Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware Hacking Toys

More Cheap Aerial Photography 157

Posted by michael from the looking-down-on-the-world dept.
ptorrone writes "If you have an old digital camera laying around and pick up a $1.50 Timer Chip from RadioShack or DigiKey you can turn it in to a great aerial photography camera, this how-to from Engadget shows how they did it along with some other projects with the modded camera." We also linked to part 1.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Cheap Aerial Photography More

More Cheap Aerial Photography

Comments Filter:

  • Geocaching aerial geekiness! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:18PM (#10312373)
    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 [geocaching.com] 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 [geocaching.com] 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 :)
    • 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.
    • 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
  • 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".
    • 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?)
      • 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 ev
      • 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.
        • 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 [rc-cam.com] 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

          • 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.

            • 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 respo

        • 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 [atmel.com] should be around 1.30US$ in s
      • 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 b
      • 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 capacitor
        • 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

          • 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

  • 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 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by acomj ( 20611 )
      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.
      • 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 carg


      • 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.


        • 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

    • Re:Balloon Photography (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Dr. Evil ( 3501 )

      They're used for professional photography where Helicopters are impractical or unnecessary: http://www.floatograph.com/ [floatograph.com]

      They're so cool, but keep them out of the wind :-)

    • 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

  • A Better Site (Score:4, Informative)

    by nemski ( 587833 ) <davidATnemskiDOTcom> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:22PM (#10312425) Homepage
    After the webpage in the article gets /.'d, take a look at this more comprehensive site on areial photography Kite Aerial Photography [berkeley.edu].

  • 20 years ago? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MalaclypseTheYounger ( 726934 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:22PM (#10312427) Journal
    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

    • Re:20 years ago? (Score:5, Funny)

      by irokitt ( 663593 ) <archimandrites-iaur@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:27PM (#10312479)
      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

      • You young whipper snapper! (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Brontosaurus? Luxury!

        We had to sit on a fish trying to crawl onto dry land and rearrange lilly pads until they made a picture.
      • at least you could climb. in my day we still believed evolution had topped out with stumps instead of these new-fangled "legs".
      • 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.

    • Yes, the Estes "Camroc [mindspring.com]" took a shot at apogee. The "Cineroc [paratech-parachutes.com]" took a movie.

    • 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 specia

    • 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 cle

  • "they" ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Quixote ( 154172 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:23PM (#10312440) Homepage Journal
    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" ? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ptorrone ( 638660 ) * <pt@nOspAM.adafruit.com> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:28PM (#10312488)
      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" ? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        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" ? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MrBlue VT ( 245806 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @05:22PM (#10313058) Homepage
        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:


        Seriously, I've seen 8 Engaget crap articles [slashdot.org] 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?


        • 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 [slashdot.org] 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

  • Legal ... for now (Score:5, Informative)

    by YetAnotherName ( 168064 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:25PM (#10312459) Homepage
    Get into this hobby while you can before it becomes difficult and/or illegal [slashdot.org].

  • A $1.50 timer chip? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jason1729 ( 561790 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:26PM (#10312467)
    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 [profquotes.com]
    • 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.
    • Is Radio Shack selling chips again? They seem to have abandoned that practice around here.
    • 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 [htsoft.com]).

      Check out Microchip.com [microchip.com] for information on the different chips available. They range from the small, sim

    • 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.

  • DK link expired. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Notice: Digikey link expired.

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

  • You too, can be sued... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:28PM (#10312483)
    And you too now can be sued...

    ...by Barbra Streisand.

  • Thirty-thousand foot view (Score:5, Funny)

    by airrage ( 514164 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:31PM (#10312534) Homepage Journal
    The question, which has remained until now, unanswered: do nerds look like nerds at 1000 feet?

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

  • headline thoughts (Score:4, Funny)

    by Chuck Bucket ( 142633 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:32PM (#10312545) Homepage Journal
    reading the headline I thought of bringing one of those disposable cameras on a plane and taking pictures out the window.

    CB

  • cheapest form of aerial photography (Score:4, Funny)

    by logandr ( 521767 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:32PM (#10312548)
    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.

  • "old digital camera" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bender_ ( 179208 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:33PM (#10312557) Journal
    ...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?

  • Get an Aiptek PenCam (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OreoCookie ( 814421 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:35PM (#10312585)
    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
    • 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.

  • more fun /. projects (Score:5, Informative)

    by alatesystems ( 51331 ) <.chris. .at. .chrisbenard.net.> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:38PM (#10312617) Homepage Journal
    The guy behind this, Phillip Torrone, has done a TON more cool stuff. Check out his site/blog [flashenabled.com] 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
  • 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. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      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.

  • RC Glider Photography (Score:5, Interesting)

    by potus98 ( 741836 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:53PM (#10312764) Journal

    Back when I flew Radio-Controlled Gliders ( Gentle Lady [towerhobbies.com] 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.

    • 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 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 t

  • Those kite pic and grey sky are at the Gasworks Park on Lake Union in Seattle.
    • 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.
  • What if someone put a videocamera on a fast RC-model plane like http://www.powerlabs.org/images/planeandme.jpg [powerlabs.org]
    and flew over Area 51?

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

    Perhaps it would travel too fast for a good picture?

  • priceless (Score:4, Funny)

    by lelitsch ( 31136 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @05:20PM (#10313040)
    Timer chip - $1.50
    Digital camera - $100
    Remote controlled airplane - $250
    Having the FBI raid your house at 3am - priceless
  • 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?

  • 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"

  • 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.
    • 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.

  • This one is better. (Score:2, Informative)

    by vxvxvxvx ( 745287 )
    Dave Ahlman's kite thingy.. [daveahlman.com]

  • umm... (Score:2, Informative)

    by maxdamage ( 615250 ) *
    radioshack? *coughradioshackisevilcough* [jameco.com]
  • 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.

    • 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
  • 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 :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Close