Sure, why not.

Gimme?

I'm in

I'll take one

Huge iPhone fan. Switched to AT&T from Sprint just to get it. Does this phone suck because it's not an iPhone? No this phone makes me wonder if I shouldn't have just stayed with Sprint...

whatcha gonna do?

Pretty sure I saw it this morning. Was driving to work out near Dulles airport and saw what I thought was a saturn sky with a bad paint job heading the other direction. When I passed it though I couldn't tell what it was. Anyway, given where it was and where it was heading I'd say they're on there way to see congress right now.

I've always thought we'd head in this direction eventually, but the one thing I've wondered is what it would feel like to drive a car where there's no direct feedback from the steering wheel. They could obviously add force feedback, like in video games, but that's added complexity and sure to be an expensive replacement part. Anyway, just curious what you all thought. I've asked this of some other companies which have worked on similar technology, but never gotten an answer.

It's not as simple as just swapping out the camera behind the lens, or even swapping out the sensor. It's not as though they shot with an off the shelf camcorder and should have swapped it with a better off the shelf camcorder. I have no first hand knowledge, but I would guess that the sensor used in military grade extremely long range cameras is a unique beast completely different from what you'd find in a consumer or pro level video camera. And simply adding pixels doesn't always work.

As an example look at the transition from sd camcorders to hd camcorders. When given the same sensor size, say 1/4" and cramming more pixels onto the sensor, less light actually hits each pixel. Which is one of the reasons(as I understand it) that HD low light performance is lagging behind SD currently. I would imagine that designing a camera made to film moving objects in low light conditions hundreds of miles away while the camera itself is moving at great speeds probably involves some tradeoffs.

So your Sony camcorder can shoot high speed images of an object moving 5,000 miles an hour crashing into something moving 17,000 miles an hour, at night from around 133 nautical miles away? Must be some camcorder. There's a lot more to this than pointing a camcorder with a big lens on it at the sky. At least one of the videos was shot from 26,000 ft, apparently from an aircraft, which given the velocities of everything involved, the fact that they were able to track the missile, and have zoom capable of seeing the impact is pretty impressive. Also, I would imagine that their goals are based more on getting clear, high contrast cloud free images rather than looking like some big budget film.