"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:36:04 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:
"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:03:02 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:
"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 02:02:58 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:
"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:23:16 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:
"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:03:28 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:
"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:41:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:
"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:05:19 +0100, Bod
wrote:
On 18/04/2017 11:00, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:45:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 03:14:53 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Or for pursuing criminals who are running away from
the cops either. Corse a ****ing great alsatian is likely
to be a seen as a tad more threatening by the average
running crim too.
I'm pretty certain a similarly sized lion/tiger would be
considered
more threatening.
;-)
That could work as long as the handler wore armour, had the
beast
on
a
(long / strong) lead and the laws on keeping dangerous
animals
was
changed to allow the Police animals to actually kill crims
(as
I'm
not
sure the recall command would work as well on a lion as it
would
on
a
dog). ;-)
Cheers, T i m
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/10...rning-hug.html
Cool.
Is it just me, or do cameras mounted on someone so they stay
still
and
the
surroundings move seem rather odd?
Yeah, the worst of them can make you a bit sea sick.
But there isnt any feasible alternative when there is
no camera operator to keep tracking what matters.
Could have some kind of fancy gyroscopic thing or an electronic
alternative to make the camera stay still.
Trouble is that it then wouldn't be looking at
what the wearer of the camera is looking at.
That's the whole point of those action cameras, they track
what the person whose head its attached to is looking at
and that does usually produce the best result, even if it
does have the downside of making some a bit seasick.
The big professional shoulder mounted
cameras the pros use do produce a much
better result, but cost a hell of a lot more too.
It can look the same way, just reduce the wobble.
Trouble is that there isnt the room for a decent gyro stablised
system in a head mounted camera and you'd need an external
power pack with its associated cabling even if it was possible.
Someone with exceptional intelligence called James recently said "or
an
electronic alternative".
There is no electronic alternative that is cheap enough.
If there was, they'd be selling like hot cakes.
Sony invented it decades ago.
But even theirs don't have it, so its more complicated than that.
It's on every single video camera nowadays,
Like hell it is in the sense that you get as good a result as with
the massive great shoulder mounted pro cameras the pros use.
But better than the wobbly selfie shots we see.
Nope, not with head mounted cameras that
see the background move around a lot.
so why not on selfie versions?
Because it doesn't work when the camera moves around that much.
I've seen it work well on a roller coaster etc.
That's a different situation, everything the camera
can see is all moving in the same way all the time.
It's called something like "steadyshot".
Sure, its useful for minor steadying, but that's all it can do.
Maybe it gets confused as most of the image is jumpy, yet the face in
the
centre is not.
Its more that the head mounted cameras move the background
around a hell of a lot more and the stuff that is being recorded
deliberately doesn't move around anything like as much.
I suppose it's slower movement rather than jolting.
Yeah, nothing to do with jolting.
You'd think they could easily adapt the programming.
Not even possible. Easy enough when the entire image
is moving due to the camera moving, but impossible
when its just the background moving and not the stuff
in the foreground. There is no way that any digital
real time processing can do anything about the wild
movements in the background that is the problem.
Easy enough for it to analyse everything around the edges and move the
frame to suit.
Not when what is in the center of field of view is doing something
completely different.
Have a look at that lion hugger video again, the person being
hugged by the lions isnt the problem its JUST the background.