More Cheap Aerial Photography 157
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.
Geocaching aerial geekiness! (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Geocaching aerial geekiness! (Score:1)
Re:Geocaching aerial geekiness! (Score:2)
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
I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
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
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer (Score:2)
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer (Score:3, Interesting)
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 $1.50 -- but then I need to find somebody who can program it for me (or buy the equipment, which isn't very expensive.) I may just go ahead and
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer (Score:2)
There is no reason to use it, apart from not knowing better. There are less power hungry replacement parts which fulfill the same function.
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer (Score:2)
If I'm reading the spec sheet right, the LM555's typical current usage is 3 mA of current at 5 volts. I'd say this usually falls into the `who cares?' category, at least for this purpose. (Certainly, for many applications, 3 mA is a big deal, but I don't see this as one of those.)
If you feel that using a 555 is wrong for this application, then the proper respo
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer (Score:2)
I was referring to the 74HCxxx series of logic chips, which cost cents each but are a little bit more modern than a power hungry 555.
I defy you to find a microcontroller at that price
The lowest cost 8-bit microcontrollers by Atmel, Microchip, Ti, Motorola are around 1$ 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
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer (Score:2)
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer (Score:1)
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
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer (Score:2)
The new crop of cameras have 802.11(x) options so it would be even easier with them
Re:I was hoping to learn about a better chip timer (Score:2)
Balloon Photography (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Balloon Photography (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Balloon Photography (Score:1)
ways to fix this... (Score:2)
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.
Re:ways to fix this... (Score:2)
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)
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 :-)
Re:Balloon Photography (Score:1)
Re:Balloon Photography (Score:1)
A Better Site (Score:4, Informative)
20 years ago? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, now it's digital, and in color, but this is old news.
Re:20 years ago? (Score:5, Funny)
You young whipper snapper! (Score:3, Funny)
We had to sit on a fish trying to crawl onto dry land and rearrange lilly pads until they made a picture.
Re:20 years ago? (Score:1)
Re:20 years ago? (Score:2)
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.
Re:20 years ago? (Score:1)
Yes, the Estes "Camroc [mindspring.com]" took a shot at apogee. The "Cineroc [paratech-parachutes.com]" took a movie.
Re:20 years ago? (Score:2)
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
Re:20 years ago? (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re:"they" ? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"they" ? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Engadget is a faux blog site (Score:3)
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)
A $1.50 timer chip? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, this is the 21st century. Why not do it the "right" way with a $1 PIC12F629?
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:A $1.50 timer chip? (Score:1)
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? (Score:2)
Re:A $1.50 timer chip? (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:A $1.50 timer chip? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A $1.50 timer chip? (Score:2)
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
DK link expired. (Score:2, Informative)
And if you buy most any component from radio shack, you are paying too much.
Re:DK link expired. (Score:1)
555 timer [mouser.com]
You too, can be sued... (Score:4, Funny)
Thirty-thousand foot view (Score:5, Funny)
I believe, after reviewing the photographic evidence...yes.
headline thoughts (Score:4, Funny)
CB
cheapest form of aerial photography (Score:4, Funny)
Re:cheapest form of aerial photography (Score:1)
Not to mention hoping that you catch it!
"old digital camera" (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Use a Ritz single use digital (Score:3, Interesting)
more fun /. projects (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
Interesting but risky. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting but risky. (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:RC Glider Photography (Score:2)
Re:RC Glider Photography (Score:2)
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
I Recognize Where That Place (Score:1)
Re:I Recognize Where That Place (Score:1)
Area 51 (Score:1)
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)
Digital camera - $100
Remote controlled airplane - $250
Having the FBI raid your house at 3am - priceless
Or you could try a simpler approach. (Score:2)
Re:Or you could try a simpler approach. (Score:2)
Re:Or you could try a simpler approach. (Score:2)
Re:Or you could try a simpler approach. (Score:2)
Not Impressive (Score:2)
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"
Serial flash strobe? (Score:2)
Re:Serial flash strobe? (Score:2)
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)
umm... (Score:2, Informative)
Goofy Smartmedia?? (Score:2)
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?? (Score:2)
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".... (Score:2)
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
Re:DHS (Score:3, Funny)
thanks!
Re:DHS (Score:4, Insightful)
surely the effective focal length for ALL aerial shots will be infinity anyway?
Re:DHS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:DHS (Score:2)
LOL at all the tinfoil hatters that modded this interesting/informative.
Re:DHS (Score:3, Insightful)
Autofocus in aerial photography? What are you smoking, man...
Re:DHS (Score:4, Funny)
Or am I threatening national security by relating my knowledge of these VERY basic photography skills?
Re:DHS (Score:2)
No, but you might have violated the DMCA for detailing a way to circumvent an electronic security system...
Re:DHS (Score:2)
Re:DHS (Score:5, Informative)
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 [paratech-parachutes.com].
Hope not too much taxpayer money is spent on this system!
Re:DHS (Score:2)
Re:DHS (Score:1)
Re:DHS (Score:1)
Re:DHS (Score:1)
Mod this Funny or Insightful, how ever you see fit
Re:DHS (Score:4, Informative)
Re:YAMP (Yet Another Misinformed Post) (Score:2)
Now - to address the autofocus issue. What did I say that's wrong?
Re:YAMP (Yet Another Misinformed Post) (Score:2)
Sorry.
Re:DHS (Score:3, Interesting)
Do me a favor- quit your job. I'm tired of paying you with my taxes and everyone [aopa.org] else [eff.org] with [aclu.org] what little income I have left.
Sheesh.
Re:DHS (Score:2)
Thanks!
- pm
Re:DHS (Score:1)
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.
Re:DHS (Score:2)
I can't believ
Re:PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN... (Score:1)
"Stop making experiments on AC, it could be used as a weapon!"
Kinda reminds me of what Edison thought about Teslas work...