"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:56:55 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:
"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:21:12 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:
"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.
So the camera could just ignore the centre.
Nope, because if it makes the background stable the center
would move around just as much as the background currently
does
It should make them both move around half what they currently do.
Not possible for the reason I spelt out later and you have now deleted.
and would be even worse to watch because what you
want to watch is whats in the center.
No you don't. For example in the video we just watched, it's the animal
we're interested in.
Yes, but when that moves around more
than it currently does, that's worse.
Its never going to be feasible to eliminate the problem
with optical stablisation, it has to be physical.
That wouldn't be any different to what you objected to above.
Yes it is, because there would be no background movement with
that approach. You only get background movement when the
camera moves.
With a perfect physical stabiliser, the background would be stationary,
Yes.
and the person would move around.
Not when it tracks the person and lion.