Throwable WiFi Camera

Dotnaught writes "The Eye Ball is a spherical, throwable WiFi camera designed to precede police into areas where there's no direct line of sight. It's manufactured by O.D.F. Optronics, Ltd, an Israeli maker of vision-based systems for the defense, security and consumer electronics markets. Remington Arms Co. has won approval from the Federal Communications Commission to sell the Eye Ball domestically, with law enforcement being likely buyers. The cost is about $4,800 for two EyeBalls (who would want just one?), which apparently also includes video monitoring gear."

Comments

not like back in the day

[joe 155]

back in my day when we wanted to see round corners we held up a little mirror and looked, these cameras would be very difficult to get somewhere completely useful, and even if you could the person who was going to shoot at you could just move. It seems you would need the ability to move the viewable image to follow them like with.... a mirror?

Re:not like back in the day

[blincoln]

Camera with thermal imaging in the eye ball and then smoke grenaes. done deal.

Thermal imaging equipment is incredibly expensive. A non-hardened camera is generally $10k-$15k, although I've seen used models for as "low" as $5000. I would expect that an Eye Ball equipped with one would cost about ten times what the standard ones do.

The military could still afford them, but police? And even military purchasing departments would (I hope) be a little hesitant to hand close to twenty thousand dollars in hardware to a soldier with the intent of them pitching it into a dangerous area.

Law Enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

with law enforcement being likely buyers

Because when one of these comes crashing through the window, the bad guys are just going to say: "Huh, I wonder what that was. Oh well." And then leave it alone. Right.

I think a system like this one has a much better chance at successfully spying on the "bad guys."

Posting anonymously because I work at a place that manufactures these, and even though it's patented, they still like to think it's a secret. Also, clearly not everything in the patent is in the actual system. "Interpreter Software" and "Intoxication Meter" in particular are amusing bits of the patent that aren't even possible to implement as described.

Re:Very good idea, but

[Black Cardinal]

Chances are the ball's center of mass is not in the center of the ball, but offset in such a way as to cause the ball to settle at rest nearly right-side up for the camera. This would be a simple solution that would work on many surfaces, including most floors.

Also, the article doesn't say, but it probably also has more than one camera inside so it can see in multiple directions at once.

Re:more great editing

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the plural is really a possessive.

Re:$4800??

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Yes, this is a concept that appears throughout the world known as 'capitalism'.

Trouble is, the force that drives the new booming field of security/military/anti-terrorism devices isn't free market, but rather how much it's possible to milk public money from law enforcement agencies before they start to complain. Since they never complain, primarily because they *want* to be seen as spending a lot to "protect" the people, all these companies keep jacking the prices up. And none of them would dare giving the game away by trying to be cheaper than the others, there's just too much money to be made for everybody without having to being normal business competition into play.

In short, the anti-bad-guys market isn't driven by capitalism, and hasn't been since 9/11. Rather, the state and the private sector work together to spend your tax money as fast as they can, making themselves richer and you poorer under the pretext of protecting you.

That's freaking expensive

[Mr. Freeman]

I have a $20 camera here by my computer. It's made out of plastic and I can throw it pretty damn hard and it won't experience anything more than a couple scratches.
Now granted, it's wired to my computer by a 20 foot cable, but making it wireless wouldn't take a lot of money. I'd say $50 ish tops.
I certainly wouldn't want to spend more than $70 for a camera that I would use to throw around corners that might not even end up pointing in the right direction.

And with these new suggested cameras, you still have to view the output from said camera. In order to use this camera you have to:
- Throw camera
- Look at screen displaying camera output
- Put away the screen displaying camera output
- Go around corner.

Between steps 2 and 4 there is a huge amount of time that people could use to change their position, thus negating effects of having a camera at all.

Re:That's freaking expensive

[theborg1of4]

I have a $20 camera here by my computer. It's made out of plastic and I can throw it pretty damn hard and it won't experience anything more than a couple scratches.:

You can throw it thirty or forty feet? You can roll it like a bowling ball for ten or twenty yards? I really doubt that's true. Web cams aren't well known for their ability to take a lot of abuse. My old Logitech Quickcam Web survived a few minutes in my dishwasher (wrapped in plastic so I could diagnose a problem with the lower spray arm) but I wouldn't be too happy about dropping it off a table into a concrete floor, let alone pitching it into the air; the EyeBall can apparently survive a two-story drop.

Now granted, it's wired to my computer by a 20 foot cable, but making it wireless wouldn't take a lot of money. I'd say $50 ish tops.:

How do you know this? Could you perhaps describe the inventory of hardware required to make a wireless interface that's also shock resistant the point of being throwable? And compact enough to fit with the power supply, optics, logic and wi-fi transceiver into a baseball-sized object?

Note also that this unit has the additional features: it can capture video up to 25 yards away, with 55 degree horizontal and 41 degree vertical fields of view. It also has near infrared capability, making it useful in nighttime exercises. This would I think add to the cost a little.

I certainly wouldn't want to spend more than $70 for a camera that I would use to throw around corners that might not even end up pointing in the right direction.:

Please read the article. It will assume an upright position, and it's capable of 360 degree rotation (you can see the seam near the bottom of the device). It even has a simple feature where the picture can be reversed vertically if it lands upside down and doesn't right itself.

And with these new suggested cameras, you still have to view the output from said camera. In order to use this camera you have to: - Throw camera - Look at screen displaying camera output - Put away the screen displaying camera output - Go around corner. Between steps 2 and 4 there is a huge amount of time that people could use to change their position, thus negating effects of having a camera at all.

Did you consider the possibility that it doesn't have to be thrown all the time? You could put it on a pole, lower it on a line, even attach it to a small robot for transport into the site. Consider also the possibility that the same guy throwing the camera isn't the same guy watching the screen. You almost sound like you're considering this as a player in a first person shooter video game, and not real live law enforcement or counter-terror activity. This could easily be used as a last-minute tactical information-gathering device, in preparation for a final assault: throw or roll the thing for a last check to determine target disposition before you attack. Or it can be used quietly for longer periods of reconnaissance. This is a pretty nifty package.

Not WiFi

[paul248]

I see nothing in the article or the datasheet to indicate that this is a WiFi camera. 802.11* isn't the only way to send stuff through the air.

It operates on part 15 freqs...

[pozar]

Anyone with a cordless phone can wipe it out.

"Throwing together"

[ModernGeek]

As someone who works in the public service area (fire department), for appications like these, the county/city/feds aren't going to throw a lot of things together. Public service departments needs things that are guarenteed to work in mission critical enviroments, and are backed by warrenties because these things are going to break. A proven products is almost always better than a thrown together product, and I can attest to that with experiance in my field. Just because you can put something together with cheap parts and duct tape for less than the manufacturer can, doesn't mean it will be better. The manufacturer can order parts in bulk, and service the products if they go bad. This isn't always the case when you put something together, and the main part goes bad. In the long run, a thrown together project in a harsh mission critical enviroment is going to cost more than one backed by a manufacturer.

Re:Likely buyers

[cruelworld]

Ya, 2000$ for an upskirt? What, you expect they'll give you the camera back after you toss it into the change room?