So..., If you let it go, and it doesn't come back..., Was it ever yours?

Is it autonomous, or do you need a 'camera man' driving it with a cell phone? If it does all that by itself....AMAZING! If it's just an RC camera, still good, but not as good.

*wings

Adding video to channels (Wings) - requested by kulpims.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, October 8th, 2014 10:46am PDT - promote requested by kulpims.

My understanding is that it's autonomous. You point it away from you and it flies a fixed path out and back.

This is absolutely 100% not possible at this time. Not in this format at least. I fly quads. I manufacture quads on a mass production basis. If this was a single technological step away from where we are currently, then maybe it could happen, but this is at least 5 technologies that do not currently exist or are in very early development. Just to start out with having a flexible frame that can support flight is quite a concept. Don't even get me started on the wrist watch size. The smallest quads out there measure about 2" square using 5mm brushed motors, and a 100MAh lipo battery. The best flight time you can get with it is about 5-7 minutes and takes about 15 minutes to charge(from a USB port). that doesn't leave anything for powering a camera, or GPS.
Anyways, the technology doesn't exist to make this thing close to feasible. Closest thing like this on the market right now is this:
https://www.airdog.com/

Well, perhaps with currently available public domain parts, it's not possible. That doesn't mean it's completely impossible.
The flexible frame might be hard, but there ARE already wristbands that un-bend to make a flat device, they've been around for decades, I recall seeing one in the 90's. Making it support flight might be hard, but not impossible, especially with the small forces this thing provides.
You say there are already 2" square quads out there, this was closer to 18"square(6"X3"), so the 'it's just too small' argument falls flat.
Battery time might be a factor, but a 5 min video is pretty good for now, plenty to prove the concept. Also, battery life is increasing fast.
The camera and GPS in a phone hardly uses any battery power too. These tiny devices are really not hungry enough to make them a power drain problem, at worst they might limit flight time slightly. Also, there's no GPS needed really, it could operate by keeping the subject in frame at approximately the same distance...then it could just follow you through the trees, using the image to avoid obstacles. It would take some computing power, but not an outrageous amount. Perhaps it's paired with a cell phone to do the computing? That part wouldn't be hard.
Again, because the tech isn't available on the market today (and I'm not at all sure that's correct) doesn't mean the tech isn't available to some, or creatable by intelligent people. I just don't see this as that far away.
EDIT: The airdog seems like it's everything this wants to be, but large enough for a go-pro. I see no reason at all they couldn't miniaturize it all.
Flexable/foldable frame...check. Size issue...check. Battery life...irrelevant (so long as you get over 1 minute)...so check. What were the other 2 technologies you say don't exist?

Yeah there are slap bands out there, but they don't work like this is presented to work. The arms would have to bend in multiple dimensions, and then straighten out and be able to provide a stable flying platform. The closest thing I think of for doing something like that is the "bendy" character toys where the metal wire is co-molded inside the body. That is a very heavy solution.
I misspoke on the 2" square, it is 2" x 2", so 4" square. I'm not sure that I agree that theirs is 6" x 3", but even if it is that would mean that the prop size would have to be about 1.25" and that doesn't work for a 6" x 3" vehicle. There isn't enough thrust and the motors at that size don't provide enough RPM's for that kind of weight.
On the electronic side, they show it connecting to a smart phone with video feedback. That means you have to have bluetooth at least, or a 5.4ghz video system if you want more than 30' range. or it has to have a Wifi TX on it. All of those thing require power. Sure it could analyze the video signal to determine subject matter, and provide guidance but you have some very serious issues there. If you do it on board it requires some processor power (More drain), if you do it on the smart phone app it will create lag.
Your phone has over 1,000 mAh in it (1440 in Iphone 5), that is a TON (4-10x) more than what this thing would have. Battery technology may be a big research project right now, but there isn't anything on the horizon that will get them to where they need to be. Most of the tech research is in sub 1C rated batteries for things like full size cars. Something like this needs a 10C rating minimum if not a 20C rating. Unfortunately most of the upcoming technology can not handle drains that fast. Things tend to go "Boom!". When you do something small, and even 6" x 3" is small, you have very serious power vs weight issues. It all comes down to issues of power density, and nothing exists today that will give it to them as they would need..

So right now these guys need to figure out:
1) A new light weight material that can lock rigid but also bend as needed in multiple directions.
2) A new battery technology that allows them to get the power they need, for a 6 axis gyro, 4 motors, control board,a RX, a HD camera and some sort of VTX while reducing weight. How long it powers all of that would be open, but if it is under 10 minutes I think people would be a little disgruntled. Right now people are wanting the video quads to get about 30-45 minutes of flight time on the 5200+mAh batteries.
3) Write code that allows them to analyze video in real time so as to provide object tracking and avoidance without lag while capable of running on a smartphone. It would also need to return to home when the battery runs low. That would be a little tricky on a cliff face, or if you are riding a bike through a forest. Another issue is that they tilt the camera down, they don't say if this is actuated, or done by hand, but it could lead to serious issues with programming object avoidance if you can't see anything above you.
4) Since they show the image as HD on the phone screen, they would also need to come up with a new way to broadcast HD video wirelessly. Right now that system costs $40K and is rather large.

All in all it is a dream product that people are going to get suckered into funding it. Some tech may come out of it that could be monetized, but I don't see the item coming out in this format, at least not in the next 3-5 years. You'd be better off going with AirDog.

I don't understand, why would they have to bend in multiple directions? it seems they need to be straight or curve in one direction. Did I miss something?
I'm estimating the size, about 6" around one's wrist makes it 6" 'wide', and near 3" 'long'...yes the blades seem about 1.25" diameter. You would know more than I about that being enough, but I do know there are different prop configurations for different applications, perhaps they have an ultra efficient prop and motor pair? There are certainly more powerful motors available, if you're willing to pay for them.
Adding blue tooth is minimal in weight and power drain, and the lag shouldn't be an issue in most applications (I wouldn't try making it run a gauntlet of obstacles though).
Camera batteries are pretty powerful today, allow fast drain, and come in small sizes. Maybe not enough yet, commercially available, but certainly possible to make...if you're willing to pay.

For your issues....
1)super thin spring steel could work, but wouldn't look like the plastic they showed. What's the issue with 'slap bands'? They seem perfect.
2) power is an issue, as is flight time. I feel like early adopters would sacrifice flight/record time for the advantage of size...but only time will tell.
3) object avoidance IS an issue. Likely the solution is to limit it to use where there's no obstruction above it and not too much in front. Slight lag isn't an issue, if it's not moving fast. Return to the object it's centered on should be no problem, it tracks an object to film it, it shouldn't be too hard to return to it. Now, catching it while hanging on a cliff....yeah...that's tough.
4)Does not Go-pro already wirelessly send it's video in real time "HD"? They cost under $400.

I'll agree with you, you would be MUCH better off buying a larger one that works NOW instead of sending money in hopes they come out with this super miniature one. That said, I still think this is possible...just expensive and difficult to make work.

Genius! a toy that flies home to the factory so it could be boxed and sold again.

thousands made, millions sold!

The slap bands don't work because the arms are at angles to each other. Slap bands can only rotate in a straight direction (They are basically tape measure metal), so they wouldn't be able to come back to meet in the center like they illustrate. Also they have the motors all prettily lined up and facing directly off the wrist, that would require the material to be able to twist.

For the rotor size, these are fixed pitch rotors. You can change the pitch of the rotor to give you different flight characteristics and in general you have to match the pitch to the motor to be the most efficient. I may have this reversed, but a lower pitch prop gives you more torque and less overall speed, but a higher pitch prop gives more top speed, less torque. Making a prop that can be injection molded at that size that even works is difficult, making one that is super efficient would be even more so. QC would have to be incredibly exacting. As a gauge, the 2" x 2" quad has 1" props. They can lift it and buzz it around pretty well. Those things were a pain to get correct and I have a hard time imagining anyone making them more efficient than they are. In the case of the 2" quad, we didn't even paint the body because we want to limit the impact on flight time from added weight. All molded in color. That's how sensitive these things can be. There are better motors if you are willing to pay, but even then it may not be enough.
Go Pro records in HD, but doesn't actually broadcast anything (plus it is big enough to keep this thing from flying anywhere). If you want to broadcast video you have to do it in 640x480 tops. To do that you need something like an FPV system that broadcasts on a spread spectrum. If you went bluetooth you have an effect range that is pretty small. Wifi requires more power to get a longer range. A video transmitter system would require a separate device to attach to your phone to receive the signal and translate it to a PPM signal for through the headphone jack. But a VTX is pretty heavy as well.
And things may drain just a little bit of power, but it stacks up. At most you have a 250mAh Lipo battery that can fit in there. That isn't going to buy you a bunch of flight/video time.
Video on the phone is going to be subject to interference, so you would want to record on the quad. this would get you HD quality, but also adds weight, which means more battery draw, which means less flight time.
-B

The phone screen has those thumb "joystick" dots so I'd say no, not autonomous.

Probably doesn't even have a prototype.

@My_design good info, thanks.

A few things though:
they're not actually looking for crowdfunding at the moment (at least, it's not on their website http://flynixie.com/ )
there are some videos of them launching a proof of concept from the wrist http://youtu.be/_VFsdPAoI1g
but admittedly, you don't see it fly and it's not a slap band as of now.

I have a gopro and it does broadcast, although not in HD in real time. You can connect it over wifi to your phone and see the shot as it is being framed with about a 2 second lag in SD. Both of which are fine as long as the footage is captured in HD. I'll grant you the weight is an issue, but most of that is in the battery and the housing. Nixie wouldn't need a housing, and I'm guessing the wifi/camera power requirements are much less than the motors. Plus it only needs less than a minute of flying/recording time.

Out of interest, since you seem to know about this stuff, have you heard of Hexo+ and if so, what do you think of it?

Yeah, but they are looking for funding, so someone is going to pony up. I watched the video. Most of what they show is a Hubsan FPV quad that you can get through places like Banggood it uses a spreadspectrum 5.4 system to broadcast the video and a 2.4 system for control, but it does not have any autonomous capabilities. Hubsan makes some of the best stuff out there and we work very closely with them. The wrist thing is cludgey, and while it conveys the idea (You can see the needed twist I was talking about), it wont get them anywhere near their presented final design. Wifi would be an option, but it would require a wifi hotspot be built into the quad. I know we aren't talking about components that require a bunch of power, but we are talking about small batteries, so every mV counts. Especially for something that is wearable.
Now the Hexo+ is very much like the Airdog. Both seem very viable and are using existing technologies. My only concern about either is what do they do about object avoidance and low battery response. In either situation you can wind up losing the vehicle or injuring someone. Most higher end quadcopters have the ability to Return To Home (RTH) which is great since the pilot is in a stationary position, but put a pilot on the move and things get weird. If you are out surfing and the quad gets a low battery warning due to either a battery failure or having been waiting for 30 minutes for you to catch a wave, where does it go? It could go back to the take-off position, but if you drifted from there then it will need to calculate that distance and make sure it can get back. Salt water and electronics don't play well together. If you take your quad with you for a ride on a skateboard down the boardwalk, how do you make sure it doesn't hit a light post or a tree while it is zipping after you? You could fly at a higher altitude, but the zoom lens on the camera may not be enough. Hexo+ has a video of the founder riding a skateboard while the quad films. Notice that he stops short of going into the wooded area. I wonder why?
There are issues, but at least in both cases I think they are starting from proven technologies and have footprints that are achievable.

I concede many of your points, and don't understand some others, but it would seem that this

*related=http://videosift.com/video/nano-crazyfly-drone

is pretty damn close to the nixie already, except for the slap bands and the pretty cover. Maybe mount it on a gauntlet? Then it could be magnetically assisted in 'landing' on your wrist.
I know the 'crazyfly' isn't autonomous, but good software could make it remotely computer controlled. Close enough for me.

nano 'crazyfly' drone has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy.

Do a search on the Proto X or Syncro from Estes. They are great little quads.The Crazyfly doesn't support FPV, they have a small programmable quad (Which is quite an achievement BTW, not to downplay what they have done, and the multiple features make it a pretty cool little platform). But Is not really all that close to the Pixie. They removed all of the plastic from a #19 Keychain FOB Camera(You can find them all over Ebay) to save weight and are placing it on top, it can only record and not broadcast, hence no FPV as shown on the Nixie. The induction charging is very cool, and I don't know much about it but it seems like that would take a long time.
A gauntlet is a much better solution IMO than what Pixie is showing. It can then be used as a home location as well as something for the quad to track. It is also very similar to what AirDog.com is doing with a wrist band.
Thanks for the link on the crazyfly.
FYI, I'm not saying that certain things in the Nixie are impossible (Many of the individual pieces are possible in some form) I'm just saying that as they present it in their video it is not currently possible, nor do I see it being available for purchase by open market consumers within the next say 3 years. But I do think that you will have "Dronie" based quads in several different form factors, including wearable, pretty soon.

Seems you were 100% wrong....

http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2014/11/03/chip-shot-nixie-wins-500000-grand-prize-in-intel-make-it-wearable-challenge

No I'm not. They won a competition based off of a video they did. I have not seen anything from them that shows them doing what they present in the video.
Congratulations they conned Intel out of $500K. You can come back and tell me I was wrong when it is available for sale and shipping and is in a similar form to what they presented. Talk to you in 5+ years.

These competitions never give out cash prizes for theory, they only pay off for actual working prototypes. Otherwise SpaceX would be a movie, as would Deepflight and whatever they called the solar plane...along with dozens of other technologies that have come from these competitions. They just don't pay off on these competitions unless you can PROVE you solved the problems (known AND unknown) and MADE at least one prototype that works.
Intel is no dummy. They know full well you can use their own product to create a video showing anything you wish, so they would NOT be 'conned' out of $500000 with a video. That's a silly thing to say.
I'll come back and tell you that you seem to be wrong today. :-)

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, you may be right it will take 5 years to make them cheap and durable enough to sell them.

From the interwebs:
"Nixie isn’t going to be on this Christmas’ shopping list and is simply a concept at this stage."
and
"The Nixie prototype, as it is now, looks like it could break at a moment’s notice, and resembles more a school science project than the next big wearable."
and
"Nixie is currently in prototype stage and as an idea, was born only ten days before the deadline for the competition. But despite having a lot of work to do, the team's pitch convinced the judges not only that the product is brilliant, but that the team has a viable business plan and can make the product, quite literally, take off. Prize money will be used for improving the propellers, motors and object navigation, as well as miniaturisation of the whole product."

I still think Intel got conned.

What this tells me is that everybody sees potential but that what they showed in the video was pure concept design. They have a very long road ahead of them still. My key issues are and remain:
Getting the booms to bend around the wrist so as to bring the motor pods back together.
Fitting the electronics into a format that will fit onto a wrist.
Maintain an acceptable level of performance for an acceptable level of time.

Funny thing is that they mention all of the things I've commented on:
Propellers, miniaturization, and navigation.

I would add form factor and battery life. But Props will be a key issue as getting efficient props at this size is very difficult and maintain tolerances in production.

And now here's another one.

https://www.lily.camera/

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Lily-Throw-And-Go-Auto-Quad-Camera

Lily-Throw And Go-Auto Tracking Camera Quad Copter has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy.