Basically you need to take pictures from the air of an assigned number. The cache owner didn't particularly care how you accomplished that (whether it was by plane or some more inventive means).

Well, this group did it with helium balloons, ethernet cable, and a webcam. Just as inventive, a lot less solder, and if your picture taking device falls you aren't completely out of luck as it may actually survive the fall.

The only difference I see is that you aren't going to be able to have pictures with the same quality which is certainly a bummer but the coolness/geek factor certainly is way up there :)

Re:Geocaching aerial geekiness! by amaMoY · 2004-09-21 11:01 · Score: 1

How about this 2 cell phones to control the 8 mgeapixle cammera. That is the picture taking, movement of the cammera, zoom, all under 1 large helium ballon. On top of it all he can see every thing back on his laptop. My father inlaw does arial photography in Southern California taking real estate pictures of million dollar houses. See ---> EagleVisionCA.com contact info is there.
Re:Geocaching aerial geekiness! by wizman · 2004-09-22 00:02 · Score: 1

I was one of those geocachers!!!!!! (mattopia on geocaching.com)

We used a deep cycle battery and a power inverter. The cam was an Axis 2120 network camera. We stripped the insulation and one of the pairs from the ethernet cable, used the remaining pairs for data and a hacked power over ethernet solution for the cam.

Set the axis up to FTP an image to an iBook at the other end every 5 seconds. We ended up with over 300 images to dig through and found about 20 decent ones.

The balloons necessary to lift it were expensive. We had over $60 in helium and balloons. The Axis we had laying around, (I also run eriecam.com and tend to have extras. The Axis makes a fairly high quality camera (Sony CCD), so the images were pretty decent quality -- not like a $20 walmart webcam. Resolution was limited to 640x480 though.

It's also worth noting that we used the ethernet cable as the tether/string for the balloons too, to save the weight of having a separate string.

I should send the images to Axis to see if it qualifies as a unique application.

More pictures can be found here, including a few more of the ground setup.

I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-09-21 08:18 · Score: 3, Funny

but no, this is just based on the same old 555 I always had problems working with in logic class- "Damnit Jim, I'm a software student, not a hardware hacker".

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by Bender_ · 2004-09-21 08:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

The 555 is nearing its 30st year in production now. You can get a full blown microcontroller for the same price. There is almost no reason ever to use it. So you do not have to feel guilty - your teacher should for using such obselete parts as reference.

If you really need a discrete timer, use something from the 74HCxxx series.

And besides: The hack on the site must be the most clumsy electronic hack ever. Bad electronic design, extremely awkward realisation. (More tape anyone?)
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-09-21 08:46 · Score: 1

The 555 is nearing its 30st year in production now. You can get a full blown microcontroller for the same price. There is almost no reason ever to use it. So you do not have to feel guilty - your teacher should for using such obselete parts as reference.

Well, admitedly, this was nearly 10 years ago now that I took that class.

If you really need a discrete timer, use something from the 74HCxxx series.

I'll look into it, thanks.

And besides: The hack on the site must be the most clumsy electronic hack ever. Bad electronic design, extremely awkward realisation. (More tape anyone?)

It amazes me that it actually worked- with no resistance and no capacitance, they might as well have skipped the 555 timer and just jumped the shutter button....

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by Ignignot · 2004-09-21 08:46 · Score: 1

Seriously what are you talking about? A 555 timer is a great little cheap chip. The HC series of microcontrollers cost upwards of 100$ a pop. I doubt the chips cost a cent each if bought in bulk. Just look at it in froogle - you can buy individual ones for 50 cents. I defy you to find a microcontroller at that price, or 10x that price. Maybe at 100x time price you will be getting somewhere.

--
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by dougmc · 2004-09-21 08:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, some microcontrollers just about as cheap as the 555 -- $1 to $2 or so. But often you need to upload firmware into them, and that complicates matters greatly, especially if you need to write that firmware yourself.
For example, I've been looking into building myself one of these for R/C aerial photography. The microcontroller used can be ordered for $1.50 -- but then I need to find somebody who can program it for me (or buy the equipment, which isn't very expensive.) I may just go ahead and ditch the entire idea of controlling the camera entirely and use a 555 timer instead -- it's just a matter of conveneience.
But like you said, just because something is old, that doesn't mean it's obsolete or that you shouldn't use it.
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by Bender_ · 2004-09-21 08:57 · Score: 1

The HC series of microcontrollers ..

I was referring to the 74HCxxx series of logic chips, which cost cents each but are a little bit more modern than a power hungry 555.

I defy you to find a microcontroller at that price

The lowest cost 8-bit microcontrollers by Atmel, Microchip, Ti, Motorola are around 1$ or less. And you already get quite a bit for that amount of money. Motorola announced the first MCU priced 50cents in high volume years ago.

For example the Atmel 90s1200 should be around 1.30US$ in single quantities. 8 Pin microcontrollers (ATTiny 11, PIC12C509) are even cheaper.
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 08:59 · Score: 0

are you on drugs???

microchip.com is a place you need to start learning.

for the Radioshack price of the 555 I can get 16F84's at my local corner electronics supplier and do more than ptorrone can ever hope to do in his lifetime.

he needs to learn electronics and stop trying to get clickthroughs on his incredibly lame blog.
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by Bender_ · 2004-09-21 08:59 · Score: 1

But like you said, just because something is old, that doesn't mean it's obsolete or that you shouldn't use it.

There is no reason to use it, apart from not knowing better. There are less power hungry replacement parts which fulfill the same function.
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by xkenny13 · 2004-09-21 09:01 · Score: 2, Informative

The 555 is nearing its 30st year in production now. You can get a full blown microcontroller for the same price. There is almost no reason ever to use it. So you do not have to feel guilty - your teacher should for using such obselete parts as reference.

I imagine it depends on your application. A 555 has 8 little pins, and therefore fits in a fairly small location. The 555 is also extremely versatile, and you can find any number of ready-made applications for it on the web, complete with schematics.

I built it into my own project, and it does exactly what I want, without unneeded additional complexity. Note that I used a 556 chip, which is a Dual 555 timer chip ... so I used it not once, but actually twice.
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 09:06 · Score: 0

For the love of all that is good and holy, at least use the 16F628[A] instead. Better in every single way (speed, price per unit, features, peripherals, sram, flash) than the '84. Almost entirely pin compatible.
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by dougmc · 2004-09-21 09:08 · Score: 1

There is no reason to use it, apart from not knowing better. There are less power hungry replacement parts which fulfill the same function.
If I'm reading the spec sheet right, the LM555's typical current usage is 3 mA of current at 5 volts. I'd say this usually falls into the `who cares?' category, at least for this purpose. (Certainly, for many applications, 3 mA is a big deal, but I don't see this as one of those.)
If you feel that using a 555 is wrong for this application, then the proper response is to put up a similar page with what you feel are the proper components.
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 09:09 · Score: 0

You Lie! The 555 is an operational amplifiy. It has nothing to do with logic. Common uses are signal amplification and timer circuits.
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by TigerNut · 2004-09-21 09:22 · Score: 1

I didn't RTFA (I will when it becomes un-Slashdotted), but the 555 or it's more modern variants such as the CMOS versions still have their uses. Simple one-shot timing and oscillators where the frequency or duty cycle needs to be tweakable are far easier to accomplish with the 555 than with a micro. Consider: with the micro, you have to use a crystal to set the reference frequency. How good is your crystal? Now how good is it at -20 degrees C? At +60 degrees C? The 555, along with a couple of good capacitors and resistors, will hum right along with predictable performance at the temperature extremes, for dirt cheap. Doing the work and parts searching to make a micro perform to the same timing accuracy is not trivial. Micros and 555s both have their uses... just not the same ones.

--
Less is more.
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-09-21 09:25 · Score: 1

And, if you're doing a binary counter, it makes a great timer circuit if you're able to get the capacitance and resistance right (I never was).

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by skywolf · 2004-09-21 11:27 · Score: 1

Consider: with the micro, you have to use a crystal to set the reference frequency. How good is your crystal? Now how good is it at -20 degrees C? At +60 degrees C? The 555, along with a couple of good capacitors and resistors, will hum right along with predictable performance at the temperature extremes, for dirt cheap.
Someone previously said they would have used a PIC 12F629, and I would too. This is an 8-pin device (like the 555) and has an internal oscillator with an accuracy of +-4% over -40C to +125C which is good enough for biochemistry, so to speak. And not much worse than most capacitor based circuits... You can also get new 6-pin devices, but I never used them yet.
I'm not quite sure how the circuit in the original article worked, as it had no capacitors or resistors (perhaps the DHS hacked the site). But a PIC12F629 based solution would not have needed any additional components either
The PIC does have disadvantages - it has a slightly higher power consumption than the low-power 555, and it leads to feature creep - I would have wired in a button and a time delay so that the kite didn't start taking pictures for 10 seconds after it was launched (or 20 seconds if you press the button twice quickly, or not at all (cancel) if you press and hold it for 5 seconds...). But perhaps most of all it costs £50 for a cheap programmer and I think this would put off people who were less interested in the electronics side of things.
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by bhima · 2004-09-21 19:42 · Score: 1

I did all of this for a kite rig, used it twice and then scapped it and bought a "gentled" ir device. Basically it's a camera ir remote to model airplane RC bridge. So I can trigger it from the ground.
The new crop of cameras have 802.11(x) options so it would be even easier with them

--
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer by hplasm · 2004-09-21 22:47 · Score: 0

Hell no. It's not an opamp and never was. It's a timer, used as an oscillator, monoflop etc, and needs No Programming- so that's put 2/3d's of ./'ers off already...

--
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.

Balloon Photography by wkytechhead · 2004-09-21 08:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Anyone have any links on Balloon Photography? Kites are always covered and so are rockets, but I was interested in Balloons and cameras.

Re:Balloon Photography by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 08:30 · Score: 0

There some balloon photos.

Oh you mean photography with a balloon? *grin*
Re:Balloon Photography by acomj · 2004-09-21 08:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've looked into it. The problem is you need a really light camera. Small Balloons don't carry much wieght and they have to lift the cable thats holding them too the ground..I've looked into weather ballons too.
Re:Balloon Photography by wkytechhead · 2004-09-21 08:36 · Score: 1

Makes sense. I guess it could be done with a wireless lipstick camera or something of that nature. Too bad they don't have much of a range. It would be also to release your own "Roswell Weather Balloon" so to speak and watch has onlookers point at it thinking it is an invasion from mars, ha ha. But honestly, it would be neat to if nothing else release a balloon that had a cheap tracking/location device on it. Maybe one day GPS devices will be uber cheap and you could retrofit one into a balloon's cargo bag, and somehow wirelessly transmit it's GPS location to a device.
Re:Balloon Photography by wkytechhead · 2004-09-21 08:40 · Score: 1

That's just evil, ha ha. I guess it's my bad for not clearly stating what I was looking for. Let me redo, "Does anyone have any information on taking photographs from a balloon, that is floating in the air, such as a weather balloon, but not a passenger balloon?" There how does that tickle you? Ha Ha.
Re:Balloon Photography by Dr.+Evil · 2004-09-21 10:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

They're used for professional photography where Helicopters are impractical or unnecessary: http://www.floatograph.com/
They're so cool, but keep them out of the wind :-)
Re:Balloon Photography by amaMoY · 2004-09-21 10:36 · Score: 1

My Fater-Inlaw does Aerial Photography using a balloon and a kite. He is also able to see what the cammera sees on his laptop, move the cammera in any direction and shoot the picture using two cell phones and the tone of each button. I am not 100% sure how it works. He take pictures of Million dollar houses in Southern California. WebSite - EagleVisionCA.com

DHS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 08:22 · Score: 0, Interesting

I can't post non-anonymously as it could jeapordize my career. I work at a mid-level office position at the DHS (Department of Homeland Security).

Several months ago papers started to circulate about how to effectively ban arial photoography to prevent precise measurement and targetting of sensitive targets (nuclear power plants, etc). If you live near a target like this you'll soon notice a large fenced area with a large white square building in the center. This building hides a pulses infra red laser which is diffused skyward to destroy the autofocus of most cameras and in many cases it will destroy the camera's light element itself.

If you live near the Great Plains Nuclear Facility in NM you'll already see such a structure.

There are no long term tests regarding effects on birds and airline pilots yet.

Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 08:28 · Score: 3, Funny

so it is 100% ineffective against a film camera.

thanks!
Re:DHS by GuyFawkes · 2004-09-21 08:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

destroys autofocus?

surely the effective focal length for ALL aerial shots will be infinity anyway?

--
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 08:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

No sale. There are so many technologies other than IR that can be used, and why would DHS need to keep this a secret.
Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 08:34 · Score: 0

In a incident between US pilots and a Russian warship, similar technology was used and it did permanent damage to their retinas.
It wasn't widely publicized, and the two pilots (of an A6 Intruder) had to leave their flight assignments because of constant pain and headaches.
I assume the Russians were trying to stop any photo equipment, and not necessarily burn the eyes of the pilot.
Re:DHS by MarkGriz · 2004-09-21 08:38 · Score: 1

This building hides a pulses infra red laser which is diffused skyward to destroy the autofocus of most cameras and in many cases it will destroy the camera's light element itself.

LOL at all the tinfoil hatters that modded this interesting/informative.

--
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Re:DHS by Bender_ · 2004-09-21 08:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

diffused skyward to destroy the autofocus of most cameras and in many cases it will destroy the camera's light element itself.

Autofocus in aerial photography? What are you smoking, man... :)
Re:DHS by RPI+Geek · 2004-09-21 08:42 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh darn, I'll just have to get a manual-focus and manual-aperture camera for all my terro^H^H^H^H^Haerial photography needs. I'll just set the focus to infinity and the aperture from the ground (or even just guess at the f-stop #... 8 maybe?).

Or am I threatening national security by relating my knowledge of these VERY basic photography skills?

--

- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 08:43 · Score: 0

Yes, but that's the whole point of DHS..to as much as possible to be disruptive while doing absolutely nothing to improve security.

DHS has done far more harm to American than terrorists ever could have.
Re:DHS by morcheeba · 2004-09-21 08:44 · Score: 5, Informative

That's interesting, but I don't know how effective it is.

First, at altitude, focus isn't necessary because everything will be close enough to infinity (hyperfocal). So destroying an autofocus sensor won't help.

Second, my camera can withstand looking at the sun for a period of time (not much time, I'm sure). And that's a focused light source -- it'll be hard to make a laser brighter than the sun over such a large area. (easy to do if you point the laser, but hard to do if it's diffused). No real use in using a laser, though - you don't need the monochromaticity or the coherentness, so you might as well use a large xenon strobe behind an IR filter.

Lastly, won't stop any film-based camera: a cheap disposable or an Estes Cineroc.

Hope not too much taxpayer money is spent on this system!

--
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Re:DHS by spiralscratch · 2004-09-21 08:46 · Score: 1

Well, with a manual focus SLR, an infra-red filter, some fast film, and a small aperture setting, you could easily get around this. Just use some simple geometry to guesstimate the distance between the camera and the target. Setting the f-stop to a higher number gives you a larger margin of error in your focus, so the likelihood of getting a clear shot increases.
Re:DHS by stickystyle · 2004-09-21 08:47 · Score: 1

Eh, why not. all of you are saying "duh, thats a dumb idea"
...Yeh, like a dumb idea like this wouldnt come from DHS - give me a break.

Mod this Funny or Insightful, how ever you see fit :-)

--
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
Re:DHS by radish · 2004-09-21 08:50 · Score: 3, Informative

Most decent digital cameras don't actually use IR for autofocus. For example, dSLRs like mine use image processing on to look for sharp lines and focus on those. Your super-dooper IR laser will just show up as a nice white spot on such a camera.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:DHS by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · 2004-09-21 08:56 · Score: 1

Or am I threatening national security by relating my knowledge of these VERY basic photography skills?

No, but you might have violated the DMCA for detailing a way to circumvent an electronic security system... :-)

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 09:00 · Score: 0

I don't think you comprehend what kind of technology the US government is capable of producing. Years ago I worked numerous government contracts that had stuff you wouldn't believe, and it worked.
Re:DHS by RPI+Geek · 2004-09-21 09:02 · Score: 1

It's ok, I'll defend myself in court by claiming that the security system isn't electronic, it's photonic. It emits infrared light to confuse the camera ;-)

--

- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
Re:DHS by NatasRevol · 2004-09-21 09:04 · Score: 1

Umm, the sun, while very bright, is not focused.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:DHS by phreakmonkey · 2004-09-21 09:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

You do realize that for every dollar you bastards spend on hopeless, mis-informed "security measures" we citizens spend twice as much on our consumer advocacy groups and media damage control to maintain our civil liberties, right?
Do me a favor- quit your job. I'm tired of paying you with my taxes and everyone else with what little income I have left.
Sheesh.
Re:DHS by njfuzzy · 2004-09-21 09:35 · Score: 1

I think you missed the part where it wasn't true.

--
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 10:09 · Score: 0

YHBT etc
Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 10:16 · Score: 0

There exist legitimate, effective things which are done by DHS. Alas, they are overshadowed by the unconstitutional, wasteful, disingenuous, or silly other activities done by that organization. Nonetheless, it's not impossible that the grandparent poster is actually doing useful things at his particular job.
Re:DHS by goneutt · 2004-09-21 12:05 · Score: 1

I think this guy is a member of the tinfoil hat crowd. A diffuse infra red laser? Come on, put a few watts into a focused laser and zap whatever small airborn object you feel uncomfortable about. It'd be a damn bit more effective than a scattered laser.

I'm thinking that in order to secure an acre of sky with the rig described by the AC you'd have to put more than a few watts per square meter to blanket the area.

--
Bacardi + slashdot = negative karma.
Re:DHS by JustAnotherBob · 2004-09-21 17:03 · Score: 1

In other news Haliburton has announced a new laser manufacturing division. Initial profit forecasts are promising, due to a huge spending allocation from the DHS.
Re:DHS by div_B · 2004-09-21 18:54 · Score: 1

Second, my camera can withstand looking at the sun for a period of time (not much time, I'm sure).

The diffuse thing aside, I guess it all depends how short the pulse is. Make the pulse short enough, and the heat can't conduct away from target fast enough, and it will trash it.

That is to say, an N watt continous laser may be relatively harmless, but a laser with the same time averaged power concentrated into short pulses (eg one millisecond pulse every second) could cut steel.

Incidentally, if this laser is situated besides a nuclear power plant, there is probably plenty of juice available to power the damn thing, so it could potentially be a big MFer.
Re:DHS by instarx · 2004-09-22 05:58 · Score: 1

Several months ago papers started to circulate about how to effectively ban arial photoography to prevent precise measurement and targetting of sensitive targets (nuclear power plants, etc). If you live near a target like this you'll soon notice a large fenced area with a large white square building in the center. This building hides a pulses infra red laser which is diffused skyward to destroy the autofocus of most cameras and in many cases it will destroy the camera's light element itself.

I can't believe how insane this idea is. DHS spending millions for some crazy laser thing when anyone can pecisely determine the position of anything with a stick, two nails and a protractor - as we did in geometry class in high school.

This is just a crazy as the ban on photography in the NYC subway system. For crying out loud, I could photograph every inch of any station and no one would ever be the wiser. Just put the camera in a bag or briefcase with a hole for the lens. Use one of the $2 timer chips mentioned in this article if you really want to be sneaky.

What are all these anti-terrorist experts thinking of? They seem to be concentrating great time, money and effort on solutions to non-problems that are trivial to overcome by anyone.

When a million dollar anti-camera laser can be defeated by $1.98 in school supplies or a $5 disposable fixed-focus camera we need to re-evaluate the credentials of our so-called experts. Hmmmm. I wonder if Halliburton got the contract for these anti-camera laser things?
Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-22 08:04 · Score: 0

bwahahaha... YHBT why don't you go outside instead of sitting in your parents basement ranting about some shit this guy made up just to get you all hot and bothered?
Re:DHS by phreakmonkey · 2004-09-22 08:09 · Score: 1

YHBT etc
Yes I know... that much was obvious. But at least I got to use my grand-standing to get some positive mod points out of it. (And hopefully generate some interest in my favorite non-profit orgs to boot!)
Thanks!
- pm
Re:DHS by edittard · 2004-09-25 09:58 · Score: 0

surely the effective focal length for ALL aerial shots will be infinity anyway?
Focal length is a property of the lens. The focus distance will be as near to infinity as matters, especially if using a wide-angle lens which have a larger depth of field.
I call bullshit on the grandparent.

--
At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
Re:DHS by Moderatbastard · 2004-09-25 10:04 · Score: 1

This building hides a pulses infra red laser which is diffused skyward
*cough* inverse square law *cough*.

--
1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.

A Better Site by nemski · 2004-09-21 08:22 · Score: 4, Informative

After the webpage in the article gets /.'d, take a look at this more comprehensive site on areial photography Kite Aerial Photography.

--
Some people have a way with words, others not have way.

20 years ago? by MalaclypseTheYounger · 2004-09-21 08:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

I could be wrong, but when I was a wee tot many moons ago, couldn't you buy a rocket from Estes that had a camera built-in, that would take a picture (or pictures?) during flight, or at least at apogee when the ejection charge would fire?

Sure, now it's digital, and in color, but this is old news. :)

/end old fart rant

--
Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM

Re:20 years ago? by irokitt · 2004-09-21 08:27 · Score: 5, Funny

In my day, we had to climb to the top of a brontosaurus with a stone tablet and a chisel in order to get aerial pictures. You young things have it easy.

/end older fart rant

--
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Re:20 years ago? by mrzaph0d · 2004-09-21 08:52 · Score: 1

at least you could climb. in my day we still believed evolution had topped out with stumps instead of these new-fangled "legs".

--
this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
Re:20 years ago? by Nyrath+the+nearly+wi · 2004-09-21 09:01 · Score: 1

Yes, the Estes "Camroc" took a shot at apogee. The "Cineroc" took a movie.
Re:20 years ago? by multiplexo · 2004-09-21 09:24 · Score: 1

could be wrong, but when I was a wee tot many moons ago, couldn't you buy a rocket from Estes that had a camera built-in, that would take a picture (or pictures?) during flight, or at least at apogee when the ejection charge would fire?
I remember those. I never had one but a friend did. As I recall Estes made two models, in the early to mid 70s they had a camera that would mount on a rocket using an A,B or C engine and which tripped the shutter when the ejection charge was fired. This camera used special film that was fairly expensive (a friend of mine had one of these), in the late 70s they had one that used a standard 110 film cartridge.
I never bought one of these because of the fact that I ended up losing a lot of rockets by having them blow away into the woods where they couldn't be found. Nowadays I have more money and digital cameras are cheap (I just bought a pair of cheap binoculars that have a 2.1 megapixel camera built in for $99), but alas I no longer have the time. Damn! If only I had the time now that I did as a kid or if only I had the money and technology that I do now when I was 13 years old.

--
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Re:20 years ago? by dj245 · 2004-09-21 10:09 · Score: 1

In my day, we had to climb to the top of a brontosaurus with a stone tablet and a chisel in order to get aerial pictures. You young things have it easy.
You had dinasaurs? Back in my day we had to spend weeks piling up single protazoa in order to make a tower big enough to stand upon, and then rearrange more of them on a slate to produce the desired pictorial representation. Dinosaurs? peh, you had it easy.

--
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Re:20 years ago? by SomeoneGotMyNick · 2004-09-21 12:15 · Score: 1

Astrocam 110!!!

I earned one after selling enough greeting cards from the "Olympic Sales Company". I couldn't wait to fire the thing off and snap pictures of the neighborhood.

Being nine years old at the time, I lacked the wisdom to double check the glue job on the engine mount rings. I realized I didn't glue it securely enough when the rocket launched. The engine mount shot up inside the rocket tube, burned it in half, melted the plastic fins. and then popped the chute/nosecone to take a picture of the clear blue sky.

Then again, it was the same launchpad that took my 6.5 foot tall Mean Machine on it's maiden flight to great heights, into a wind gust, and then got carried away into the nearby forest, never to be found again.
Re:20 years ago? by edittard · 2004-09-27 04:15 · Score: 0

Damn! If only I had the time now that I did as a kid or if only I had the money and technology that I do now when I was 13 years old.
I second that!

--
At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.

"they" ? by Quixote · 2004-09-21 08:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

ptorrone writes .... this how-to from Engadget shows how they did it along with some other projects with the modded camera.

You know, I hate to be the "astroturfing nazi" of /., but seeing that the article is written by Phillip Torrone, shouldn't the submitter (Phillip Torrone, it appears) say "... how we did it" ?

I don't like it when I see people submit stories as if they are a third party and just "happened" to come across an article, which they themselves have written.

If you wrote something and find it worthy of the /. crowd, then step forward and claim ownership, dammit! We won't hold it against ya.

Re:"they" ? by ptorrone · 2004-09-21 08:28 · Score: 4, Informative

i wrote most of the article, but as always...there was and is a team of us, so it's more fair to say "they and we". i can't take credit for everything, it's a group effort.
Re:"they" ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 08:50 · Score: 3, Informative
1. They: those ones -- used as third person pronoun serving as the plural of he, she, or it or referring to a group of two or more individuals not all of the same sex
2. We: I and the rest of a group that includes me -- used as pronoun of the first person plural
Re:"they" ? by MrBlue+VT · 2004-09-21 09:22 · Score: 5, Interesting
How much are you paying Slashdot for getting all of these Engadget crap articles on the front page? It looks like you just take old concepts that have already been on Slashdot in the past a million times and do a half assed job of copying them:
- link 1
- link 2
- link 3
- link 4
- link 5
- ad nauseum
Seriously, I've seen 8 Engaget crap articles this month alone.

Note: I'll probably get bitchslapped or have this post deleted by Slashdot editors. Why don't they just admit they are taking money for posting these "articles" on the front page?

Legal ... for now by YetAnotherName · 2004-09-21 08:25 · Score: 4, Informative

Get into this hobby while you can before it becomes difficult and/or illegal.

A $1.50 timer chip? by Jason1729 · 2004-09-21 08:26 · Score: 4, Informative

I've never paid more than 20 cents for a 555, and I can think of at least 5 stores within 10 miles of my house that sell them for that price in single unit quantities.

Anyway, this is the 21st century. Why not do it the "right" way with a $1 PIC12F629?

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:A $1.50 timer chip? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 08:31 · Score: 0

Not everyone has a pic programmer, or wants to build one. Everyone should, but this is sadly not the case.
Re:A $1.50 timer chip? by Jason1729 · 2004-09-21 08:35 · Score: 1

That's true, but among the demograpghic that would be interested in building an electroic timer for arial photography, there will be a lot more people who do have pic programmers and a lot more who do have an interest in buying/building one. All they need is a good project to get them into PICs.

Jason
ProfQuotes
Re:A $1.50 timer chip? by dmullenaux · 2004-09-21 08:36 · Score: 1

More Cheap Aerial Photography

At last I checked it was $40 an hour for a plane, $120 if you need the pilot. If you are going to do aerial photography and you're going to do it right, it isn't going to be cheap.
Re:A $1.50 timer chip? by uberdave · 2004-09-21 08:36 · Score: 1

Is Radio Shack selling chips again? They seem to have abandoned that practice around here.

--
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Re:A $1.50 timer chip? by bobbis.u · 2004-09-21 08:42 · Score: 2, Informative

Getting slightly OT here, but I just want to add my recommendation for using PICs.
They're excellent for home projects like this because they are cheap and very easy to use. In many projects you don't need any other ICs and very few extra components. The assembly instruction set is very simple and almost trivial to learn. Or you can use a C compiler (I believe you can get a basic one for free from here).
Check out Microchip.com for information on the different chips available. They range from the small, simple 12 series to the more powerful 18 series (which support things like USB, I2C, CAN, A/Ds, ...)
P.S. No, I don't work for microchip, I just like their products
Re:A $1.50 timer chip? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 08:49 · Score: 0

Yes but even so, why would you pay 7 times the market price for a chip? It's as stupid as paying $280/hour for the plain or $840 with pilot.
Re:A $1.50 timer chip? by Solder+Fumes · 2004-09-21 08:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

A PIC or other microcontroller would actually be a simpler way of doing it, with greater flexibility (script a sequence of shots at varying intervals, etc). Many small 8-pin microcontrollers have an internal oscillator, like the Motorola oops I mean Freescale MC68HC908QT2. Just apply power, no external components required. And in the SOIC package, they're small enough to build into whatever camera you're using.
Re:A $1.50 timer chip? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 09:25 · Score: 0

For the same price, I could use a Motorola 68HC908 and program it using their industrial strength Code Worrier C compiler (special version free for 4K of code).
Re:A $1.50 timer chip? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 09:38 · Score: 0

It's as stupid as paying $280/hour for the plain or $840 with pilot.

Look mommy, there's a plain in the sky.

Roll over son.
Re:A $1.50 timer chip? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 09:39 · Score: 0

..and by the time you're ready to start debugging your code, I'll have finished taking the pictures with my pic and already have my blog posted to slashdot.

DK link expired. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 08:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Notice: Digikey link expired.

And if you buy most any component from radio shack, you are paying too much.

Re:DK link expired. by AngryDill · 2004-09-21 11:13 · Score: 1

There are other sources. Mouser Electronics is inexpensive and has no minimum order.

555 timer

--

I'm Erwin Schrodinger and I approve of this message, and I do not approve of this message!
Re:DK link expired. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 13:22 · Score: 0

I have a ratshack within walking distance.
The nearest components store is a half-hour drive away.
So, considering the price of gas and my time, ratshack usually wins, unless I'm buying a whole bunch of components.

You too, can be sued... by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2004-09-21 08:28 · Score: 3, Funny

And you too now can be sued...

...by Barbra Streisand.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Thirty-thousand foot view by airrage · 2004-09-21 08:31 · Score: 4, Funny

The question, which has remained until now, unanswered: do nerds look like nerds at 1000 feet?

I believe, after reviewing the photographic evidence...yes.

--
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"

headline thoughts by Chuck+Bucket · 2004-09-21 08:32 · Score: 3, Funny

reading the headline I thought of bringing one of those disposable cameras on a plane and taking pictures out the window.

CB

--
free ipod and free gmail!

cheapest form of aerial photography by logandr · 2004-09-21 08:32 · Score: 4, Funny

This is way better than the old method of setting the timer and repeatedly throwing the camera in the air in hopes that it will be pointed down when takes the picture.

Re:cheapest form of aerial photography by Nos. · 2004-09-21 08:36 · Score: 1

in hopes that it will be pointed down
Not to mention hoping that you catch it!

"old digital camera" by Bender_ · 2004-09-21 08:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

...If you have an old digital camera laying around ...

No, I don't. I am still using the one I bought two years ago. Should I feel guilty now, because of not buying a new gadget in time? How often are you supposed to replace your digicam?

Re:"old digital camera" by aggiefalcon01 · 2004-09-21 16:10 · Score: 1

I wondered this, too. My digital camera's ~$300 when new (last year), and I wouldn't risk it in this. I do have an older one, but it's a super-crappy thing you snap onto the bottom of an old Palm IIIx. I wouldn't even want to do it with that--the picture quality's about the same as modern cellphones (about .6megapixel)!

I guess I'm just not caught up with the Joneses to have an old (yet good enough) digital camera sitting around unused.

--
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
Re:"old digital camera" by panda+attack · 2004-09-21 22:15 · Score: 0

When it breaks or no longer fill the need you bought it for.
I refuse to buy another camera/ graphics card/ cell phone/anyother gadget for a slightly newer version with speed holes.

Oldest fart rant.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 08:34 · Score: 0

Jesus I stink.. maybe I should take a bath.. you should too before you're as old a fart as I am..

Get an Aiptek PenCam by OreoCookie · 2004-09-21 08:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

Get an Aiptek PenCam, preferably an older one. It will take AVI movies without sound. You can get about 2 minutes on a 256 SD card. Its movies are basically a bunch of still shots. The camera weighs very little and a decent sized party-type helium balloon will lift it easily. With the balloon you don't waste time getting it launched and it's easy to position exactly where you want it. You can get this camera for @$40 US

Re:Get an Aiptek PenCam by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 08:52 · Score: 0

Since the goal of the project is still photographic prints, not low screen movies, your idea is useless. Unless you think 160x120pixels is suitable for printing at 4x6"

more fun /. projects by alatesystems · 2004-09-21 08:38 · Score: 4, Informative

The guy behind this, Phillip Torrone, has done a TON more cool stuff. Check out his site/blog for tons more stuff.

This dude is now my personal hero of geekdom. He builds robots and gear and has pics of tons of stuff on his site.

Chris

Re:more fun /. projects by lawpoop · 2004-09-21 09:45 · Score: 1

Mod parent up. He should be a regular contributor to Make Magazine.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso

You young whipper snapper! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 08:40 · Score: 3, Funny

Brontosaurus? Luxury!

We had to sit on a fish trying to crawl onto dry land and rearrange lilly pads until they made a picture.

Interesting but risky. by samberdoo · 2004-09-21 08:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sure the timer chip is cheap, but the camera plus GPS device make it an expensive toy. If you can get it up high enough how do you filter out the UV/haze. My kites always crash anyway.

Re:Interesting but risky. by Lumpy · 2004-09-21 08:55 · Score: 1, Interesting

Use a UV filter.

second, this way of doing it is extremely lame.

It's cheaper to use a RC airplane remote+servos then you can take photos, rotate or even pan the camera.

I have no idea how this got posted to slashdot as a "cheap" aerial photography. there are tons of better ways that are much cheaper and produce better results.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Misread that by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 08:50 · Score: 0

I read that as "Aerial Pornography". Wouln't it be a little difficult to see what's going on?

RC Glider Photography by potus98 · 2004-09-21 08:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

Back when I flew Radio-Controlled Gliders ( Gentle Lady in particular), I used a third channel servo to click the button on a Kodak 110 Instamatic. This was waaaaay before small digital cameras.

The contraption was very simple: I duct-taped the servo on top of the camera and rubber-banded the camera to the plane. I made sure the center of balance remained exactly the same.

Although the plane was relatively MUCH heavier, it was flyable. Certainly, I was not able to catch thermals or stay up long, but I was still able to take some cool shots of the surrounding area. Since the picture taking was servo activated, I could point the plane at an area I wanted to photograph and snap the picture.

--
This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.

Re:RC Glider Photography by ross.w · 2004-09-21 11:56 · Score: 1

If you used one of those really cheap digital cameras or a webcam, you could now do it without so much weight penalty. I have one that weighs very little and takes 1280x960 pictures.

--
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Re:RC Glider Photography by potus98 · 2004-09-21 13:41 · Score: 1

If you used one of those really cheap digital cameras or a webcam, you could now do it without so much weight penalty.

Heh heh... That's JUST what my wife needs: Another excuse for me to get back into ANOTHER time and resource wasting hobby!

Hmmmm, I bet I could eliminate the mechanical abstraction layer of a servo pressing a button. If I could hack into the camera similar to the original article, I could create some sort of electrically activated relay. The relay could be activated by the receiver's third channel. Instead of actuating a servo, it would activate a relay that would "snap" the picture. That would be so cool! Gotta google! See ya later!

--
This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.

I Recognize Where That Place by yo_tuco · 2004-09-21 08:54 · Score: 1

Those kite pic and grey sky are at the Gasworks Park on Lake Union in Seattle.

Re:I Recognize Where That Place by dzelenka · 2004-09-21 10:30 · Score: 1

I'm afraid you have pr0n reading habits. If you read the text instead of just looking at the pictures you would have read that they were taken at Gasworks Park. Also, the shot of the Space Needle should have told you what city it was in.

--
Bah!
Re:I Recognize Where That Place by yo_tuco · 2004-09-22 03:45 · Score: 1

I'm afraid you are right. My Playboy reading habbits-- I read the pictures and look at the articles.

DHS, can't spell, bad tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 09:03 · Score: 0

Come off it. Arial? Light being diffused to destroy autofocus?
I've largely stopped posting to /. because so many mods nowadays can't tell trolls from humor, or support their own political or religious viewpoint and don't read the guidelines, but come on! This one is floating downstream with a large worm on its hook.

Area 51 by okar · 2004-09-21 09:04 · Score: 1

What if someone put a videocamera on a fast RC-model plane like http://www.powerlabs.org/images/planeandme.jpg
and flew over Area 51?

Should be able to get closer than Tikaboo Peak:
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/area51/panorama_090 1.html

Perhaps it would travel too fast for a good picture?

--
Move. Sig.

Re:Area 51 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 09:37 · Score: 0

or get shot down ............ by lazer beams !
Re:Area 51 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 14:39 · Score: 0

Maybe if it flies fast enough it will get some blue shift, but that would not disqualify the result from being a good picture. I'd probably pay big money to see a picture with measurable blue shift.
Re:Area 51 by JustAnotherBob · 2004-09-21 17:11 · Score: 1

My EM wattage is bigger than yours... I absolutely sure that the US Military will have no problem jamming the RF on such a device.

It would be shot down by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 09:15 · Score: 0

and you they would be arrested

priceless by lelitsch · 2004-09-21 09:20 · Score: 3, Funny

Timer chip - $1.50
Digital camera - $100
Remote controlled airplane - $250
Having the FBI raid your house at 3am - priceless

Or you could try a simpler approach. by sakusha · 2004-09-21 09:21 · Score: 1

Most digital cameras have an intervalometer, you can set it to take a picture at fixed intervals, i.e. one pic every 30 seconds. Just start the intervalometer, run the camera up in the baloon/kite. Of course you'll waste a couple of shots while the camera is being raised and lowered, who cares?

Re:Or you could try a simpler approach. by ptorrone · 2004-09-21 09:25 · Score: 1

do you know what cameras have this? most don't (and i have a few digital cameras). the only timer options on all my cameras are countdowns, which only take one picture after 10 or 30 seconds or so.
Re:Or you could try a simpler approach. by sakusha · 2004-09-21 09:31 · Score: 1

Canon cameras have them, my PowerShot S50 has the feature, but it's discontinued, I think the equivalent new model is the PowerShot S60. Most pro level cameras have an intervalometer, but I cringe at the thought of raising an expensive pro camera up on a kite or baloon.
Re:Or you could try a simpler approach. by Doppler00 · 2004-09-21 12:19 · Score: 1

Even my ancient Kodak DC265 has a time lapse feature. You can set it up to contiusly take a picture every minute or so if you like.

Not Impressive by SomeOtherGuy · 2004-09-21 09:25 · Score: 1

This won't be REAL news unless they find some way to use an Ipod in the equation....Hell, where have these people been for the last year -- "If it does not involve an Ipod -- then it is not unique enough to qualify for news"

--
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.

Re:PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 09:27 · Score: 1, Funny

..and soon he'll "disappear" at the hands of DHS. What a great place to live.

Serial flash strobe? by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-21 09:29 · Score: 1

Where can I find a battery powered strobe flash unit that is triggered by a serial port (RS-232 or USB)? I want to hook one up to my (Treo 600) cameraphone. The camera program can be easily modified to send a signal to the serial/USB port.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:Serial flash strobe? by man_ls · 2004-09-21 09:32 · Score: 1

You can probably get any remote-trigger flash unit, and wire up a relay from the serial port.

i.e. write a stream of 1s for however long to the serial port so volt is high, trip the relay, trigger the flash, end.

BEWARE PYRAMID SCHEMES by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 09:30 · Score: 0

Don't get ripped off.

This one is better. by vxvxvxvx · 2004-09-21 09:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Dave Ahlman's kite thingy..

Re:PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN... by okar · 2004-09-21 09:41 · Score: 1

What would DHS have said about Tesla?

"Stop making experiments on AC, it could be used as a weapon!"

Kinda reminds me of what Edison thought about Teslas work...

--
Move. Sig.

GD! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 09:42 · Score: 0

Ok, look, maybe I'm just jelious, but part of me can't help but say "Christ, how many times are these Engadget people going to be slashdot'd simply because they put a timer switch where a normal switch would go.. how fscking hard is that!?!" It's not, if you were curious, hard at all. It was mildly neat (if simple brain dead hacks are your thing) the first time they mentioned it.. then when they added it to the GPS it was like.. oh wow, a camera and GPS that don't interface at all together.. neat... now.. well, hell, you get the picture.. I'm gonna hack some hardware now see you on the front page tomorrow.

umm... by maxdamage · 2004-09-21 09:43 · Score: 2, Informative

radioshack? *coughradioshackisevilcough*

Help by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 10:11 · Score: 0

could you please rotate the pics to give a more usual horizon. I got dizzy and sick looking at these pics.

Goofy Smartmedia?? by SomeoneGotMyNick · 2004-09-21 11:40 · Score: 1

The article author mentions the camera used the goofy smartmedia format. There's nothing goofy about it at all. Just try fitting more than one CF or SD card into a single media case. I was able to fit three smartmedia cards into a single smartmedia case. It's just like having "pocket pack flash strips"

Now, the xD and memory stick cards are goofy. Why did they even bother (outside of the money issue). We didn't need the xD size when we already had SD/MMC.

Re:Goofy Smartmedia?? by cakefool · 2004-09-21 18:13 · Score: 1

xD cards are tha form factor that suits cameras, while CF suits big fingered people.
SD etc is a good middle ground, but most of the space in these cards is wasted, just plastic thats easy to grip.

I love xD cards, and can carry at least half a dozen in the space of one credit card, which considering my paranoia about corrupt cards losing images, is a good thing.

Plus xD cards can and will eventually go up to 8GB - use full on a laptop etc...
Re:Goofy Smartmedia?? by Technician · 2004-09-21 19:52 · Score: 1

The article author mentions the camera used the goofy smartmedia format.

Um, it's goofy. Not because of the physical size, but because of the way the memory is managed. With CF and other non-goofy formats, I can plug in any new size that comes out and it works. Not so with smartmedia. I have a Ricoh camera that is getting very hard to find memory for simply because the camera won't take the larger media sizes. It's the primary reason I've replaced my camera. Instead of having to haul 6 64 meg cards, I just use a 256 meg card in the new camera. I could use larger memory without needing to replace the camera.

It's the interface limitations that's goofy.

--
The truth shall set you free!

Engadget is a faux blog site by SethJohnson · 2004-09-21 13:40 · Score: 2

Make no mistake. Engadget is a commercial enterprise (WEBLOGS, INC. NETWORK) masquerading as a blog site. It's under contract by Motorola to promote the Sidekick product. Pure advertorial.

I suspect that they are paying Slashdot for placement of these 'stories'. Check out the Engadget editor admitting to submitting a story without disclosing his connection to Engadget. Mr. Blue VT is right on the money. In the example posted above, the editor's account, r-blo, had been created, then submitted two stories, both of which were accepted for publication while no posting or other activity had been recorded in its history.

If my assertions are false, then Phillip Torrone can say that he's not an employee of WIN and that money hasn't changed hands between WIN and Slashdot and Motorola and WIN for story placement.

Oh, yeah. Thanks, MrBlue VT for linking to the ONLY story I've submitted to slashdot that's been accepted. Coincidentally, it is the first mention of kite arial photography on this site.

--
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!

Use a Ritz single use digital by bitingduck · 2004-09-21 14:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

Spend $11 on a Ritz single use digital camera that does 1.2 megapixels. Another $5 or some scavenging for an old palm cable to match the camera connector, some downloadable software, a few minutes with a soldering iron and you've got a cheap digital camera that you won't feel bad about smashing on the pavement when it turns out you didn't fasten it as well as you thought you had.

Reminds me of Stealth by aggiefalcon01 · 2004-09-21 15:55 · Score: 1

I read a book about how they made the first Stealth fighter, and in it, they found their first air-to-air pictures of it were fuzzy & grainy. They soon realized that their Kodak camera used a sonar-like system for focusing, and was unable to focus due to the F-117's design features.

--
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.

Re:Reminds me of Stealth by edittard · 2004-09-25 10:15 · Score: 0

they found their first air-to-air pictures of it were fuzzy & grainy. They soon realized that their Kodak camera used a sonar-like system for focusing
One, grain has nothing to do with focus. It's a property of the film and how it's processed.
Secondly, I doubt any form of sonic distance measurement would work at the normal distances between aircraft in flight, let alone with all the ambient noise. Oh, and the fact that it would be trying to operate through glass or perspex.
Thirdly, I suspect professional airforce photographers would know all that and switch to manual.

--
At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.

Re: IRS by aggiefalcon01 · 2004-09-21 15:57 · Score: 1

I'd rather see the IRS go first, before the DHS. They're just as able to take away our abilities, and have no qualms in doing so.

--
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.

ways to fix this... by SethJohnson · 2004-09-21 17:52 · Score: 1

Well, as a pseudo engineer, I can help shave the weight of the cable from this equation. Use several balloons. No cable. Send your camera-carrying balloon aloft on a not very windy day. When it has taken the photos you desire and is still within a reasonable distance, use a BB gun to shoot one of the balloons. It should return slowly back to earth without the need for a heavy cord or string.

--
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!

Re:ways to fix this... by coryboehne · 2004-09-21 21:12 · Score: 1

Well, as a pseudo engineer, I can help shave the weight of the cable from this equation. Use several balloons. No cable. Send your camera-carrying balloon aloft on a not very windy day. When it has taken the photos you desire and is still within a reasonable distance, use a BB gun to shoot one of the balloons. It should return slowly back to earth without the need for a heavy cord or string.

Two words:

Murphy's Law

I wonder if you could do a "Benjamin Franklin".... by N+Monkey · 2004-09-21 20:24 · Score: 1

I wonder if you could do a "Benjamin Franklin"... fly the kite on a stormy day and take a photo of the yourself being incinerated by lightning?
Just think of what a cool (err hot) photo that would be.

Just replace the Ne555 timer with a photodiode so that the flash sets off the camera.

I guess you'd have to put a sturdy Faraday cage around the electronics... although it'd be a great geek trick if you could also recharge the battery with every strike :-)

YAMP (Yet Another Misinformed Post) by MrBud · 2004-09-21 21:38 · Score: 1

I'm not even going to adress the autofocus issue... dSLR's have an ir filter on the damn chip. So that "super-dooper IR laser" won't show up.

Re:YAMP (Yet Another Misinformed Post) by radish · 2004-09-22 02:54 · Score: 1

That's strange. The IR emitter on my TVs remote shows up as a bright white light. No IR emitter. Also, a number of people have been succesful in using dSLRs for IR photography (with appropriate lowpass filters), thus also no IR filter. I'd believe that some do have filter, but to say that all do is patently wrong.

Now - to address the autofocus issue. What did I say that's wrong?

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:YAMP (Yet Another Misinformed Post) by radish · 2004-09-22 03:00 · Score: 1

Oops typo : "No IR emitter" == "No IR filter"

Sorry.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

20 cents for a 555 is still too much... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 21:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

I get my 555's for FREE out of salvaged consumer electronics that are trashed at the local thrift store.

I have a soldering iron, and I know how to use it...

Okay...

It's true, I'm an old fart.

But you young 'un's ought to check into the joys of sucking up toxic solder fumes, and actually making something useful out of trash.

It's quite rewarding, and GEEKY as can be!

The device isn't even a 555 timer by grefyne · 2004-09-22 04:30 · Score: 1

Its a CMOS Precision Chopper-Stabilized opamp http://www.intersil.com/products/deviceinfo.asp?pn =ICL7650S

Re:BEWARE PYRAMID SCHEMES by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-22 16:08 · Score: 0

So did you get your free iPod yet?

seriously.

Slashdot Mirror

More Cheap Aerial Photography

157 comments