Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Bigfoot Discussions. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
1.8 gigapixel airborn surveillence; Could you find BF with this?
Topic Started: Feb 6 2013, 09:35 PM (402 Views)
GuyInIndiana
Member Avatar
General Peepmaster
[ *  *  * ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZfDemjMJzz0

Besides spying on YOU, this device COULD be a means to finding BF IF you could devote it to a long time fly-over of a hotspot.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Just Curious
Member Avatar
Curiosity Squared
[ *  *  * ]
When the segment starts out and he says he wanted to make this available to the public, at first I thought he meant to buy one! I think the man waving his arms in the parking lot is just a manblob, so you'd still have the question of whether it's a man or a beast, not to mention it can't penetrate tree cover. So, basically, this is 265 cell phone cameras all taking slightly different pictures within a small area (if you can call 15 sq miles small), but I don't get how melding them together provides better clarity. What is really impressive is how he can take segments out of the whole and blow them up like that! And to have it animated on top of it. He talks about 24 hour surveillance of a single location, so this must be capable of being stationery.

The kids and I were having a conversation in the car tonight about when I win the lottery and take up bigfoot hunting full time... They're not too keen on me spending all my winnings on buying equipment to hunt bigfoot and running around the country in a 'motor home'. They're threatening to lock me up until I come to my senses. Their major concern was that I wouldn't buy each of them a computer with satellite internet so they'd have reception in remote areas. I tried to explain that was an extravagance.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
GuyInIndiana
Member Avatar
General Peepmaster
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I tried to explain that was an extravagance.


Naw, that's just a matter of opinion.

But overall, I think they *dumbed it down*... I did the math ( I think ) and there's no way that few chips could produce that resolution, unless the chips we have in our cameras have far more resolution capability built into them than we're using or know about. As well, the lens system is likely highly complex. It also makes you wonder if instead of flying at the altitude it does, if it came down half that level if it would allow for even higher resolution video.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
keilder
Member Avatar
Dreams of turnips and potatoes
[ *  *  * ]
I think you're right Mike (the firgures don't gig too well with me either) I just watched this, and at first thought he must be using an arrayed back to a chip controller (small boxes from the on screen image he showed) then he goes on to state the small cameras from phones to build the array. So yeah I gathered that much.

image / typical 6 meg phone camera

1.810 / 66 = 30000 units

image / cameras quoted

1.810 / 368 = 4896 pixels per camera required.

I'm not even going into data transfer rates to broadcast that, if you want to try it on various KBps work on storage is binary (base 2) 1024 KB transmission is decimal 1000 KB convert to bits and divide by Bps (bits per second).

a small transmission question, I had to work out last year for college to help.

122 KB x 1024 B
= 124928 B
= 124928 x 8 b
= 999 424 b

999 424 / 35 720 000 = 0.02797939529 seconds or (3 s.f.) 2.8 x 10ⁿ (n = -2 )
999 424 / 430 000 = 2.32424186046 seconds or (3 s.f.) 2.31
Edited by keilder, Feb 9 2013, 11:51 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Just Curious
Member Avatar
Curiosity Squared
[ *  *  * ]
Nope, it's based off 5 megapixel smart phone camera technology... It's coupled with 4 telescoping lenses though and then run through high tech software/computers to produce what we see.

From Extreme Tech website:
Quote:
 
It is the definition of “observe” in this case that will blow your mind, though. With an imaging unit that totals 1.8 billion pixels, ARGUS captures video (12 fps) that is detailed enough to pick out birds flying through the sky, or a lost toddler wandering around. These 1.8 gigapixels are provided via 368 smaller sensors, which DARPA/BAE says are just 5-megapixel smartphone camera sensors. These 368 sensors are focused on the ground via four image-stabilized telescopic lenses.


All pretty interesting stuff if you follow links to read all about it. What this all brings me back to is my old question of taking a picture through a telescope. The man that I knew who had a really good telescope passed away so I never had the opportunity to test it out and I don't know anyone else with a telescope like his. Have to add that to my equipment list...

BTW, you can buy your own military quality drone now for under $2000. Can you just imagine the FAA licensing application reviewer - when you explain what purpose you have for wanting a licensed drone? But, you must have to be so many feet in the air before you have to be licensed or model airplanes would be illegal, so I wonder...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
keilder
Member Avatar
Dreams of turnips and potatoes
[ *  *  * ]
Try a little mono scope over a camcorder JC! I have oh...I don't know if it's in my desk draws, I'll have a quick scout or upstairs with all my campiing gear.....

yep! a little Sunlit 10x25 I picked up cheap off ebay years back! Place over the camcorder lens and focus and it works pretty well, but you do get barrell distortion or blocking in all 4 corners of the image.

I don't know enough about optics, but my thinking is 5-6-7-8 or whatever Meg sensor or camera with a scope or not will still result in a 5-6-7-8 image unless theres some really heavy duty interpolation coming into play.

As a sensor is nothing more than a set of resistors or contact points, that have a voltage across them! so simple explanation 1 volt is black, 0 volt is white.

but break this down into 8 or 16 bits (1.1001 - 1.2002 - 1.3003 - 1.4004 etc., volts) and you can build up colours! Take 6 million or 5 million of them and different voltage readings representing colours and you have an image. Thats why you get dead pixels as one of the resistors is buggered and doesn't give a reading or allow voltage to pass over it.

It can't be changed, so must be using interpolation. Okay thats me getting too geeky I need a drink. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Technology and Tools · Next Topic »
Add Reply

PRINT theme created by tiptopolive of the Zetaboards Theme Zone