I concur. This is more a fail than a success. The commission, I assume, is not to have something "cool" to see -- like watching aerial parkour -- but to have footage at each stages of detonations for the engineers to analyze if every calculations/explosive hookups went off as planned.

With that as parameters, there's almost nothing to see here. If the drone is equipped with a wide-angle lens and/or multi-cam setup (filming both the building and the smokestack at the same time) than maybe the video would be useful. What I see here is crap, narrated by clowns.

@mxxcon: The drone controllers are the assholes IMO. Shouldn't be paid, or paid 10-20% of the commission, max!

use the tips of the kyak, alot of space gets covered from the wide angled lens when it pans.

Glad to see he dumped the boat instead of ran over the kyaker. Would have loved to see and hear what happened next.

That was pretty cool. I wonder if the Tesla's sensors could still "see" the braking SUV as it is a bigger vehicle than the red car that rear ended it. We can't see the sides of the SUV in the video, until the red car begins its lane change, because of the wide-angle dashcam but perhaps the Tesla's sensors could.

I think the driver of the red car, who wanted to change lanes, was fixated on the black car in the right hand lane and didn't see the SUV suddenly brake. If the red car had collision avoidance capabilities, this accident would likely have been prevented.

True that, but until recently you couldn't get a photo or video out of your telescope (unless you paid the big bucks for yours). You also couldn't schlepp your telescope up a mountain and get a full, wide angle view and recording of every window on that side of town with the capability of zooming in on ALL of them, one or many at a time, without being visible to any of them. This tech allows constant secret surveillance of large areas that can be re-wound and re-focused to spy into anyone's open window at any time...maybe even at night.

What does it matter that he went through on an amber light? Don't forget the perspective of a GoPro's wide-angle lens makes things appear much farther away than they actually are. He was probably closer to the intersection than it appears.

Amazing video, but that guy is nuts, this is EIA. Wide-angle or not, he was flying between treetops with just a few feet of error. You could see there wasn't any wind, but man, one bad gust and he's George of the Jungle.

Caution: Objects seen through wide-angle lenses may be closer than they appear.

looks like a mix of real footage (close-up's) and CG (wide angle of the Jenga tower) - can anyone confirm?
most suspicious is removing the blocks from the bottom layer - you just couldn't do that on dirt - the weight of all the other blocks would have "dug in" the bottom 3 pieces a few inches into the dirt.

Crazy how big it looks even with such an ultra-wide angle lens. Nature - you scary! Needs *fear

It's not just DOF. He appears to be using some kind of wide angle lens that is distorting the long straight lines in the field of view. Particularly the long vertical lines of the architecture are all somewhat concave to the centre of the scene while the "portrait on the wall" is distorted differently, probably from the top being closer to the lens than the bottom. So good concept but photography sucks.

You sure could fly with that if you caught a good head wind but you'd end up on your ass upside down. Also, I don't like the configuration of the camera before he takes off. It doesn't match the flying shot because you can clearly see the helmet and two front vents on it that are inches below the camera. You'd need a crazy wide angle lens to do that and it would look like a wall eye shot.

>> ^jmd:

There is NOTHING wide angle about that camera..

Seriously? You can see the bend in the horizon line and the bridge supports. That's plain old standard fisheye. Not sure how much it affects the ability to judge distance near the center of the camera, but it's there, your brain just filters out the distortion after watching for a few seconds.

There is NOTHING wide angle about that camera.. hell my phone is probably more wide angle then what ever is being used here. The car stopped just fine.. no skidding.. hell he didn't even need to vear off to the side. I'm sure you're all goddesses on the road, but as one who has a perfectly safe driving record for 17 years and drives an hour and a half on I95 5 days a week, there wasn't anything unsafe about what the driver did. -_-

>> ^jmd:

>> ^Duckman33:
Wow, now I know why I get tailgated so much if you all are serious that the camera guy wasn't tailgating. I was counting time between passing poles and it was most of the time anywhere from 1.5 to 2 seconds. There should be a 3 second gap when following someone to allow for safe stopping distance

Lol, 2 seconds is a safe stoping distance.. 3 ask for someone to pull in front of you.
Anyone who thinks this is tailgating.. spend some time in a pop. >1000 town


I've lived in four US cities with population over one million. From 38 seconds on (the bit of driving that triggered the anger from the lead driver) I would definitely call this tailgating. The camera is fairly wide-angle, as well, so I think the cars are closer than they appear.

Regardless, the car with the camera _barely_ stopped in time, and the lead driver could have had a legitimate reason to need to slow down. All it would take is one puddle, icy patch, or slightly less effective brakes for this to have been an accident.

Why drive like a douche and risk injury to yourself an others when you can slow down by _one freaking second_ instead?

I don't know, I despise tailgaters, and even do the pump-fake from time to time, but it really didn't look to me like the camera guy was tailgating - unless the wide-angle lens was throwing off the perspective or something. And if he was tailgating it was only for a few seconds because the guy in front was slowing down. At least give him time to adjust his distance before 'roid raging.