h a l f b a k e r y[marked-for-tagline]
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
A reasonably inexpensive way to get into aerial photography is to buy advertising blimp,($299), camera with servo operated shutter with infra red light on camera ($300). As you raise blimp you keep track of red dot to track camera.
Another slant is r/c airplane with "heads up" helmet that interfaces
to camera in cockpit. The biggest problem i would think is a small light transmitter for camera. Tv news traffic reporters could have fleets of these drones for traffic updates.
Google Blimp Aerial Photography
http://www.google.c...&btnG=Google+Search
1,410 hits. Baked. [Worldgineer, Oct 17 2004]
How about this one??
http://www.helihobb...o_video_camera.html
made specifically for RC planes/helicopters [reap, Oct 17 2004]
Google Remote Control Aerial Photography
http://www.google.c...itesearch=&safe=off
Check out a few of these sites, too. [DrCurry, Oct 17 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
The problem with taking photos from radio-controlled aircraft is the weight of the camera. It's doable - but you have to be quite careful unless you make your aircraft big enough that it requires a light aircraft licence, and I believe that is justified on weight as well as size. |
|
| |
In any case, most of the world's armies use radio-controlled aircraft for surveillance purposes, there's quite a large "model" aircraft industry to serve them already. |
|
| |
Minature airships would have a lot of advantages for this sort of local area low speed surveillance, though. And "of course they would not fall under any sort of weight restriction, as they don't weigh anything ........" |
|
| |
//as they don't weigh anything ...//
8th: I don't believe you just said that. Are you scientist-baiting again? ...or did I just not get the source of that quote? |
|
| |