An overprotective parent in a Prius... fitting the stereotype, I suppose.
Poor dude with the drone, I don't think he's done anything wrong.
[video=youtube;76P2Zr0yG_0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76P2Zr0yG_0[/video]
For anyone interested in just what exactly a drone can see from different altitudes.
TL;DW: if you can't make out the details on the aircraft, it can't see any details on your face
[editline]2nd September 2015[/editline]
If a drone was spying on you, you'd know it because you'd hear it and it'd be blatantly obvious because it'd have to be very close
Edit: come join the drone chat:
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1483861[/url]
[QUOTE=Trumple;48601294][video=youtube;76P2Zr0yG_0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76P2Zr0yG_0[/video]
For anyone interested in just what exactly a drone can see from different altitudes.
TL;DW: if you can't make out the details on the aircraft, it can't see any details on your face
[editline]2nd September 2015[/editline]
If a drone was spying on you, you'd know it because you'd hear it and it'd be blatantly obvious because it'd have to be very close[/QUOTE]
Damn neighborhoods like that are so awesome
[QUOTE=X12321;48601329]Damn neighborhoods like that are so awesome[/QUOTE]
Video makes me want a drone now :/
On Topic: after watching that video I don't see how people freak out about "Spying on you"
I love when people are trying to tell you off about something, they'll default to claiming they've worked with the thing before.
"I use those things too I know how it is"
"I did that stuff in the mountains"
"Well...... not directly"
smooth
I remember once a dude got mad/defensive about me using the word 'memetics' as a joke term as I was talking about something with a friend on facebook. I was trying to describe how we remember certain old insider jokes and have seen them evolve over time. Claimed he went to college for it and kept copy-pasting wikipedia snips. (turns out it's a real word, and ironically describes cultural memes being passed through generations in evolution)
would have helped if we all didn't blatantly know this guy dropped out of our high school
[QUOTE=BigBadWilly;48601415]
On Topic: after watching that video I don't see how people freak out about "Spying on you"[/QUOTE]
People have a low understanding of drones, how they work and what they're capable of. I'm not surprised guys that fly drones are accused of being pedophiles, either. If you've noticed, we've sort of gone a bit off the rails with accusations of pedophilia, so now a lot of guys seem to get accused of being pedophiles for innocuous shit. I've heard stories of guys getting detained by police officers for kissing their girlfriends because they assumed he was a pedophile with a kid, fathers being stopped with their kids because they were assumed to be kidnappers, and one notable one you might remember was those two coaches who got kicked out of a park because they 'looked like pedophiles'. We're starting to jump the gun a lot, and it's probably going to end up becoming a men's rights issue since it heavily uses bigotry against men (women with child = mother, man with child = kidnapper in many people's eyes)
Reminds me of that one video where this guy flew his drone over a beach (at such an altitude that everyone looked like ants) and some crazy lady followed it to where it landed and attacked him, called the cops and told them he attacked her, then went in for round 2.
[QUOTE=BigBadWilly;48601415]Video makes me want a drone now :/
On Topic: after watching that video I don't see how people freak out about "Spying on you"[/QUOTE]
Get one! JOIN US!
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1483861[/url]
[QUOTE=Trumple;48601294][video=youtube;76P2Zr0yG_0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76P2Zr0yG_0[/video]
For anyone interested in just what exactly a drone can see from different altitudes.
TL;DW: if you can't make out the details on the aircraft, it can't see any details on your face
[editline]2nd September 2015[/editline]
If a drone was spying on you, you'd know it because you'd hear it and it'd be blatantly obvious [/QUOTE]
This isn't true. Yes, in his case, the drone isn't able to pick up detailed images from a distance. Outfitted with a different lens or camera, it could easily get very highly detailed pictures from 1000ft up.
Saying that drones can't see from that height is like saying that we can't see other planets from earth. Both are only correct when using a shitty lens, and incorrect when using a long-distance lens.
that being said, the right to use drones should have priority over the right to privacy. They're sick-ass machines and you can't trample on hobbyists solely because you don't like the idea of it.
About the privacy and safety stuff, the danish government already decided to go on a kneejerk reaction and ban pretty much everything that flies that has something above some draconian weight limit. Besides that, you cant fly in "populated public areas" and every company out there is getting boiling shit for asking for permission to use drones for shit like land surveying and cargo delivery.
The way people are reacting to this is hilarious and stupid at the same time, reminds me of that woman who beat up a drone pilot and destroyed his equipment for flying at the beach, she got arrested then pulled a usual SJW shitstunt about misogynist drone pilots and cops.
[editline]3rd September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=willtheoct;48602529]This isn't true. Yes, in his case, the drone isn't able to pick up detailed images from a distance. Outfitted with a different lens or camera, it could easily get very highly detailed pictures from 1000ft up.
Saying that drones can't see from that height is like saying that we can't see other planets from earth. Both are only correct when using a shitty lens, and incorrect when using a long-distance lens.
that being said, the right to use drones should have priority over the right to privacy. They're sick-ass machines and you can't trample on hobbyists solely because you don't like the idea of it.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is flying around with observatory grade telescopes strapped to their drones though.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;48602529]This isn't true. Yes, in his case, the drone isn't able to pick up detailed images from a distance. Outfitted with a different lens or camera, it could easily get very highly detailed pictures from 1000ft up.
Saying that drones can't see from that height is like saying that we can't see other planets from earth. Both are only correct when using a shitty lens, and incorrect when using a long-distance lens.
that being said, the right to use drones should have priority over the right to privacy. They're sick-ass machines and you can't trample on hobbyists solely because you don't like the idea of it.[/QUOTE]
No consumer drone has a telescopic lens. The vast majority of drones in the skies are DJI Phantoms (like the one used to make that video) or similar, which all have cameras suitable for aerial photography (telescopic lenses aren't particularly useful which is why they aren't sold that way). Indeed, there are specialist multirotors/drones that are much larger and can carry larger payloads, E.G. DSLR cameras or even high-end video cameras, and if you wanted to, you could slap a telescopic lens on that. However, these are not hobbyist devices and are operated by aerial imaging companies for films, real estate, etc. They cost upwards of $12k. They often require two or more operators: one to pilot it, and one to control the camera. So, if you see one buzzing around, chances are it's a hobbyist drone and it can't see much detail for any height. If it's not a hobbyist drone, then it's trying to shoot commercial footage and isn't interested in spying on you.
It's not a case of "let's slap on this telescopic camera and spy on people", because to even be able to carry the lens would require a payload capacity beyond what most drones can deal with.
Sure, you could spend $12k on a drone capable of carrying the equipment, employ a second person to operate the camera for you, take off near to your target, fly to your target, make enough noise to be heard from 500 meters away and alert your target to your presence, and take some shots of them running away.
Or you could buy a telescopic camera and take some shots of your target without them even knowing.
[QUOTE=NeverGoWest;48602798]you cant fly in "populated public areas"[/QUOTE]
That's also just common sense, though?
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;48602896]That's also just common sense, though?[/QUOTE]
It's also the law in many places - except the US where it's legal to fly in densely populated areas but illegal to fly in a national park (though the laws are set by two different departments in this instance)
[QUOTE=willtheoct;48602529]the right to use drones should have priority over the right to privacy. [/QUOTE]
uh what. no it shouldn't. this is a ridiculous thing to say
[QUOTE=God of Ashes;48602960]uh what. no it shouldn't. this is a ridiculous thing to say[/QUOTE]
It depends on what we consider the right to privacy to be, I think. If someone's in a public place, for instance, they don't have the right to privacy, but I can't tell you how many times I've been yelled at for taking pictures while they're claiming they do.
I just delete the pictures, but it serves a point. Outside of your home or another private place (i.e. not a crowded sidewalk in the middle of the day), you can be filmed or photographed without your permission.
You don't have a right to privacy in a public place. That being, you don't have a right to fly a drone at low altitude over someone else's property.
[editline]3rd September 2015[/editline]
Some of the youtube comments are good
"Go on, prove that you're here with your daughter and that you're not just watching young girls playing soccer!"
[QUOTE=NeverGoWest;48602798]Nobody is flying around with observatory grade telescopes strapped to their drones though.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Trumple;48602823]No consumer drone has a telescopic lens. The vast majority of drones in the skies are DJI Phantoms (like the one used to make that video) or similar, which all have cameras suitable for aerial photography (telescopic lenses aren't particularly useful which is why they aren't sold that way). Indeed, there are specialist multirotors/drones that are much larger and can carry larger payloads, E.G. DSLR cameras or even high-end video cameras, and if you wanted to, you could slap a telescopic lens on that. However, these are not hobbyist devices and are operated by aerial imaging companies for films, real estate, etc. They cost upwards of $12k. They often require two or more operators: one to pilot it, and one to control the camera. So, if you see one buzzing around, chances are it's a hobbyist drone and it can't see much detail for any height. If it's not a hobbyist drone, then it's trying to shoot commercial footage and isn't interested in spying on you.
It's not a case of "let's slap on this telescopic camera and spy on people", because to even be able to carry the lens would require a payload capacity beyond what most drones can deal with.
Sure, you could spend $12k on a drone capable of carrying the equipment, employ a second person to operate the camera for you, take off near to your target, fly to your target, make enough noise to be heard from 500 meters away and alert your target to your presence, and take some shots of them running away.
Or you could buy a telescopic camera and take some shots of your target without them even knowing.[/QUOTE]
OK, "1000 feet" was an exaggeration, but one could easily get a half-decent lens and monitor someone at a fairly distant range.
I'm not too well-versed in photography(or even how cameras are designed), but I'm fairly certain you could mount/duct-tape/bind with some putty [URL="http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTA2NlgxNjAw/z/6kYAAOSwDNdVrR1W/$_57.JPG?set_id=880000500F"]this[/URL] to a quadcopter. Costs $150-$200, probably weighs a pound, and is used to take detailed pictures of flying birds and wildlife at a long distance.
The above link is a 200mm lens btw, [URL="http://cdn-7.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/IMG/Images/Learn-Explore/Photography-Techniques/2009/Focal-Length/Media/red-barn-sequence.jpg"]here's what it can do compared to some others.[/URL]
[QUOTE=willtheoct;48604581]OK, "1000 feet" was an exaggeration, but one could easily get a half-decent lens and monitor someone at a fairly distant range.
I'm not too well-versed in photography(or even how cameras are designed), but I'm fairly certain you could mount/duct-tape/bind with some putty [URL="http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTA2NlgxNjAw/z/6kYAAOSwDNdVrR1W/$_57.JPG?set_id=880000500F"]this[/URL] to a quadcopter. Costs $150-$200, probably weighs a pound, and is used to take detailed pictures of flying birds and wildlife at a long distance.
The above link is a 200mm lens btw, [URL="http://cdn-7.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/IMG/Images/Learn-Explore/Photography-Techniques/2009/Focal-Length/Media/red-barn-sequence.jpg"]here's what it can do compared to some others.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Your lack of photography knowledge is very apparent.
Yes. You can strap a 200mm+ lens on a camera on a multirotor. But here's where things start to get tricky, first of all any camera body capable of working with any real telephoto lens is generally quite large. Bulky. Heavy.
To carry any weight, you need to start moving up in size, the normal choice for any serious photography gear is usually any 8-motor craft, often in an X8 configuration due to being able to use massive blades.
So, your multirotor is going to be relatively massive. The guy in the video is flying a hex, and you can see it around the end, it's pretty damn big to begin with, Octo's are rarely smaller than that.
So from there, your ~spy drone~ is already massive and going to be obvious to see. Next factor is you can't make a quiet octo. You can't. Not with off the shelf shit that everyone's using.
So, you have this massive and incredibly loud thing that's inevitably going to draw insane amounts of attention from this. That alone should dispel the idea of a ~spy drone~
But lets take it further.
Focus. Here's the thing, often you don't have much in the way of control of a camera when it's on multirotor, any kind of control system is *expensive*, so any way of getting focus is incredibly hard. So the only way to solve that problem is to just shoot at a slow ass aperture, like F/8 or beyond.
This is gonna limit you to only shooting in the day.
Ever hand-held shot with a 150mm+ lens? It's hard. It's really hard. You have no stability, and you very easily lose your frame of reference and then fuck around trying to get your frame back.
Ever tried any photography from a massive machine that's held in the air by the force of its own impossible instability? I have! I've shot with my 7D + a 85mm prime on a friends X8 Octo. We were doing aerial shots of a local RC car rally. The system required two pilots, one to fly the multirotor itself and one to control the gimbal of the camera. I ran camera, we had a direct feed from the 7D, just from it's analogue out into a Fatshark (google it).
The gimbal wasn't perfect, it had some instability in it but it was pretty good. Guess what. It's [b]INCREDIBLY[/b] hard to get any useful shots even at 85mm. Even of the stationary drivers. Everything is unstable, everything is shaky, everything is moving too fast, you don't have enough control. It's impractical. It's entirely impractical at that focal distance, I don't want to imagine what it's like at 200mm, it would be impossible to do anything with.
This doesn't work. Please stop.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
