DJI announces Inspire prosumer drone with 4K video recording, releases SDK for Phantom 2 Vision

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 50
    lowepg wrote: »
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Drones could potentially be even more intrusive and privacy-broaching, viewing/filming entire neighborhoods backyards and peeping in second story bedrooms.

    lol... peeping in 2nd story windows?

    1. They are LOUD. Unless you were running a leafblower in your bedroom (hey, whatever floats your boat :-)  ) - no one is going to have one of these amateur copters "sneak up" on them.
    2. I do a lot of sports photography. I have a 400mm lens (not to unusual for an outdoor sports photog) and I guarantee you I could invade your 2nd story window privacy plenty with it (much moreso that with a drone).

    The point is, MANY items have the potential for abuse, that doesnt mean we need to over-regualte or ban ALL of them in an overabundance of (irrational) caution.

    Example: a local guy here was arrested for using his iphone to video up girls skirts.
    Should the FCC regulate the use of camera phones (which are used FAR MORE often to invade privace than drones ever have)?

    Simple solution: if you're a girl, don't wear a skirt that people can video up. Problem solved.
  • Reply 22 of 50
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,302member
    lowepg wrote: »
    lol... peeping in 2nd story windows?

    1. They are LOUD. Unless you were running a leafblower in your bedroom (hey, whatever floats your boat :-)  ) - no one is going to have one of these amateur copters "sneak up" on them.

    YOURS may be loud. Apparently not all are.

    “In the case of a marsh harrier, we might want to use it to check on the state of a nest without traipsing in," Butcher said. "We don't like to put cameras close to nests until the eggs have hatched, because the birds can be prone to deserting the nest.

    The main advantage of the craft is how quiet it is. "It only has six little electric motors so it is almost drowned out by ambient sound and the wind, and doesn't disturb the birds," Butcher added."


    Otherwise we're in general agreement as you'd see reading post 18.
  • Reply 23 of 50
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,460member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    ...


    The drone builders were smarter about it, throwing it out there before the nay-sayers could get their feet under them.

    ...

     

    Quad-copters (let's use the correct name) are nothing more than an easier to fly and more stable model helicopter. They have had cameras on them and been on the market for close to 10 years.  The argument could be made for getting certified by the Academy of Model Aeronautics who handles certifying model aircraft pilots because it is, after all, a model aircraft.

  • Reply 24 of 50
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,460member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hentaiboy View Post

     

    I give it 12 months and these things will be banned. Or you'll need a licence to own them.

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2014/10/15/drone-pilots-beware-new-faa-enforcement-policy-targets-you-licensed-pilots-at-particular-risk/


     

    Did you read the second article at the bottom?  Dated Nov 6th?  Getting certified by the Academy of Model Aeronautics would be a good idea though. www.modelaircraft.org

  • Reply 25 of 50
    shsfshsf Posts: 302member

    For anyone into modelling aircrafts or who's flied one of these quad-copters in particular, am I right in assuming that both the prosumer and and the 7,000 pro model offer fully automated lift off, trajectory, and landing based on gps coordinates?

     

    My impression from checking out their website a month or so ago was that only the pro model had an app to do that. Does access to the sdk mean that devs can create auto-flying apps for the prosumer model too, while that was not the case in the past?

  • Reply 26 of 50
  • Reply 27 of 50
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,491member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by gonevw View Post

     

    It's not about spying on anyone, it flies for 18 mins and makes a loud buzzing noise, who you going to spy on, the Deaf?

     




    People will do it anyway, just as there are tons of perverts who attempt to take photos of people in public restrooms.   

     

    But that's not necessarily the primary reason for regulation.    In an age of paranoia, people will be afraid that these things will be carrying small bombs.   And in spite of the heavy use of street cameras in most urban areas now, these will be so obvious that people will get angry about what they perceive to be a new invasion of privacy, even if they do give away private details of their lives every day on the web. But the biggest reason is that you know that once these are adopted by more people, there will be accidents.   And the first time someone winds up in an emergency room because of someone else's "drone", the media is going to make a really big deal about them and then the politicians will step in.

     

    I don't have any problem with someone using these in a public park to take photos or to experience "flying".    But I think in dense urban areas, these things probably are pretty dangerous.   And if they can fly higher than 300 feet, there will be regulations to keep them out of flight paths. 

     

    Besides, once users crash these and destroy a $2900 device as well as their iPhone or camera, the novelty will wear off really quickly.   Having said that, I'd really like to try one out to see how effective it is within a max of 10-20 feet off the ground in order to capture stills and video with angles and movement that couldn't otherwise be easily obtained without the use of cranes, tracks, etc.    

     

  • Reply 28 of 50
    zoetmb wrote: »

    People will do it anyway, just as there are tons of perverts who attempt to take photos of people in public restrooms.   

    But that's not necessarily the primary reason for regulation.    In an age of paranoia, people will be afraid that these things will be carrying small bombs.   And in spite of the heavy use of street cameras in most urban areas now, these will be so obvious that people will get angry about what they perceive to be a new invasion of privacy, even if they do give away private details of their lives every day on the web. But the biggest reason is that you know that once these are adopted by more people, there will be accidents.   And the first time someone winds up in an emergency room because of someone else's "drone", the media is going to make a really big deal about them and then the politicians will step in.

    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">I don't have any problem with someone using these in a public park to take photos or to experience "flying".    But I think in dense urban areas, these things probably are pretty dangerous.   And if they can fly higher than 300 feet, there will be regulations to keep them out of flight paths. </span>


    Besides, once users crash these and destroy a $2900 device as well as their iPhone or camera, the novelty will wear off really quickly.   Having said that, I'd really like to try one out to see how effective it is within a max of 10-20 feet off the ground in order to capture stills and video with angles and movement that couldn't otherwise be easily obtained without the use of cranes, tracks, etc.    

    All of those "fears" would apply to pre-existing radio-controlled planes and helicopter models and there has been no need to regulate them out of existence.
  • Reply 29 of 50
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,526member
    Prosumer? bleh. I'm waiting for the Paparazzi model.
  • Reply 30 of 50
    quinney wrote: »
    Prosumer? bleh. I'm waiting for the Paparazzi model.

    That's already been demonstrated here with the quad-copter videos of Apple's campus-in-progress.
  • Reply 31 of 50
    shsfshsf Posts: 302member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Quiet_Desperation View Post

     

    The nuclear dork levels of the early adopters killed Glass.

     


     love the line, "and these Phillip K. Dicks are on a mission to bring us all to the future"

  • Reply 32 of 50
    shsf wrote: »
     love the line, "and these Phillip K. Dicks are on a mission to bring us all to the future"

    I've never really considered PKD about science-fiction. He's really more about paranoid delusion.
  • Reply 33 of 50
    shsfshsf Posts: 302member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    I've never really considered PKD about science-fiction. He's really more about paranoid delusion.

     

    Yes he has that persecutory thread running throughout all his oeuvre. 

  • Reply 34 of 50
    kkerst wrote: »
    I don't get drones. It's a hobby copter with a camera. Ok...I don't need to spy on things and people.

    "Need to spy"? Why the negativity? I for one hope the Nixie will come to fruition:

    [VIDEO]http://w.wsj.net/video/20141110/111014hubnixie/111014hubnixie_v2_ec664k.mp4[/VIDEO]
  • Reply 35 of 50
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,328member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    lowepg wrote: »
    lol... peeping in 2nd story windows?

    1. They are LOUD. Unless you were running a leafblower in your bedroom (hey, whatever floats your boat :-)  ) - no one is going to have one of these amateur copters "sneak up" on them.

    YOURS may be loud. Apparently not all are.

    “In the case of a marsh harrier, we might want to use it to check on the state of a nest without traipsing in," Butcher said. "We don't like to put cameras close to nests until the eggs have hatched, because the birds can be prone to deserting the nest.

    The main advantage of the craft is how quiet it is. "It only has six little electric motors so it is almost drowned out by ambient sound and the wind, and doesn't disturb the birds," Butcher added."


    Otherwise we're in general agreement as you'd see reading post 18.

    The hexacopters may be a bit quieter than the quads, but all the ones that I have used or seen (heard) are noisy when within 50 ft or so - they sound like a swarm of bees. Predominantly higher frequencies, so the perceived noise level drops off fast with distance. But, given that all the consumer level aircraft use wide-angle lenses (and have to because the stabilization gimbals are not good enough to stabilize with higher magnifications), you really have to get quite close to do any effective spying.

    They certainly could provide a unique platform to intrude on privacy, but existing privacy laws should cover that, just like they do for the use of telephoto lenses, and I don't think anyone is clamoring to regulate those.
  • Reply 36 of 50
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,460member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    "Need to spy"? Why the negativity? I for one hope the Nixie will come to fruition:

    http://w.wsj.net/video/20141110/111014hubnixie/111014hubnixie_v2_ec664k.mp4

    https://flynixie.com/

     

    Yes...I want!!

  • Reply 37 of 50
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,460member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I agree with you. I would assume then that you see no more danger in Google Glass than you do with a drone or any other vehicle with recording capabilities. Every method has the potential for abuse, but doesn't make it abusive. Still the early FUD has probably killed Google Glass as it's currently designed. By carefully and slowly introducing it Google gave the fear-mongers a window of opportunity to do their work. IMHO they would have been much more successful with it had they just opened the door to retail sales shortly after the reveal. The drone builders were smarter about it, throwing it out there before the nay-sayers could get their feet under them.

    Still they may not entirely avoid the privacy concerns either. Once the public has a chance to use these kinds of things the imaginary dragons tend to disappear but there's not that many drones around yet so there's some suspicion about those that use 'em. Wasn't some teenager attacked at a beach for using one?

    Well my interest in video and photography makes a quad copter very appealing to me, for the ability to say, capture wild life and scenery from a higher altitude than my traditional gear or from a safer position. I am not quite sure how Google Glass would be of any use in any situation I can think of for high quality photography or video. If I wanted a first person view I'd use my Canons or if hands free a GoPro. The only reason I can see for Google Glass for photography or video is clandestine capture and that's just creepy. That said, everyone knows what Google Glass looks like now so they can throw you out if wearing them.
  • Reply 38 of 50
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,302member
    I am not quite sure how Google Glass would be of any use in any situation I can think of for high quality photography or video. If I wanted a first person view I'd use my Canons or if hands free a GoPro. The only reason I can see for Google Glass for photography or video is clandestine capture and that's just creepy. That said, everyone knows what Google Glass looks like now so the can throw you out if wearing them.

    Maybe not for high-quality but for a lot of folks that's not their aim anyway. They want to post up quick videos to Facebook or send something to a family member. Use the device they have rather than the one they wish they'd brought. Remember the best camera is the one you have with you? Glass could be much more convenient since "as it happens" recording ain't gonna happen in many cases if you're taking the time to set up a Go-Pro. Some of the best photo/film opportunities were never planned.

    I do get your wanting to pigeon-hole Glass and separate it from the video devices you already mentioned as relatively benign in your opinion. afterall it is from your hated Google.

    When you wrote:
    "If you stop and think, if one had a limited imagination, one could say the same thing about a camera or a video camera. Using your logic, or lack thereof, all cameras are for spying because some are used for that." you sounded quite reasonable. In this most recent one you seem to be back-peddling a bit, applying your logic to everything BUT Google Glass. Not surprising really but smells somewhat disingenuous don't you think?
  • Reply 39 of 50

    As someone else said, the main benefit for this, as I see it, is for aerial photography and video, and seems particularly suited for filming nature. I don't think they should ever be used in an urban context. I also think they should be regulated more heavily than they are now, in order to discourage criminal intent.

  • Reply 40 of 50
    hentaiboyhentaiboy Posts: 1,034member
Sign In or Register to comment.