• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Painting with light using a quadcopter

Why? It's a gimmick. The novelty factor will wear off pretty quick.
 
RobC said:
Why? It's a gimmick. The novelty factor will wear off pretty quick.
Click to expand...

Because they could? They used a tool to create something that would have been more difficult to do otherwise. Why would anyone worry about 'novelty factor' when they could instead keep themselves busy being creative and trying something they haven't done before?


Drone based lighting is a neat little field, but anyone who is interested in trying something like this themselves needs to remember to take care. Automated flight isn't a joke to mess around with, and it is a very easy way to watch some very expensive bit of kit try to fly away from you if you screw something up. A few weeks ago I picked up an overturned drone from a park. Took awhile to eventually track down the owner. They lost it while flying it at another park about a km away or so. Flying at night is even more dicy, and you do risk getting slapped with legal issues. (It is rather hard to legally fly something without proper line of sight and control on the unit. Doesn't stop people from doing it however.)
 
RobC said:
Why? It's a gimmick. The novelty factor will wear off pretty quick.
Click to expand...

How is that a gimmick? SOmetimes I'm amazed at the things people say.
There is no way this could be done (in most cases without an adjacent piece of high land using strobes & light stands)
on that scale without the use of an actual helicopter.

Yes, the FAA here in the U.S and EASA in Europe are really cracking down on UAV's and where and
what altitudes they can operate. It's just a matter of time before one gets sucked through the engine of a
737 before even heavier regs are created. Generally, with the FAA, the FARS (Federal Aviation Regulations),
we joke, are written in blood. Basically, a bunch of people have to die before they make new regs.
The newest UAV's have software ob-board to prevent flight in restricted or temporarily restricted
airspace (such as TFR's[temp. flight restrictions]) which is good...doesn't help much for the millions
that've been sold prior though.
 
Last edited:
There's an unlimited number of things anyone could do just becasue they could. How many of them would be pointless? None of them? Or would they just prove that something pointless can be done.
Again, Why?
 
Okay, how about "To make an interesting image in a form that is not typically seen"?
 
RobC said:
There's an unlimited number of things anyone could do just becasue they could. How many of them would be pointless? None of them? Or would they just prove that something pointless can be done.
Again, Why?
Click to expand...

How would you have done it then?

The difference is, this guy went out and did it. And it's hardly pointless. A good image
stands on its own.
 
I wouldn't have done it. Not with 100% digital technology at night. I might have photographed in the day time or dusk as a silhouette against the sky with analogue technology though.
 
RobC said:
I wouldn't have done it. Not with 100% digital technology at night. I might have photographed in the day time or dusk as a silhouette against the sky with analogue technology though.
Click to expand...


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Whether it was digital or film, an idea is an idea. This could easily have been done on film.
 
that woke you up. Very apt for those images.
 
RobC said:
I wouldn't have done it. Not with 100% digital technology at night. I might have photographed in the day time or dusk as a silhouette against the sky with analogue technology though.
Click to expand...

Umm... RC aircraft control hasn't always been 'digital'. What would you say to older 'analog' control of RC aircraft? Are you dividing the line between digital and analog? Or are you dividing the line between ground lighting and aerial lighting? Maybe it's only appropriate if only older analog remote control aircraft are used to provide the lighting? Maybe not only the control systems must be analog, but the aircraft must be vintage 1970's or older aircraft too? Where do we draw this line? It's just lighting.
 
They must be wound up using elastic bands.
 
Last edited:
RobC said:
They must be wound up using elastic bands.
Click to expand...

I could make a joke about using rubbers but I'll refrain from it.
 
probably just as well you don't, the moderators are revolting at the moment.
 
Yeah... it might be considered as a bit twisted. It could be spun either way though. Props to the mods no matter what.
 
W-e-e-e-l-l... at least the photographer didn't start a fire under a nationally recognized arch and cause soot damage. But... OTOH... at least the fire was anaLOG.
 
Someone actually did that? Was it Delicate Arch?
Wasn't that a long time ago?
People like that need to be punched.
 
Yes, Delicate Arch, the incident was in 2001, according to wikipedia and other sources.
Apparently he didn't get punched, but did get fined $10,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register