Nixie – Wearable camera that can fly [video](flynixie.com)
flynixie.com
Nixie – Wearable camera that can fly [video]
https://flynixie.com/
54 comments
It's the usual waste-of-space website design. Let's fill the front page with photos and bios of ourselves, while not bothering to include any useful information about the actual product.
Or maybe the team they've assembled is working on exactly that. At this stage - it's not really yet a product, but a concept. Instead of shitting on their website design, why not wait a while to see if this collection of seemingly talented people with a common goal are able to accomplish what they've set out to do?
Sorry, 'design' was a poor choice of words by me. It is the content on the page that annoys me. Even if they are just at a concept stage, they could have useful information on the page.
We can wait, sure. But it is a fair question to ask why they haven't put the stage they're at on the web page somewhere right now.
From engadget 2 weeks ago:
>For now, it's just a delicate prototype that can fly off your wrist and not do much else.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/29/nixie-wearable-drone/
>For now, it's just a delicate prototype that can fly off your wrist and not do much else.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/29/nixie-wearable-drone/
Huh. Why make this wearable? Isn't that kind of an insane design constraint? I mean, what's the battery life on something small enough to wrap around your wrist - five minutes?
I mean, you go and do whatever you want. I'm just really enjoying imagining that meeting.
Is this something the lead was just passionate about? Are they serious about the "friends walking around in a park who casually want aerial selfies" use case? Are they serious about the "people who go adventure sporting but can't plan ahead to carry an extra couple lbs of gear" use case?
Do any of them regularly think "geez, if only I could spontaneously capture aerial footage at any given moment of any given day"?
Did they assemble a team of experts, and this one guy just stonewalled them because his flexible wing design was a pet feature and they had no other way to incorporate it into the product?
Did they approach an investor, and the investor said "Nah, someone's already working on next-gen brain-dead easy adventure drones. You know what's sexy? Wearable next-gen brain-dead easy adventure drones".
I mean, you go and do whatever you want. I'm just really enjoying imagining that meeting.
Is this something the lead was just passionate about? Are they serious about the "friends walking around in a park who casually want aerial selfies" use case? Are they serious about the "people who go adventure sporting but can't plan ahead to carry an extra couple lbs of gear" use case?
Do any of them regularly think "geez, if only I could spontaneously capture aerial footage at any given moment of any given day"?
Did they assemble a team of experts, and this one guy just stonewalled them because his flexible wing design was a pet feature and they had no other way to incorporate it into the product?
Did they approach an investor, and the investor said "Nah, someone's already working on next-gen brain-dead easy adventure drones. You know what's sexy? Wearable next-gen brain-dead easy adventure drones".
For climbers and maybe surfers(water proof ?) this might be handy...
Sometimes it's not about planning... When climbing for example it's really hard to take decent pictures, because it's hard to go to the places where the picture would look good.
Their focus should probably be more like sports than "friends in the park"
I also think they will face some serious issues with making this thing work and I don't know how big the market is.
But I would really consider buying one if they made this thing work.
Sometimes it's not about planning... When climbing for example it's really hard to take decent pictures, because it's hard to go to the places where the picture would look good.
Their focus should probably be more like sports than "friends in the park"
I also think they will face some serious issues with making this thing work and I don't know how big the market is.
But I would really consider buying one if they made this thing work.
As a climber, I don't see how the design constraint of it wearable makes it any more useful. It being reasonably small and lightweight (and robust) would be nice for me to actually carry it with me regularly, but I don't want it on my wrist. I want it on my harness or in my pack since having things on your wrist can make some holds virtually unusable, especially if you're crack climbing.
Hi, fellow climber!
As a bracelet it will easily fit your harness rings.
As a bracelet it will easily fit your harness rings.
I found it so awkward they chose that scenario as the first. They weren't doing anything but taking a selfie. Maybe if they were running, playing with a dog, throwing a frisbee, anything other than just grip and grinning for the camera?
If for no other reason than the press attention the project received. Likewise, Amazon isn't likely to actually deliver packages via drone, but it didn't stop 60 Minutes from devoting a show based on the concept. A writer coined a term "Conspicuous R&D" to describe efforts like this. Auto companies have been doing it for years in the guise of "Concept Cars." From a pure engineering perspective it's not an optimal solution, but it gained a ton more attention than if it was merely a sort of small quadcopter.
I wouldn't be surprised to see this company eventually move towards non-wearable drones, but this little R&D project doubled nicely as a marketing campaign.
I wouldn't be surprised to see this company eventually move towards non-wearable drones, but this little R&D project doubled nicely as a marketing campaign.
It's useful to mention that Nixie was an entry to Intel's "Make it Wearable" competition. Intel is pushing some new processors, in particular focusing on wearables. Nixie won some money from Intel for their proposed design.
It's clever psychology to place the (3D-rendered?) product shot right next to the mountain climber action shot. But it's trickery and leaves a foul taste in my mouth.
Failing to include any actual pictures (or in this case, real footage) of a product "in development" always undermines my confidence by giving me the vaporware vibe.
I'm a much bigger fan of Oculus' "in development" communications. "Here's what we built, here's what works and doesn't work about it, and here's where we're going next and why."
Failing to include any actual pictures (or in this case, real footage) of a product "in development" always undermines my confidence by giving me the vaporware vibe.
I'm a much bigger fan of Oculus' "in development" communications. "Here's what we built, here's what works and doesn't work about it, and here's where we're going next and why."
Frankly, I'd prefer no footage than faked footage (e.g. Myo, which showed videos of people waving their arm around with a plastic prototype while someone used a remote-control for the quadrocopter behind the camera).
First thing I thought when I saw this was vaperware. Hopefully they don't run a kickstarter. :)
How does one include real footage when the product does not exist yet?
They have a working development prototype, as seen in the video on this page:
http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/29/nixie-wearable-drone/
I presume that that's what they're shooting the video from currently...
http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/29/nixie-wearable-drone/
I presume that that's what they're shooting the video from currently...
At 0:12 in the youtube video you can see how it's done: you fake it like the big guys[1]. That white thing on the left looks exactly like a Phantom[2] landing gear.
The trouble with these small drones is that they are too light to be stable - the video will be shaky unless they do a lot of post-processing.
[1] http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3297878/nokias-pureview-sti...
[2] http://www.dji.com/product/phantom
The trouble with these small drones is that they are too light to be stable - the video will be shaky unless they do a lot of post-processing.
[1] http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3297878/nokias-pureview-sti...
[2] http://www.dji.com/product/phantom
They do not have a working prototype. No product shots.
By making the product exist?
Personally, the ability to wrist-wear this doesn't intrigue me at all. I have several small flying things (Blade nano qx, mcp-x, msr-x), so I'm somewhat familiar with what's currently possible on a production scale in terms of battery life, weight, etc. It shouldn't be a problem for them to get ~10-minute flight times out of this, or keep it stable in wind (though larger, heavier craft with gyro-stabilized gimbals will have a large advantage).
What I see as the biggest problem is exactly the thing that doesn't seem to add any value for me: being able to wrist-wear it. While small-scale RC flying things are incredibly durable these days (material scaling and all that), I think it'd be much too heavy, much too fiddly, and much too fragile to also make it wrist-wearable.
What I see as the biggest problem is exactly the thing that doesn't seem to add any value for me: being able to wrist-wear it. While small-scale RC flying things are incredibly durable these days (material scaling and all that), I think it'd be much too heavy, much too fiddly, and much too fragile to also make it wrist-wearable.
The problem I see with the product so far is that all the images appear to be renders, and not actual product shots.
Also the demo video shows shots from what appears to be a drone; is it the actually Nixie, or is it another drone used to exemplify what the Nixie would be able to do?
I want this to be real.
Also the demo video shows shots from what appears to be a drone; is it the actually Nixie, or is it another drone used to exemplify what the Nixie would be able to do?
I want this to be real.
Looks pretty cool. Of course, it's all in the execution. If the thing takes bad video and doesn't consistently record the action that you want it to - it doesn't matter how cool it is.
So putting together: Quality Video + Small Size + Aerial Mobility + Flexibility + Weatherproofing(presumably, even just sweat on a wrist or fog could be a problem) seems incredibly ambitious (and of course, super neat).
However, I can't picture something comfortably wrapping around my wrist that also has enough battery power to have any significant flying time and deal with basic weather conditions, like a breeze. Just in trying to remember tiny copters and things I've had in the past, it would be kind of amazing to me if the power supply and utilization has advanced that much.
Any new action-cam is going to be referenced against the ubiquitous GoPro, so I feel ok making a comparison. I have a GoPro Hero 3+, and filming at 1080 the battery only lasts a couple hours. Turn on the wifi, and that time takes a significant hit. As far as I can tell from the renders in the video, this would have a smaller battery than those in a GoPro, but would need to provide more power, since the thing is flying. Maybe I'm wrong about this, again, just eyeballing form the renders.
It's a neat concept, and when I first got a GoPro I was surprised by how damn small the thing was, so I imagine camera boards will only get more intriguingly small and effective. I do wonder about the lens though, as it appears to be tiny. Perhaps more is explained in the video which I watched on silent. Would be nice if there was some text to parse somewhere for people without sound.
However, I can't picture something comfortably wrapping around my wrist that also has enough battery power to have any significant flying time and deal with basic weather conditions, like a breeze. Just in trying to remember tiny copters and things I've had in the past, it would be kind of amazing to me if the power supply and utilization has advanced that much.
Any new action-cam is going to be referenced against the ubiquitous GoPro, so I feel ok making a comparison. I have a GoPro Hero 3+, and filming at 1080 the battery only lasts a couple hours. Turn on the wifi, and that time takes a significant hit. As far as I can tell from the renders in the video, this would have a smaller battery than those in a GoPro, but would need to provide more power, since the thing is flying. Maybe I'm wrong about this, again, just eyeballing form the renders.
It's a neat concept, and when I first got a GoPro I was surprised by how damn small the thing was, so I imagine camera boards will only get more intriguingly small and effective. I do wonder about the lens though, as it appears to be tiny. Perhaps more is explained in the video which I watched on silent. Would be nice if there was some text to parse somewhere for people without sound.
I was really interested when I saw this the other day and it is an awesome idea but as others have mentioned I wish they would give some details on how they plan to address some of the key issues.
Most importantly and an issue which seems to have been affecting drones in general is battery life. Even current commercially successful drones only last a matter of minutes before needing to be recharged and they are several times the size of the nixie and dont have cameras to deal with. What happens if you are climbing as in the video and 3 minutes later the battery starts dying while you are stuck on a mountain face?
I've liked the concept ever since I heard about quadcopters though and I think it has a lot of potential. From the video I think they're suggesting that you could have an option which sets the Nixie up so that you basically just throw it in the air and it will track + record you. This is obviously a big software challenge (motion tracking the target) that they will have to face although still arguably easier than battery life or flight stability in bad weather conditions.
If they launch it as a glorified selfie taker though I think it would be a shame as it could do so much more. As shown it could compete with the GoPro - hands free and a much desired camera angle - for filming sports, as well as things like amateur TV/film recording, surveying, mapping, etc. That extra functionality could all be added with software updates, its the hardware and physical design which I'm hoping they have a secret answer to.
Most importantly and an issue which seems to have been affecting drones in general is battery life. Even current commercially successful drones only last a matter of minutes before needing to be recharged and they are several times the size of the nixie and dont have cameras to deal with. What happens if you are climbing as in the video and 3 minutes later the battery starts dying while you are stuck on a mountain face?
I've liked the concept ever since I heard about quadcopters though and I think it has a lot of potential. From the video I think they're suggesting that you could have an option which sets the Nixie up so that you basically just throw it in the air and it will track + record you. This is obviously a big software challenge (motion tracking the target) that they will have to face although still arguably easier than battery life or flight stability in bad weather conditions.
If they launch it as a glorified selfie taker though I think it would be a shame as it could do so much more. As shown it could compete with the GoPro - hands free and a much desired camera angle - for filming sports, as well as things like amateur TV/film recording, surveying, mapping, etc. That extra functionality could all be added with software updates, its the hardware and physical design which I'm hoping they have a secret answer to.
No matter how incredible the software is, I don't see a solution for the core problem that they will need to solve: battery vs weight. It's revealing that there are no prototypes shown at all.
Very curious what their weight goal is and how they plan to deal with physics.
Very curious what their weight goal is and how they plan to deal with physics.
Yeah especially as they plan for it to be wearable. It needs to be light enough to comfortably stay on your wrist for a period of time. Taking the climbing example again, having even a few pounds extra weight on your arm makes things a lot more difficult. If they added battery packs which the Nixie could recharge from to compensate then it kind of defeats the point of it being wearable and so portable.
"If they added battery packs which the Nixie could recharge from to compensate then it kind of defeats the point of it being wearable and so portable."
Would depend on how it's done, of course, but just because something is able to use battery packs doesn't force me to carry them with me all the time. Just having some I could keep in a car to replace quickly while 'out' would be sufficient for some (many?) use cases.
Would depend on how it's done, of course, but just because something is able to use battery packs doesn't force me to carry them with me all the time. Just having some I could keep in a car to replace quickly while 'out' would be sufficient for some (many?) use cases.
Wouldn't the battery for that thing be far bigger than your wrist?
We're not talking thifty cpus at idle here, it's four motors at high rpm.
Even LiPo has its limits and I sure wouldn't want a high capacity LiPo on my wrist without a shield.
The protox only has 4 minutes of flight time and it doesn't have a camera or gps. http://www.revell.com/radio-control/estescontrol/4606.html
We're not talking thifty cpus at idle here, it's four motors at high rpm.
Even LiPo has its limits and I sure wouldn't want a high capacity LiPo on my wrist without a shield.
The protox only has 4 minutes of flight time and it doesn't have a camera or gps. http://www.revell.com/radio-control/estescontrol/4606.html
See some huge design issues with this
Drones are not that safe unmanned yet.
Something this small will never deal with wind.
The flexible spars that form the bracelet need to be rigid to reliably transfer force from the rotors to the frame.
Battery life will be terrible
Drones are not that safe unmanned yet.
Something this small will never deal with wind.
The flexible spars that form the bracelet need to be rigid to reliably transfer force from the rotors to the frame.
Battery life will be terrible
But do you need to control it with your phone? It looks awesome if you can just release and that's it, without the need to control the camera.
I think that would defeat the purpose, I'm sure you can set waypoints, like with current off the shelve drones, or have auto target tracking software (already exists in some cameras).
The real difficulty as far as I know (for automated drone cameras) is tracking elevation without an operator, for what I know the error via GPS data is really large *like =- 5000 ft, and completely unreliable with real features (like the cliff the rock climber is on).
The real difficulty as far as I know (for automated drone cameras) is tracking elevation without an operator, for what I know the error via GPS data is really large *like =- 5000 ft, and completely unreliable with real features (like the cliff the rock climber is on).
Using the wrist thingy as a beacon, and assuming you can detect the angle and distance with decent accuracy, wouldn't it be possible to detect where you are relative to the user? Then you could film her/him from a few meters away without really caring where you are relative to "the world". You wouldn't even need GPS, just the beacon sensor and a 3-axis accelerometer.
Tracking altitude is usually done using a fusion of GPS and barometer. This still isn't perfect because a barometer is highly susceptible to atmospheric conditions, wind, etc, but it's a lot better than GPS alone and tends to work pretty well.
Seems like voice control commands would work well.
They want it to be able to go a decent distance away from you. I don't think voice control would be very intuitive if you have to shout at it
[deleted]
Hi,
Nixie looks super cool, but without a spec it's really hard to tell how useful it is.
How long does it fly? How to control it (especially during a rock climbing...)? What's it's range? How does it land? How to find it after landing? Which flight controller is used? Does it have GPS?
I am super curious of the answers.
How long does it fly? How to control it (especially during a rock climbing...)? What's it's range? How does it land? How to find it after landing? Which flight controller is used? Does it have GPS?
I am super curious of the answers.
I think the headaches of the FAA in their efforts to define the approved use of drones, has yet to begin.
I could be mistaken, but I thought the various aviation organisations only needed to be involved if the drones reach a certain altitude.
At least I believe this is the rules for flying model planes in the UK. Other countries might differ.
At least I believe this is the rules for flying model planes in the UK. Other countries might differ.
The US is currently in controversy about this.
The FAA (US aircraft regulation organization) has issued 'notices' and 'guidance' for model aircraft operators dating back to the 1960s and 70s, but none of those notices have been legally binding 'FAR regulations.'
The FAA also claim that 'model aircraft' must be operated non-commercially and that once they're flown commercially, they become 'aircraft.' Using this reasoning they tried to fine a famous first-person video flyer for flying for money last year.
He won his case (FAA v. Pirker) with the judge finding that the FAA's regulations for model aircraft are indeed, non-binding, and that the distinction between 'model' and 'aircraft' does not include commercial use. However, the FAA appealed the decision and because of the procedure for transportation courts, the appeal immediately stays the decision.
To complicate things even more, our Congress passed a law in 2012 requiring and authorizing the FAA to regulate drones specifically. The FAA's rule-making process has (as usual) been very slow and they have yet to issue any final guidance or FARs.
The FAA (US aircraft regulation organization) has issued 'notices' and 'guidance' for model aircraft operators dating back to the 1960s and 70s, but none of those notices have been legally binding 'FAR regulations.'
The FAA also claim that 'model aircraft' must be operated non-commercially and that once they're flown commercially, they become 'aircraft.' Using this reasoning they tried to fine a famous first-person video flyer for flying for money last year.
He won his case (FAA v. Pirker) with the judge finding that the FAA's regulations for model aircraft are indeed, non-binding, and that the distinction between 'model' and 'aircraft' does not include commercial use. However, the FAA appealed the decision and because of the procedure for transportation courts, the appeal immediately stays the decision.
To complicate things even more, our Congress passed a law in 2012 requiring and authorizing the FAA to regulate drones specifically. The FAA's rule-making process has (as usual) been very slow and they have yet to issue any final guidance or FARs.
In the US, the FAA makes a distinction between recreational and commercial usage. For example, it is perfectly legal to take pictures of your home from a radio-controlled vehicle. But, if you sell those pictures, now you've broken the law -- even if you are selling the pictures well after the flight. (Don't try to apply logic, it doesn't make sense)
The FAA controls all airspace in the US. It's not true that they don't control airspace below 400ft. However, FAA has published guidance for operation of radio-controlled vehicles that includes altitude restrictions.
The FAA controls all airspace in the US. It's not true that they don't control airspace below 400ft. However, FAA has published guidance for operation of radio-controlled vehicles that includes altitude restrictions.
> The FAA controls all airspace in the US. It's not true that they don't control airspace below 400ft. However, FAA has published guidance for operation of radio-controlled vehicles that includes altitude restrictions.
I didn't say the FAA don't control airspace below n feet. I appreciate my wording was rather vague, but by "involved" I meant that model plane pilots don't require prior permission to fly in the aforementioned airspace (presumably bar some caveats such as whether you're sat next to an airport).
Above a certain altitude and you need that area submitted and signed off as a flying club / whatever. Below that altitude and you can basically just fly your models on an adhoc basis.
Again, I accept I could be completely wrong on this so appreciate your input :)
I didn't say the FAA don't control airspace below n feet. I appreciate my wording was rather vague, but by "involved" I meant that model plane pilots don't require prior permission to fly in the aforementioned airspace (presumably bar some caveats such as whether you're sat next to an airport).
Above a certain altitude and you need that area submitted and signed off as a flying club / whatever. Below that altitude and you can basically just fly your models on an adhoc basis.
Again, I accept I could be completely wrong on this so appreciate your input :)
The drone cameras from The Artificial Kid are arriving, eh? http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Artificial_Kid.html?...
I wasn't going to post this comment...but...so be it.
I continue to be disappointed every time I see projects or companies with teams full of PhD's. I am sure there are some that are fantastic, but that has not been my experience.
We have a number of PhD's in our family and circle of friends. Some have trouble putting together Ikea furniture or can't fix a toilet. Maybe they just don't want to. And maybe that's the root of the problem.
I don't know what it is in PhD education that might cause this. I stopped after my BSEE due to life circumstances (parents sick, had to go to work and provide for the entire family). Yet, having come from an entrepreneurial family my life has been about just that. Because of this I like to think I became a Computer Scientist (more on this later), Mechanical Engineer, Optics Engineer, Manufacturing Engineer, Machinist (CNC and manual), Expert Welder, Expert Woodworker and a whole pile of other skill sets I can't even recall now.
In other words, having acquired a solid technical and scientific foundation through my EE education I launched into entrepreneurship. This forced me to learn other disciplines because back then I didn't have the money to hire people. So it was years and years of 18 hour days doing and learning at the same time. Devouring books with a purpose and applying the knowledge right away in real world practical scenarios. When I wrote an occasional paper, article or ran training sessions at conferences they were always characterized by real-world applicable and actionable information rather than the walls and walls of unintelligible formulas that characterize PhD publications.
On the Computer Science part. I don't think a Computer Science degree existed when I was in school (early 80's). If it did it may have existed in places I could simply not afford to attend. These were the days of such things as the Elf single board computers (google it). If you wanted to work with computers you had to become an EE and build them yourself, sometimes out of raw chips (as I did many times with 6502's, 8080's, 8085's, 8086's, 68K, etc.). If you have experience wire wrapping you are my people.
I know solid experienced PhD's exist. I do know a few of them. Most of them are in aerospace. And most of them got there by being tinkerers since before going to college. I other words, they were natural-born makers before they entered academia. This meant building things in the real world, failing, learning, trying again, etc. Some of these guys have worked on some really amazing projects anyone would recognize when mentioned, for example, stealth technology.
The one characteristic that distinguishes these PhD-led projects from the ones that make me say "Yup. Another bunch of clueless PhD's" is that they are practical, very real and have goals and milestones that are met or exceeded. No pie in the sky stuff. At least none I've been aware of.
I am not criticizing this project in particular as much as making a general statement and asking the question: What is it about PhD education that creates this kind of an effect? Are they too used to functioning in a world of grants for research that seldom touches reality (or leads to anything in the real world)?
To speak to this project. This looks like a bunch of guys who are really good at writing grant proposals who got together and got some money from Intel to play. I remember attending an SBIR converence many years ago. I walked away calling it the "PhD club of America". It's PhD's giving PhD's money to play. And in a lot of cases --not all-- nothing practically useful come out of the process. Yet it feeds the PhD machinery.
Interesting.
I continue to be disappointed every time I see projects or companies with teams full of PhD's. I am sure there are some that are fantastic, but that has not been my experience.
We have a number of PhD's in our family and circle of friends. Some have trouble putting together Ikea furniture or can't fix a toilet. Maybe they just don't want to. And maybe that's the root of the problem.
I don't know what it is in PhD education that might cause this. I stopped after my BSEE due to life circumstances (parents sick, had to go to work and provide for the entire family). Yet, having come from an entrepreneurial family my life has been about just that. Because of this I like to think I became a Computer Scientist (more on this later), Mechanical Engineer, Optics Engineer, Manufacturing Engineer, Machinist (CNC and manual), Expert Welder, Expert Woodworker and a whole pile of other skill sets I can't even recall now.
In other words, having acquired a solid technical and scientific foundation through my EE education I launched into entrepreneurship. This forced me to learn other disciplines because back then I didn't have the money to hire people. So it was years and years of 18 hour days doing and learning at the same time. Devouring books with a purpose and applying the knowledge right away in real world practical scenarios. When I wrote an occasional paper, article or ran training sessions at conferences they were always characterized by real-world applicable and actionable information rather than the walls and walls of unintelligible formulas that characterize PhD publications.
On the Computer Science part. I don't think a Computer Science degree existed when I was in school (early 80's). If it did it may have existed in places I could simply not afford to attend. These were the days of such things as the Elf single board computers (google it). If you wanted to work with computers you had to become an EE and build them yourself, sometimes out of raw chips (as I did many times with 6502's, 8080's, 8085's, 8086's, 68K, etc.). If you have experience wire wrapping you are my people.
I know solid experienced PhD's exist. I do know a few of them. Most of them are in aerospace. And most of them got there by being tinkerers since before going to college. I other words, they were natural-born makers before they entered academia. This meant building things in the real world, failing, learning, trying again, etc. Some of these guys have worked on some really amazing projects anyone would recognize when mentioned, for example, stealth technology.
The one characteristic that distinguishes these PhD-led projects from the ones that make me say "Yup. Another bunch of clueless PhD's" is that they are practical, very real and have goals and milestones that are met or exceeded. No pie in the sky stuff. At least none I've been aware of.
I am not criticizing this project in particular as much as making a general statement and asking the question: What is it about PhD education that creates this kind of an effect? Are they too used to functioning in a world of grants for research that seldom touches reality (or leads to anything in the real world)?
To speak to this project. This looks like a bunch of guys who are really good at writing grant proposals who got together and got some money from Intel to play. I remember attending an SBIR converence many years ago. I walked away calling it the "PhD club of America". It's PhD's giving PhD's money to play. And in a lot of cases --not all-- nothing practically useful come out of the process. Yet it feeds the PhD machinery.
Interesting.
Another similar product is AirDog: https://www.airdog.com/ ...except the curious feature of being wearable.
At the end of the promo video the suggestions to watch next are unfortunate.
http://i.imgur.com/21olI3n.jpg (NSFW)
http://i.imgur.com/21olI3n.jpg (NSFW)
This seems like a pretty cool product. I'd be interested in one if they deliver on the promise.
Looks super cool. Let's see how well it works, can't wait to try it out myself.
I'm curious if there is any object avoidance technology on-board?
The person in the picture isn't wearing one.
Nice shot of Red Rock Canyon.
It makes me sad when I see a device like this advertised as just another way to take selfies. It could be so much more.
What kind of development? Are you trying to figure out if you can do it? Are you building the first prototype? Do you have a prototype? Are you working towards making it mass-producable?
Don't just waffle, actually tell people where you are. Otherwise you run a good risk of being mistaken for snake oil peddlers.