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

[sterno]

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

Re:not like back in the day

[Meagermanx]

I was just playing Splinter Cell, so I'm wondering why they don't just use those launchable cameras you can attach to your silenced assault rifle's grenade launcher?

Re:not like back in the day

[shotgunefx]

I saw a demonstration today on tv. It rotates horizontally after it rights itself. Though the reporter was only a few feet away from where it landed and mostly saw her legs.

Re:not like back in the day

[Brain_Recall]

A mirror is of course a simple practical solution to the problem. But there are caveats. A mirror allows you to see around a corner, but it could also just as easily let the enemy know where you are (tilt it just wrong and it will be like a beacon). Not to mention a mirror is a tad bit fragile in a combat situation.

The military has used other solutions over the years. The use of a spit-shined combat knife worked extremely well for this (as it was standard issue to all soldiers). Newer technology has allowed the military to mount cameras onto the barrel of their M-16 and a small heads-up display (much like some helicopter head-up gear) is used to view. It allows them to reach the gun around a corner and view the area and even aim and return fire if needed. The camera is multi-purpose since it also could switch to night-vision.

The SWAT would probably like this more, as close combat allows them to bounce the ball around a corner and down a hall a little nicer. The ball itself is probably heavily weighted in one side (probably with the batteries) so that it would right-side-up.

Re:not like back in the day

[k31bang]

where it landed and mostly saw her legs.

Soooo does this mean its a waste of money to throw into the womans locker room?

Re:not like back in the day

[wed128]

Depends on how much of a "leg man" you are i guess...

Re:not like back in the day

[ozmanjusri]

but then you could just use a mirror

I did most of my firefighting in underground mining and industrial teams. Mirrors are sometimes used, but then you need to be both close to the mirror and close to the line of sight. When you're wearing BA or BG equipment, or when the hazard is unpredictable (ie, rocks spalling because of the heat), something like this beats mirrors hands down.

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.

Likely buyers

[katana]

Law enforcement? Please. These things will be rolling into showers, changing rooms, and bathrooms about five minutes after they hit the market, with DVD sales following right behind (UPSK1RT!!!).

Also, the word is "precede," if you mean "going first."

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?

Re:Likely buyers

[HD Webdev]

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

There are organizations that will pay much more than $2000 USD for a good nekkid picture of a celebrity.

Very good idea, but

[AutopsyReport]

It's a very good idea. But what if you toss the camera and it lands upside down? Unfortunately, you can't guarantee a good visual of your target. What would really be incredible would be a full 360 field of view with the same object. This was my first thought.

This is where good journalism comes in -- it actually answers these questions for you. I had to search for the pdf which explained this. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned first.

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:Very good idea, but

[Krach42]

God, it's like the sibling posts didn't even bother RTPDF.

Forget everything you're thinking that it MIGHT do. It has a centrally located motor, which allows for 360 degrees of rotation of the single camera. it doesn't need to counter balance roll to upright, besides, that would be a bad design, suppose the military is throwing it into a rough surface that will not allow it to roll.

better to have the mechanical rotation mechanism that can rotate at 4rpm, and have a software or mechanical rotation mechanism to get the sensor to point "up".

$4800?!?!

[sulli]

For that it had better bring the crooks back wrapped in duct tape. I remember someone made a tiny wireless camera for a heck of a lot less.

Re:more great editing

[Anonymous Coward]

> I think that's "...precede police into areas..."

English as we learned it is dead, and a new one has arisen. Six months ago my nephew showed me an english assignment he was quite proud of (92%, third highest mark in the class), with only a couple of spelling mistakes picked out. His teacher had missed marking him down for "asaposed", "loose", "alot", "u" and "ur". It was hard to share in his joy when you know the teacher's english literacy levels don't stretch any further than SMS-speak.

Strong Encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

The article makes no mention of any encryption used. I suppose that you wouldn't want to use these for surveillance purposes, as they could potentially be located simply by intercepting and reviewing the perspective of the wireless signal.

Want to locate the police? See things from their perspective and know where they're coming in. Yes, this technology sounds like a brilliant idea!

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:more great editing

[kafka47]

> > I think that's "...precede police into areas..."

> Wrong.

Wrong.

"...designed to precede police into areas where there's no direct line of sight" - to go in before.

Moving cameras

[lastberserker]

That's why you use cameras on wheels. They can move, they can jump the stairs, they can be thrown, and better yet, they can be fired from a special cannon. Totally sweet :-)

Hey coppers!

[east coast]

Garrett called and he said he can help you with this, including a bionic eye. All he wants is for you to stop calling him taffer and chasing him all the time. Even a thief needs to make a living you know.

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.

Re:more great editing

[Nqdiddles]

Please read your own link. Just for fun, of course.
It's a totally different meaning to the usage in the summary. It could "proceed with police into an area", or "precede thim into an area". They're not the same.

I suppose this means

[datatrash]

the bad guys are going to start practicing their golf swings.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mad Eye Moody wants his eye back.

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.

At least...

[Doc Squidly]

At least the didn't call it the iBall.

This is right out of Stargate SG1

[TheRealDamion]

These look and act exactly like the G'oauld devices used in many episodes of Stargate SG1. I can't believe I'm the first to mention this, maybe it's my threshold setting? Theirs are silver with no obvious camera lens, but otherwise look and are used in the same way.

Estes Oracle Digital Video Rocket

[FleaPlus]

This reminds me a bit of something I came across while online holiday-shopping the other day. Basically, it looks like Estes came out with a $80 rocket kit which has a built-in digital video camera. The idea is that you launch it up into the air, recover the rocket, plug a USB cable into it to download the video, and then watch a rocket's-eye-view of the flight. The camera is in the rocket's nose, so you presumably only see the ground on descent. The camera is just 320x240 with 9fps, but it still seems pretty neat.

Hello, Number 6....

[Grandma Death]

Add some offensive capability to this and you have a passable version 1.0 of "Rover".

FCC restricts it to Law Enforcement

[mtgstuber]

Oddly enough I read the FCC filing on this gadget for work earlier this week. It uses the 2.4 Ghz spectrum, but sends an analog signal -- not digital, which is what 2.4 is reserved for. Because it conflicts with the usage plan for 2.4 Ghz the only way the FCC would let them sell it was to specifically restrict it to law enforcement -- not merely government agencies. Personally, I wonder what will happen when these things are obsolete and sold at government surplus auctions, but at least for the next few years the only way you'll get one is if you have a badge.

Among other things, it'll stomp on your 2.4 Ghz WiFi lan. However, because it is designed for use in life and death situations, the FCC figures the police will have cleared the area, and you won't be hanging out surfing Slashdot.