Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-13-2012, 11:46 PM   #106
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
QuoteOriginally posted by elliott Quote
So does the camera walk itself over into position on its tripod legs?
Even if it could it may not be able to run fast enought to escape a charging grizzly.

A better idea might be to strap it to a remote controlled quadricopter that can be controlled from your smartphone. Parrot AR Drone for example. AR.Drone 2.0. Parrot new wi-fi quadricopter- AR.Drone.com - HD Camera - Parrot The Parrot already has a HD1080p video camera built into it so might be easier to use that.

09-14-2012, 05:30 AM   #107
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,097
From what I have read or viewed when the bears are feeding on salmon they ignore both other bears and photographers. I do not see how being able to take photos from a distance will give people more respect for animals as it is very possible to take images with long lenses anyway. I cannot see anyone deciding to give up hunting because they now can fire off their camera remotely. Sounds way too much like a used car salesman pitch then a comment from a wildlife photographer. In contrast to your view I think if we could get all the images we want with little effort, less not more respect to wildlife would be the result. Part of the appreciation. I get from my wildlife shots is the ability to get close enough for the shot without disturbing or stressing them . the part I did not mention but from my experiences as both wildlife photographer and close circuit video operator is more important in many ways from what is in your camera's view is what is not in it. What is happening right next to your frame, what is going to walk into the frame and what is distracting those in your frame are all parts of the equation that would be totally missing from your set up unless you also had closed circuit video with pan tilt abilities. Now we are talking about elaborate set ups. You would be disturbing animals by going to and away from your camera. Even entering a blind disturbs them but if you stay and are quiet they accept you. But not only you but all the other photographers would be going to and fro setting up and taking down set ups without any knowledge of what the other set ups are doing and the end result might be more disturbances and less quality images.

I get it you want these features in your next camera, I just think your bear example is a solution looking for a problem. I also personally do not think we need to make technology to make every thing in life effortless and easy and able to do from the comfort of some remote safe comfy spot. Wifi would not stop hunting, straw man argument.
09-14-2012, 12:01 PM   #108
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 95
Original Poster
How about an autonomous camera?

QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
I get it you want these features in your next camera, I just think your bear example is a solution looking for a problem. I also personally do not think we need to make technology to make every thing in life effortless and easy and able to do from the comfort of some remote safe comfy spot.
OK...in place of my written opinion, I offer this:

BBC One - Polar Bear: Spy on the Ice (promo clips viewable)

You might note what they say:
QuoteQuote:
Drift Cams were specifically designed to film autonomously without the need for a camera crew.
While the purists will shoot 800mm+ telephoto shots from a mile away (we've seen that for years now), the BBC will figure out how to reward their viewer with great still or moving images from just feet away. In doing so, they not only provide great entertainment, but also offer scientists documentation for research.

As I'm unlikely to travel to the Arctic anytime soon, and cannot possibly see all the exotic locations, I appreciate the efforts of photographers to bring them to my TV or computer screen. More so, it's nice to see the videographers/photographers accessible to, and rewarded by, a larger audience.

Tools that allow for new types of imagery and perspective do not threaten the photographer's role; like all technology, it simply allows a human to enhance their efforts, good or bad as they may be.
Attached Images
       

Last edited by dmytty; 09-14-2012 at 03:40 PM.
09-14-2012, 12:07 PM   #109
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 95
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
Even if it could it may not be able to run fast enought to escape a charging grizzly.

A better idea might be to strap it to a remote controlled quadricopter that can be controlled from your smartphone. Parrot AR Drone for example. AR.Drone 2.0. Parrot new wi-fi quadricopter- AR.Drone.com - HD Camera - Parrot The Parrot already has a HD1080p video camera built into it so might be easier to use that.
Now we're talking! However, I'm all about getting the better quality of the DSLR, so no 1080p video cam for me.

09-14-2012, 04:44 PM   #110
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,097
QuoteOriginally posted by dmytty Quote
Now we're talking! However, I'm all about getting the better quality of the DSLR, so no 1080p video cam for me.
One of my high speed photo shots was were I set up I think it was 6 high speed cameras to photo an explosion we also had an unmanned drone fly over head photographing the event. The cameras constantly record and are stopped by the same trigger that set off the blast. I was not allowed to be at or near the ground zero shooting the cameras so of course we used remote control set up. No idea of the cost of the unmanned drone but the cameras themselves was worth over 400K plus lenses plus the cost of the shelters and the triggers etc. I understand that one cannot be everywhere but you know it is not cheap setting these things up and it actually took time setting up the cameras and this is for where one knows the exact point they want to photograph. At least once we tied a D1X to the trigger system and got some stills. The high speed cameras could shot up to 400 000 fps but this set up was most likely the 4K to 12K rate. I never felt I was taking photographs or video and especially not art photos when setting this up.

You might also add satellites and unmanned space craft in your quest to show remotely fired cameras. I think BBC had a little more than a one dollar chip added to get the results they wanted and more than likely had biologists consulting for locations and such. Good luck in getting all that on the K30 replacement. That is all from me on the subject as it is no longer about photography or every day photographic gear. Or even doing it yourself but having it done for you by other people it seems.
09-15-2012, 03:08 AM   #111
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 95
Original Poster
Polluting the purity of photography with technology?

QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
The high speed cameras could shot up to 400 000 fps but this set up was most likely the 4K to 12K rate. I never felt I was taking photographs or video and especially not art photos when setting this up.
What's art? Last I checked, pictures of explosions from crazy angles and at crazy high refresh rates could very well be art. Seen any war films lately? How about Myth Busters?

Now, just because your team couldn't 'express' anything with that big budget and crazy technology does not mean that others should be encouraged to 'refrain from polluting the purity of photography with technology'.

QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
You might also add satellites and unmanned space craft in your quest to show remotely fired cameras.
Actually, one of the most impressive and emotional pictures ever taken was from space. It was Earth Rise, the Apollo 8 shot.

Now, was that a snapshot...a scientific documentation effort...or art? Whatever it was, I'm glad they used the best camera technology they had and didn't insist on using glass negatives (you know...to preserve the soul and difficulty of photography so not just any lunar astronaut passing by could grab a great pic).

QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
I think BBC had a little more than a one dollar chip added to get the results they wanted and more than likely had biologists consulting for locations and such. Good luck in getting all that on the K30 replacement. That is all from me on the subject as it is no longer about photography or every day photographic gear. Or even doing it yourself but having it done for you by other people it seems.
Are you saying that I can't just throw a camera in your backyard with a remote viewfinder and expect to take a picture of a polar bear in the wild?

Or are you saying that the BBC type footage should always be expensive and out of reach of the unwashed masses?

Now I don't expect that Pentax will supply a consulting biologist (either integrated or as a clip on accessory), but that doesn't mean that they can't give me a remote viewfinder capability - for low cost.

And regarding blimps or whatnot, if I want an aerial overhead shot of our family reunion, should I pass on that out of some misplaced attachment to the photography techniques of yesteryear?

Just curious: Do you drive your car to photography shoots or do you find that your glass negatives are upset by the high speed mechanical conveyance? Oh you don't shoot with 8x10 negatives? Oh well, I assume you're at the least still shooting film right, with manual aperture and focus? And you develop everything yourself right...just so you can make sure to extract the last bit of artistic value (kinda like your vinyl record collection with tube amps)?

This 'purist' message is lost on me...and unless you routinely bring your viewing audience to tears or their feet, then perhaps your technique and equipment could still use a little technological enhancement as well. And even then, my wife the painter would argue that you're still not really creating a vision, but rather just capturing what any fool might see with their own eyes as well.

After all, is your camera really nothing more than a remote viewfinder freezing a moment in time for an audience to view later from a different place? If so, who cares how and from where you actuated the shutter.
Attached Images
 
09-15-2012, 07:59 PM   #112
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,097
QuoteOriginally posted by dmytty Quote
What's art? Last I checked, pictures of explosions from crazy angles and at crazy high refresh rates could very well be art. Seen any war films lately? How about Myth Busters?

Now, just because your team couldn't 'express' anything with that big budget and crazy technology does not mean that others should be encouraged to 'refrain from polluting the purity of photography with technology'.


.
Yes we (the high speed photography team was usually just one person we do not have the budget that hollywood does) wasted all the budget and technology improving other technologies so soldiers are less likely to get blown up and KILLED. Much of our life is spent making things work not making art. You started by wanting Pentax to put a bunch of stuff in an inexpensive dslr and stated it would only cost a couple of dollars and now to justify it you use all kinds of neat things that are not the remotely possible to do for the price you claim. And as far as purity goes, what it is is you wish for your camera to be able to create images that others do without the effort they do, that is fine but your justifications are the problem. I would love for a camera to be able to do everything possible photographically and cinematic be compact and sell for under one grand. But I live in the real world. Mythbusters use the exact same brand of high speed cameras that we did, they make entertainment and we did defence research. BBC did not spend only a couple of dollars and have all that stuff ran by wifi and the Apollo mission was not an add on chip to an existing plane. And sitting on your duff and using remote control as I said is neither safer for the bears in your first example nor desirable for people wanting to be able to control what will be in their viewfinder. I have used remote controlled devices and do enjoy the results from others, but who created the BBC images and why not have a company make a set up like the one you gave for BBC and rent space of people to place their cameras and then collect their gear at the end of the event and make claims on what a good photographer they are. More honest to just purchase images from those who actually do set up and photograph. By the way another group of people who do not make art out of remote images are surgeons.


War movies are also more than a couple of dollar chips added to a cine camera. You are way off from your original request and unless a total troll go back and read what you wrote. If I am a purist for calling you up on your exaggerated and some times false claims so be it, honesty should not be dropped just because we are in the digital age. Your two dollar chip is not what you are supporting with Mythbusters (which I enjoy) war movies, special set ups for wildlife, spacecraft etc. Think also of the cost of setting up those explosions in war movies, you will not be getting them free from Pentax.

Last edited by redrockcoulee; 09-15-2012 at 08:44 PM.
09-15-2012, 08:10 PM   #113
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,097
Oh I do develop black and white film myself because I enjoy it and develop my own prints because I enjoy doing so. Some of my camera are fully manual especially the large format ones, is that wrong or evil and my Pentax is full automatic does that make me less bad? I drive a car but I do not expect the manufacturer to put everything in it and use what Hollywood or NASA can do for justification that they can put it in my car for very little money. No my photos do not bring people to tears so I guess I am an incompetent or at least compared to you a terrible photographer. My wife is also an artist and a photographer. And lastly I do not have your great vision or intelligence so you are by far out of my league and I apologize for not agreeing with all your wise words. So the next Pentax camera can shoot high speed photography and also sent to the arctic and controlled from your own home all at a very minimal cost. Congratulations

09-15-2012, 08:38 PM   #114
Veteran Member
frank's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,202
QuoteOriginally posted by dmytty Quote
Nothing magical about it. A 1080p h.264 compressed video stream (ie what the K30 does now) is 20-30 Megabits per second and that's within the 802.11n spec. Regarding range, no problem. Outdoors, the old 802.11 b/g specification calls for 95 meters (~300 feet). The current 802.11n specification roughly doubles that. And that's while staying within FCC transmitting guidelines for output power (so that you don't 'step on' your neighbor's signal). The next generation spec will do even better - MIMO with multipath processing.

So, 600 feet is easy with current technology using power transmission levels @ <1 watt, which are designed to be compatible with apartment houses having wifi lans 50 feet apart. In Alaska, a boosted signal with newer technology should get you close to your 400 yards...and that's without using your empty snack can of Pringles as an antenna (what a bear lure too)!
Sorry I have to tell you that it's not possible to do HD live feeding w/ current 802.11n over anything beyond 100m unless you use some kind of repeater or signal booster. The old 802.11b still holds the longest transmission range among all b/g/n standards but at a much lower bitrate.

I'd love to see a wifi chip w/ built-in antenna which is able to transmit not HD video but much lower quality VGA video over 600ft without much data loss so I'd be able to use it in our products (I've been doing this kind of products for a few years, and wireless video/data transmission over a long range - over 150m - in a small package is always our biggest challenge).

I agree w/ some others here, I don't wanna pay for something like a GPS which I'd never use in a dSLR camera. My iPhone/iPad is perfect for that when needed.
09-17-2012, 10:49 AM   #115
Senior Member
Mattco26's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 118
Looks like you need to switch to Canon, they just released the 6D, full frame, wifi, gps and 2k USD.
09-17-2012, 09:34 PM   #116
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 95
Original Poster
David Letterman's Top 10 reasons for no Wireless DSLR

QuoteOriginally posted by Mattco26 Quote
Looks like you need to switch to Canon, they just released the 6D, full frame, wifi, gps and 2k USD.
Thanks for the tip, but after reading this thread, I know that this product is simply not possible/feasible/rational. Here's my 'reasoning', presented by David Letterman 'Top 10 fashion'.

All right ladies and gentlemen...The Top 10 reasons a wireless DSLR can never be released.

10. I'm sure the battery will die after 20 pictures with 'all those' extra chips.
9. Is Canon now part of the CIA...why does Canon want to know where I am all the time?
8. It has to be bigger no matter what the specs say. Dimensions are like statistics, you can measure anywhere on the body to get any dimension you want.

[Dave interrupting monologue]...By the way Paul...speaking of measurements, do you know that these camera nuts like 'full frames'? What's with that...you're a photography buff?
[Paul Shaffer] That's right Dave...we like them Rubenesque.
[Dave] You know, I always wondered why fat things are associated with Ruben...I mean you have a painter...a sandwich...and Paul's camera?
[Paul] That's why I don't take pictures of our guests Dave...my camera was the inspiration for the Fatify app.
[Dave laughing] Stick to the keyboard Paul...All right moving on with #7.

7. Canon will likely not even release this product once they know how many people will refuse to buy this camera. It's a horrible business move. As Churchill said, I'm sure this is the beginning of the end of Canon.
6. Is there an iphone integrated? Why? I don't want an iphone inside my camera body.
5. The pros won't like this because GPS and Wifi are 'consumer' features. Leica would never do this 'consumer' stuff like wireless or video.
4. Ball don't lie.
3. Canon and Nikon people always lie.
2. The first cell analogue phone I had was always dropping calls. It follows then that the Wifi has about the same range as an 18" wired shutter cable release.

And the #1 reason for not believing in this product....drum roll...
1. It's not a Pentax. Everyone knows that Pentax leads the market in all useful innovation!
12-18-2012, 02:04 AM   #117
Site Supporter
p38arover's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Western Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,008
QuoteOriginally posted by dmytty Quote
In the GPS world, this is referred to as "time to first fix" (TTFF), and most scenarios are 'warm' or 'subsequent'. In any event, this happens in about the time required to turn the camera on, take the picture, look at it, and turn the camera off (ie <10 seconds). In scenarios where you move across the city between pictures it might be a touch slower (and I'm talking a second or two).
My iPhone 3GS can take up to 10 mins to get a lock (and it's often inaccurate). I use it to track my morning walks. I have to remember to turn the app on well in advance of the walk. It's weird that it will often show a different route to my wife's 4S and always has a different distance walked (up to several hundred metres)
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bluetooth, board, camera, data, dslr, gps, pentax, photography, rf, wifi
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax O-GPS1 GPS - Faulty k-5 or GPS Unit? KansasHorizons.com Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 6 01-04-2014 02:34 PM
Any news on Built-in GPS on any of Pentax's Cameras nstocke Pentax News and Rumors 13 04-25-2010 03:41 AM
GPS data in K7 pictures? Ivo_Spohr Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 04-23-2010 02:10 PM
Saving GPS data in K20dD files at time of capture: possible? WMBP Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-13-2009 04:54 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:39 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top