Throwable WiFi Camera 198
Dotnaught writes "The Eye Ball is a spherical, throwable WiFi camera designed to precede police into areas where there's no direct line of sight. It's manufactured by O.D.F. Optronics, Ltd, an Israeli maker of vision-based systems for the defense, security and consumer electronics markets. Remington Arms Co. has won approval from the Federal Communications Commission to sell the Eye Ball domestically, with law enforcement being likely buyers. The cost is about $4,800 for two EyeBalls (who would want just one?), which apparently also includes video monitoring gear."
not like back in the day (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not like back in the day (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:not like back in the day (Score:5, Funny)
Re:not like back in the day (Score:3, Insightful)
Thermal imaging equipment is incredibly expensive. A non-hardened camera is generally $10k-$15k, although I've seen used models for as "low" as $5000. I would expect that an Eye Ball equipped with one would cost about ten times what the standard ones do.
The military could still afford them, but police? And even military purchasing departments would (I hope) be a little hesitant to hand close to twenty thousand dollars in hardware
Re:not like back in the day (Score:2)
The "early adopters" for infrared tec
Re:not like back in the day (Score:2)
Actually, Raytheon introduced a non-cooled thermal imaging sensor awhile ago. I believe it's called a microbolometer, and you can buy the bare circuit board and sensor for something like $5000. It's what's made the $5k-$15k devices possible
Re:not like back in the day (Score:4, Informative)
Re:not like back in the day (Score:3, Funny)
Soooo does this mean its a waste of money to throw into the womans locker room?
Re:not like back in the day (Score:3, Funny)
Re:not like back in the day (Score:2)
Re:not like back in the day (Score:2)
Bugger - I thought maybe they'd use a fisheye camera and do the proper projection in software to make the unit more rugged (fewer moving parts in an impact-required instrument).
But then IPIX would probably have sued them.
Re:not like back in the day (Score:2)
It was funny as the woman made some comment to the effect of needing a taller camera and that was all that was said about it. Just seems like an obvious problem in tight quarters.
Though for all I know, you might be able to adjust t
Re:not like back in the day (Score:2)
Sure does - a full-hemisphere lens ought to work perfectly for this appplication. Here's a link to info about the patent [virtualproperties.com] controversy.
Re:not like back in the day (Score:4, Interesting)
The military has used other solutions over the years. The use of a spit-shined combat knife worked extremely well for this (as it was standard issue to all soldiers). Newer technology has allowed the military to mount cameras onto the barrel of their M-16 and a small heads-up display (much like some helicopter head-up gear) is used to view. It allows them to reach the gun around a corner and view the area and even aim and return fire if needed. The camera is multi-purpose since it also could switch to night-vision.
The SWAT would probably like this more, as close combat allows them to bounce the ball around a corner and down a hall a little nicer. The ball itself is probably heavily weighted in one side (probably with the batteries) so that it would right-side-up.
Re:not like back in the day (Score:2)
The best use of these things will be for rescuing people, not killing them. Being able to throw one of these around a potentially dangerous corner or through windows to see if there are injured or unconcious people inside could be invaluable.
Re:not like back in the day (Score:3, Interesting)
I did most of my firefighting in underground mining and industrial teams. Mirrors are sometimes used, but then you need to be both close to the mirror and close to the line of sight. When you're wearing BA or BG equipment, or when the hazard is unpredictable (ie, rocks spalling because of the heat), something like this beats mirrors hands down.
Re:not like back in the day (Score:2)
That's nothing! Back in my day when we wanted to see round corners we tore out an eyeball and held it out to look!
-- --
War can make fundamentalists give up like 9/11 could make the US give up.
Likely buyers (Score:5, Funny)
Also, the word is "precede," if you mean "going first."
Re:Likely buyers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Likely buyers (Score:4, Interesting)
There are organizations that will pay much more than $2000 USD for a good nekkid picture of a celebrity.
Re:Likely buyers (Score:2)
more great editing (Score:2)
Re:more great editing (Score:2, Interesting)
English as we learned it is dead, and a new one has arisen. Six months ago my nephew showed me an english assignment he was quite proud of (92%, third highest mark in the class), with only a couple of spelling mistakes picked out. His teacher had missed marking him down for "asaposed", "loose", "alot", "u" and "ur". It was hard to share in his joy when you know the teacher's english literacy levels don't stretch any further than SMS-speak.
Re:more great editing (Score:2)
No, it is. Using an apostrophe to pluralize nouns is incorrect and I have no idea why people do it. Yes, this means that things like "CD's" are wrong.
Re:more great editing (Score:2)
Sorry buddy but you're wrong. I don't like it but it's accepted. See here [google.com]
Compliments of a quick google of 'pluralizing abbreviations.'
Re:more great editing (Score:2)
The major proponent of this incorrect method is 'The New York Times,' even though all publishing houses and computer magazines agree that it is wrong. I don't see why this is such an issue. Using apostrophes complicates things and goes against some pretty fundamental rules of English; just because people use it doesn't mean it's right.
Re:more great editing (Score:2)
Here, you are saying that, no matter what, in all cases, pluralization with an apostrophe is wrong.
The first article, here [google.com], directly states conditions where it is acceptable to use an apostrophe for pluralization. Consi
Re:more great editing (Score:2)
Maybe I should just become French, I'd like it if there was something like the Academie Francaise to keep English in line.
Also, yes, languages are defined by their users, but I'd prefer that it wasn't the users who can't write properly. I see errors like "photo's" and "book's" all the time now, and I don't doubt that those will become accepted English sooner or lat
Re:more great editing (Score:2)
I've had a lot of fun with my English recently. After living in Prague for a while I started picking up all of their mistakes and oftentimes I doubt myself
Re:more great editing (Score:2, Informative)
> Wrong.
Wrong [reference.com].
"...designed to precede police into areas where there's no direct line of sight" - to go in before.
Re:more great editing (Score:2, Informative)
Re:more great editing (Score:3, Informative)
It's a totally different meaning to the usage in the summary. It could "proceed with police into an area", or "precede thim into an area". They're not the same.
Re:more great editing (Score:2)
Not like you go around the corner and stick the mirror in to watch where you just came from... the mirrors go first too.
Erm.. (Score:2)
Maybe I'm just not seeing it but this to me screams "good idea, yet not".
better than the alternatives (Score:2)
Attention Terrorists! (Score:2)
So let them, next ball is a grenade (Score:2)
Imagine the following police situation. Shots have been fired in a house and the neighbours call the cops. When they arrive all is silent. So they can just knock on the door but that has the risk of getting a bullet in your chest. Instead of just waiting outside with a full swat team you throw one of these suckers through the window and see what i
Very good idea, but (Score:3, Informative)
This is where good journalism comes in -- it actually answers these questions for you. I had to search for the pdf [odfopt.com] which explained this. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned first.
Re:Very good idea, but (Score:2)
Re:Very good idea, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the article doesn't say, but it probably also has more than one camera inside so it can see in multiple directions at once.
Re:Very good idea, but (Score:2)
Re:Very good idea, but (Score:2)
I thought about this too, but I realized they could simply make the ball's mass off-balance so it natuarlly sits on its "bottom". That would cause the sphere to roll badly, but they seem to push the idea of throwing it. Since the ball is supposed to be able to rotate from a resting position, perhaps the balance mechanism is part fo this. It rolls fine when you want it, and with a push of a button shifts a weight to right itself.
Moving cameras (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Moving cameras (Score:2)
Any well-equipped police department or stalker should have a wall-climbing robot [engr.uvic.ca] or two [therobotstore.com] in their arsenal as well.
Re:Very good idea, but (Score:5, Informative)
Forget everything you're thinking that it MIGHT do. It has a centrally located motor, which allows for 360 degrees of rotation of the single camera. it doesn't need to counter balance roll to upright, besides, that would be a bad design, suppose the military is throwing it into a rough surface that will not allow it to roll.
better to have the mechanical rotation mechanism that can rotate at 4rpm, and have a software or mechanical rotation mechanism to get the sensor to point "up".
Re:Very good idea, but (Score:2)
Re:Very good idea, but (Score:2)
Re:Very good idea, but (Score:2)
$4800?!?! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:$4800?!?! (Score:2)
Um, if you throw the x10 camera and it doesn't orient properly (which it likely won't...), you've completely wasted your money. Yeah, you're much wiser with your money.
Re:$4800?!?! (Score:2)
Cheap electronics won't do (Score:2)
Cheap electronics won't do. This needs to be a milspec device. It also needs some heft to it. Given it's (para)military application I'd expect that its size/weight matches a grenade. How many homebrew projects can be thrown *through a closed* second floor window and have 99.9% reliability?
Re:Cheap electronics won't do (Score:2)
Bricks don't have the heft and trajectory of a grenade. They'll likely miss, and it's a danger when it bounces off the wall and comes back down even if you are wearing kevlar.
The brick cannot provide imagery of what was going on in the room before everyone got startled.
Even if the window is open you still
Strong Encryption (Score:3, Interesting)
Want to locate the police? See things from their perspective and know where they're coming in. Yes, this technology sounds like a brilliant idea!
Law Enforcement (Score:3, Insightful)
Because when one of these comes crashing through the window, the bad guys are just going to say: "Huh, I wonder what that was. Oh well." And then leave it alone. Right.
I think a system like this one [uspto.gov] has a much better chance at successfully spying on the "bad guys."
Posting anonymously because I work at a place that manufactures these, and even though it's patented, they still like to think it's a secret. Also, clearly not everything in the patent is in the actual system. "Interpreter Software" and "Intoxication Meter" in particular are amusing bits of the patent that aren't even possible to implement as described.
Re:Law Enforcement (Score:2)
typical scenario (Score:2)
Here's the scenario I envisioned.
SWAT guy 1 *lobs ball*
*crash*
SWAT guy 2: "Hmm, let's see, I see what looks like the barrel..."
*BAM*
"Nevermind."
I don't get it (Score:2)
Is 'proceed' a transitive verb now? (Score:2)
Thank you! (Score:2)
Hey coppers! (Score:5, Funny)
I suppose this means (Score:2, Funny)
Vernor Vinge's Peace War (Score:2)
The ones in the book used some fancy optics to capture a 360 degree picture, and then post-processed it to let the user virtually pan-and-scan without the need for moving parts, instead of mechanically rotating the ball like these. And, of course, they were a lot smaller, were tacky instead of bouncy, had better power arrangements, and were deployed ubiquitously.
But, still, this could be seen
Re:Vernor Vinge's Peace War (Score:2)
The general idea of a throwable, usually round camera or sensor ball has been in science fiction and various sci-fi games since the early 80s at least. Vernor didn't originate it, though he was one of the earlier people to use it in writing.
They've been technically feasible for about 10 years now, and have been prototyped here and there. This is the first reasonably affordable production
In other news... (Score:2)
Seriously, they rely that the cam lands somewhere still in range for a WiFi connection, sounds like roulette to me. Throw it in a bin by accident and you can write your $4800 off...
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
That's freaking expensive (Score:2, Insightful)
Now granted, it's wired to my computer by a 20 foot cable, but making it wireless wouldn't take a lot of money. I'd say $50 ish tops.
I certainly wouldn't want to spend more than $70 for a camera that I would use to throw around corners that might not even end up pointing in the right direction.
And with these new suggested cameras, you still hav
Re:That's freaking expensive (Score:2, Insightful)
You can throw it thirty or forty feet? You can roll it like a bowling ball for ten or twenty yards? I really doubt that's true. Web cams aren't well known for their ability to take a lot of abuse. My old Logitech Quickcam Web survived a few minutes in my dishwasher (wrapped in plastic so I could diagnose a problem with the lower spray arm) but
Life imitates gaming? (Score:2)
It'd be interesting to see grenade cameras exactly like these in FPSs, hopefully we'll get that soon. Then we can test out all the mad sp10itz so the government doesn't have to.
I'd vouch for the tactical usefulness short range visibility tech, but IRL I'd probably just run in to clear a room of terrorists, accidentally cycle to my cam-nade, bean a terrorist in the head with one, then die by
Damn kids (Score:2)
Re:Damn kids (Score:2)
Not WiFi (Score:3, Insightful)
It operates on part 15 freqs... (Score:2, Insightful)
Give me paper towels, $3000 and some duct tape... (Score:2)
At least... (Score:5, Funny)
This is right out of Stargate SG1 (Score:3, Interesting)
who would want one? (Score:2)
Estes Oracle Digital Video Rocket (Score:4, Interesting)
In the nosecone, not looking forward (Score:2)
I'll buy one with a gun. (Score:2)
Finally!! (Score:2)
"Tell me it's not Kodak........"
Hello, Number 6.... (Score:2, Interesting)
FCC restricts it to Law Enforcement (Score:2, Informative)
I hate to be a grammer nazi (Score:2)
Re:Orientation (Score:2)
if there's a counterweight on the camera, and the camera is round and inside a plastic see-through ball, it can't be upside down. besides.. the recieving gear could just flip the image.
Re:Orientation (Score:2)
Re:Orientation (Score:2)
"Throwing together" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$4800?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trouble is, the force that drives the new booming field of security/military/anti-terrorism devices isn't free market, but rather how much it's possible to milk public money from law enforcement agencies before they start to complain. Since they never complain, primarily because they *want* to be seen as spending a lot to "protect" the people, all these companies keep jacking the prices up. And none of them would dare giving the game away by trying to be cheaper than the others, there's just too much money to be made for everybody without having to being normal business competition into play.
In short, the anti-bad-guys market isn't driven by capitalism, and hasn't been since 9/11. Rather, the state and the private sector work together to spend your tax money as fast as they can, making themselves richer and you poorer under the pretext of protecting you.
Re:$4800?? (Score:2)
Oh, come on. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that large scale collusion never really works, precisely because there's too much money to be made by cutting prices assuming everyone else doesn't (and assuming that prices are artificially high to begin with). It's like the prisone
Re:$4800?? (Score:2)
Amazing, even for a throat-stamping free market fundamentalist.
Re:$4800?? (Score:2)
The GP was correct
Remove the tinfoil and come out of your bunker and checkout the real world. Observe the non-binary state of things. While it is theoretically possible for a cartel to hold, in practice they usually fail and failure is more likely as membership grows. 10 member cartel, you get 10% of car
Re:$4800?? (Score:2)
We aren't talking about "complex monopolies", whatever that means, we're talking about "oligopolies", in which a small number of suppliers control the market. In a monopoly, only one supplier effectively controls the market and is able to set prices.
I also said nothing about them being impossible, I said that the incentives structu
Re:Cheap camera? (Score:2)
Not if the room is empty...
Re:the reason why they sell you two "eye" balls... (Score:2)
Re:Pork (Score:2)
You're right. $2400/$300 is a lousy ratio for defense contracting. They should probably be a round $5000 EACH.
Re:Who would want just one? (Score:2)
Re:First Post (Score:2)
In the second and third Thief games Garrett has a "Scouting Orb" that's pretty much exactly what's being described here. He could throw it to an intersection, over a wall, or lean around and chuck it around a corner, and then see everything it does via the artificial eye he received at the end of the first game.
I wonder if that wasn't the inspiration here.
Re:SlashDarth (Score:2)
Re:Science versus common sense - again (Score:2)
Claim: An episode of the popular kid's TV show Pokemon caused over 600 young children in Japan to have epileptic attacks.
Origin: After 618 Japanese children reportedly experienced seizures from viewing that December 1997 episode of Pocket Monsters and were rushed to hospital, the TV show was shut down for several months
Status: False.
Go figure. I guess the people at Snopes don't read their own copy.