Depth Perception 2.0

What do you think? Possible? Impossible? Possible but so much more work than it would be worth? Totally awesome?

>>54990189
getting two quadcopters to stay a consistant distance apart and point at the same target is going to be difficult
if those two elements change too much you're in for a very uncomfortable viewing experience

>>54990147
and the quadcopters drift apart and you go virtually cross-eyed

do your eyes grow further apart and closer together?

the cameras will have to be at a static distance from each other

>>54990214
even if they change just a little bit it will be very uncomfortable
eyes are very good at noticing even the tiniest change in your fov

>>54990214
>>54990225
>>54990501

stick them together with a pole

>>54990147
neat

>>54990753
The most effective and elegant solution is often the simplest

>>54990214
>getting two quadcopters to stay a consistant distance apart and point at the same target is going to be difficult

Sure, but doable today if your a hobbyist with a bit of dough

>>54990753
>>54993525
Also the most retarded. What about the pole weight? Vibrations brought upon by wind? Obstacles?

Why would a physicist have trouble imagining the scale of clouds and stars?

>>54993929

It's one thing to know, it's another thing to experience

>>54994031
Why can't a physicist imagine scale? I mean stars are one thing, but you have plenty of reference to know how massive clouds are.

>>54993654
Let's ditch the quadcopters and attach the wide pole to the ground via a long pole

>>54990147
Decades before Lockheed Marin sunk an industrial scale suction pump into the taxpayer's wallets, a stereoscopic enhancer was tested on an aircraft. A camera on each wing tip was slaved to a helmet display allowing the pilot to visually estimate the distance to targets.

Wing tips vibrate. That was not a problem. Jittery drones should not be a problem with 2016 level tech.

>>54994053
It's one thing to know, it's another thing to experience.