On 6 July 2012 10:42, WereSpielChequers <[email protected]> wrote: > I like the idea of a ROV or an underwater camera. Presumably the advantage > of an ROV is that it could go deeper?
Not at the consumer level we are looking at. If you want something with deep sea abilities about the only way to do it would be to offer serious grant money to someone who already operates one in return for CC release of images and data. The reality is that everything the ROV mentioned at the start of the thread could do a diver could do better (possible exception is loiter time and even then that could be matched with an airline). I just don't like messing around with air bottles. > As well as the underwater stuff where to be honest conditions are not always > ideal for photography, has the technology of micro blimps yet got to the > point where we could buy a machine that could fly inside large buildings and > take photos at otherwise impossible vantage points? If so we should consider > talking to English Heritage, the National Trust or the C of E. Quadcopter/camera combinations are available for a few thousand. Less than the cost of a high end DSLR. -- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
