black_silver

There obviously needs to be another agency created to address this new frontier. It makes no sense that an agency set up to regulate airplanes, jets, and helicopters and air traffic, is put in charge to regulate RC model aircraft. It's like a law enforcement agency determining what goes on in healthcare. Oh, forgot, that really happens. Honestly, these RC craft have NO business being where real aircraft are. But the 5 mile rule is absurd. So is the 400 foot rule. The vastest of space contained within these parameters, contain no airplanes, jets, or helicopters. Needing a licensed airplane pilot to fly one so you can sell a landscape print or make a "Dolly" shot for a married couples' wedding video, borders on insanity. And the FAA is enlisting the help of every law enforcement agency in the country to enforce their hackneyed insane regulations. Any Game warden or park ranger can confiscate your equipment and cite you for violating say the 400 foot rule if you fly over a cliff in the wilderness, and are now at 1000 above ground for a short moment. Or say a real estate agent is using a cameracopter to photograph a home he or she has for sale. Nowhere near an airplane.or air traffic, yet it's a violation of federal law because it's commercial. The FAA has NO business regulating real estate companies or wedding photographers business practices. That's something out of the mind of Terry Gilliam.

From the FAA site.. What are the main requirements needed for me to operate an unmanned aircraft or drone for my business? A. You will need: a Section 333 grant of exemption, a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA), an aircraft registered with the FAA, and a pilot with an FAA airman certificate Do all you landscape or wedding photographers, who use RC coptercameras actually comply with these? The site has a bunch of different jobs as airmen. But when you follow the broken links(by adding www. to the broken link) they are discussing actual pilots. https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/333_faqs/#q1

A lot of smug finger pointing, at least it appears so. From the FAA: "What are the main requirements needed for me to operate an unmanned aircraft or drone for my business? A. You will need: a Section 333 grant of exemption, a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA), an aircraft registered with the FAA, and a pilot with an FAA airman certificate " How many of you using aerial cameras, for any aspect of your photography business, have all those?

The FAA site essentially states that... If you are flying an RC aircraft for a hobby, and take a landscape photo, you are safe. But if you fly an RC aircraft and take a landscape photo, You are now unsafe if you want to sell that photo. And you need to be a certified airman (not airwoman)to be safe, and the dead links go to pilots training info.

Reading the requirements for the Section 333 exemption... I don't think I'm gonna put a lot of money into this right now. The whole section of their website, dealing with certified airman, has broken links because of typos in their URLs. But one gathers that to sell photos produced by an aerial cameracopter, you need a pilots licence . If I were a pilot, wtf would I need a drone for? The whole thing seems designed to somehow make sure that airplane and helicopter pilots get paid, it actually says that. What does flying an airplane have to do with flying an RC model aircraft?

Agree. The X5 and X5R appear to be the same sensor. But different output. Same with the Pro vs Advance P3 camera. If you can mention something different between the X3 camera and the one on the P3 Pro, I would appreciate it. Other than the X3 looks like a Logitech WebCam. A functional difference. Per the specs they appear identical.

And looking at the specifications more closely, it is the same sensor. So same camera.

Oh, I was watching a video with photographer Trey Ratcliff, he stated his Inspire 1 didn't have raw. A DNG is RAW. Even a TIFF would be satisfactory. Thank you, that's a big difference.

X5R camera shoots still photos in raw format. None of the other cameras discussed, or on the table, do. Raw format images are desirable. Not wanting raw video, or any video, does not remove it from the discussion. That said, even the DJI Phantom 3 Standard camera takes the same size still images as the 3X camera(which too does not shoot in raw). Has the same size sensor, same size image. At $700(with the copter and gimbal included).

Who is Blackstone?

What's holy about 5 miles. My whole city is within 5 miles of either of 3 little airport, an airpark, or an airstrip. And on the other side, have 5 miles of nothing but grapevines and cornfields. One could send a drone over the bluffs at mendocino or ft bragg and be within 5 miles of an airport, and yet no where any plane should or would be flying. In most areas of California, one could be 50 miles from nothing, and there would be some little airport within 5 miles. There's a little airport within a few miles of South Lake Tahoe, making the whole south end of the lake off limits to aerial cameracopters. Seems arbitrary to the extreme.

That X5 is not a $3500 camera. Nor the X5R a $5100, one. If you took them off the copter. Maybe if Leica made them, sure. Not Hong Kong RC Copter company made. I think I should probably email DJI on this question. Honestly, I don't know what I am going to do with video. I'm really after stitching stills, for large format prints. (Post vids on Facebook for likes? BFD) The moment one tries to sell a video or still, you have the federal government up your rectum. I definitely don't need that. And the Inspire in any of its versions just screams commercial use. There is a whole section on the FAA site enlisting the efforts of law enforcement agencies. The Phantom 3 looks like a toy.and is priced like one. Just in case some Fish and Wildlife warden Ranger Rick feels it's his duty to confiscate my cameracopter, $1300 is a manageable loss. $3K isnt. If it's the same camera, the X3 a la carte is $500, Then the Phantom 3 might be the better investment. I was looking at the 3DR Solo, but the Gopro wide angle would make stitching problematic. And by the time you get a kit.together, it's almost $2300. $4-500 short of the Inspire.

"But I think her work rises well above simple "selfie" level and if she got her start in this century I think she would have produced more than just another poorly lit "duck lips" photo in a bathroom mirror." Doubtful that she could have gotten away with all the pre-18 nudes on Facebook. That's a given. She did a whole pubescent nude series of her and a nude old man model. Virtually impossible to find that online, now. Today, that's would have landed her, her model, and her parents in jail. With her removed from her parents custody when she got out.

It's not a stick. It's just a simple air actuated bulb release. You can see the tubing in a lot of her shots, or bulb in her hand. Many of her shots are long enough exposures to not need it. She would just click the shutter and run into position. Either remaining still or moving during the open shutter. Compare shots she made when she was 13 to those after attending art school as an adult. You will see minimal increase in technique nor much change in style of the photos. That's not normal. As most here are probably artists, if you were an artist at 13 and one at 21, how much did your art, the quality of your art, or the technique of your art change in those 8 years? There is no notable development in her work, at a time when development normally occurs rapidly. Re: face hiding When I take self portraits, I don't show my face. And when others happen to get a shot of me, I hide my face. I am not tortured, or enigmatic symbol for masculinism. I just don't like my picture taken. It best, it's because my face is not photogenic. Maybe she thought the same of herself.

I predict you will see an explosion of Drone specializing lawyers, in the next few years. Like the explosion of IP and trial(read sleazy corporate class action ambulance chasing) lawyers of the 80s and 90s. Skypan probably has one or more on staff now.

Doing a quick look at their site. I didn't see any photos that looked like they were higher than 400 feet. Nor any that look like they were taken where manned aircraft should be(like right beside buildings). They have a graphic stating they have an FAA Section 333 Exemption. What is that? The bugaboo looks like it's their selling of their photos. Commercial use. And that they didn't pay according fees and taxes to the FAA. Not a safety issue. Does the FAA charge plane or helicopter operators more if for commercial use, and nothing if for personal use? I wonder if Trey Ratcliff has paid all his FAA fees and taxes. http://skypanintl.com/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/

She used models when they were available. I don't read too much into the quote, other than how she said it. After listening to her in the documenaries I have seen, I don't see her any more deep than any other typical teenage girl, with mental illness and dysfunction parents. She would be posting crap on Facebook, from an iPhone/IPad, if she were alive today at the same age. She used the tools that were afforded to her, notably a used Yashicamat without a timer. Sets that her parents owned. A model who was always available.

http://www.mrpinhole.com/calcpinh.php