Week 11: The Future Seen Through Our Eyes

With all the advances we’ve made in technology so far, I imagine that future technology will be based on what we see.

It’s not inconceivable that wearable technology will one day go beyond the wrist and glasses and find its way into people’s eyeballs. We’ve seen this concept in recent media, an example coming from the show Black Mirror.

Still image from Black Mirror S1 E3 “The Entire History of You”; characters have lenses in their eyes that allow them to record and re-watch moments

In our very first Communications@Syracuse course, we were shown a YouTube video called HYPER-REALITY, and it essentially predicts a similar innovation.

Perhaps in this new world, everything we do makes use of our eyes. It’s being done in the world right now with Google Glass and virtual reality. There is a lot of work being done with augmented and mixed reality, too.

Google Glass

Oculus Rift (Virtual Reality)

HoloLens (Mixed Reality)

Even DJI created a headset for drone pilots to see things from their drones perspective and control the camera with the rotating and tilting of their heads.

I can’t help but notice that so many of these recent technologies have been encouraging us to strap on something to our heads. There’s no doubt that a factor in mass adoption is making it easier for people. I can think of no better way than by making it appear less intrusive, and that’s through our eyes.

This will really change the way people consume media. A new challenge this will bring to the world is that no one will know when someone’s attention is elsewhere. Unless these lenses have an indicator the viewer is tuned into something else, there’s no way of knowing what content they’re accessing.

For instance, imagine you’re on a blind date with someone, and during your initial meeting, you have the ability to research their background while you’re with them. If you’re trying to think of conversation topics, you could easily navigate and find ideas quickly. You can learn what the persons likes and dislikes are, and help steer the conversation, all without them knowing.

A good point that should be mentioned is that this might require more than just your eyes; it could require some kind of neural chip that allows your brain to navigate through things more easily.

This new technology could make it so people don’t need to carry IDs; law enforcement, SAT Test proctors or anyone else who needs to figure out someone’s identity could easily do so by looking at them. However, this opens a whole new can of privacy concerns. Can anyone just scan and analyze anyone for their information? Even if they’re a minor?

In terms of media reporting, think of all the eyewitness accounts that could be provided for many situations. What if people could livestream immediately from their eyeballs if they’re in trouble and they could easily be located. Drones could be controlled with people’s minds and seen through their eyes, ensuring they get all the shots they need without having to use a controller.

Just as Snapchat is being used right now to combine people’s stories to give a complete picture of a story; the same could be done if everyone has these eye lenses.

Firefighters could use this technology for thermal vision to see if the whereabouts of people during a fire. Police can use night vision to apprehend criminals running at night.

There are a lot of possibilities with this technology, but there’s also a lot of risk. Right now, Apple’s facial recognition software is being scrutinized by the government; so I can only imagine how paranoid they’ll be with everyone having a media device in their eyeballs.

It’s hard to say when this might happen, but I’ll give it another decade or so before it finally catches on.

In my career, I imagine myself figuring out the best way to use this technology to tell stories. If I were to imagine myself doing something similar to what I do now, which is creating social media content, then I imagine a lot of the footage I’d be collecting would involve people’s perspectives to create more engaging content.

 

Week 9: Drones!

 

Drone capture is really awesome because it can help us see the world from a perspective we’ve only ever seen from airplanes or helicopters. Only this time, people like you or myself are in control (as long as flights take place in Class G airspace).  Above is a video I shot with a drone of a graffiti wall I randomly discovered. I intended on filming the lake nearby, but once I saw the wall, I knew this was the type of visual imagery drones were made to film.

Last month, I attended Drone Journalism School held by Poynter Institute, the Drone Journalism Lab, Google Labs and DJI. There, I learned everything one needed to know in order to get a drone license to fly commercially (this includes journalism).

The most practical rules I learned are as follows:

• The maximum altitude for a drone to fly is 400 feet
  • If there’s a tall building or tower in the way, you’re able to fly 400 feet above that
• You cannot fly directly over people
  • All of those drone shots flying over people is actually obtained illegally; the best way to get a shot that overlooks a large crowd is
  • You should pretend that there’s a laser coming from people’s heads shooting towards the sky; if your drone goes through that laser, you’re in violation. This means that you could technically fly above someone a foot to the left/right of them, as long as you’re not directly over them (Good luck not having them move though).
• You cannot fly at night
  • But you can fly 30 minutes before sunrise and 30 minutes after sunset
  • You could fly at night, but you’d need special lights to attach to your drone and a special waiver from the FAA
• Your drone must always be within line-of-sight
  • Although some drones can go as far as 4 miles, you need to be able to see it at all times; this means you can’t really fly around tall trees or buildings because the drone can easily be lost from your line-of-sight
  • The rule is three statute miles and within your line-of-sight, so if you’re able to do that, go for it
• You cannot operate a drone within 8 hours of consuming alcohol
  • If you’re at a BBQ and had a little to drink and want to show off your drone skills, you shouldn’t and can’t
• You can fly within 5 miles of helipads
  • The FAA app lists all helipads as “airports” which can make it seem like you can’t fly anywhere, but you really just have to be cautious when you’re around a helipad; my rule of thumb is to always descend whenever I hear another aircraft in the area
• You’re really only restricted from flying near airports or national parks (or wherever airspace rules are applied)

A very useful skill I picked up from the school was the ability to read aeronautical charts. The Part 107 test is largely made up of questions involving these maps.

Looking at the map is intimidating at first, but after a lot of studying it becomes easier to read. The different blue and purple lines represent different types of airspace. Typically, they mean DO NOT FLY HERE, but there are some considerations that might allow you to fly there. For instance, the 100/### represents where the airspace regulations begin and end. A blue 100/48 means that Class B airspace begins from 4,800 feet and extends to 10,000 feet. So you could fly there, since the highest you could go is 400 feet. A lot of times, though, 100/SFC means you can’t fly anywhere from the surface above.

Since I haven’t figured out which method I trust more, I just use a few apps and the VFR map to determine whether an area is safe to fly. It’s pretty redundant, but it makes me feel secure:

• Airmap
• B4UFly
• DJIGo
• VFRmap.com

During the lab, we practiced flying drones at a nearby football field. Novice pilots were encouraged to fly the DJI Spark and Phantom. Mid-level experienced pilots tried out the Mavic Pro. More seasoned pilots got to fly the Inspire 2 (valued at $6,000!).

In addition to learning the fundamentals of passing the Part 107 certification exam, there were great presentations very relevant to journalism. This included drone ethics, law and the different applications that this technology can be used to tell stories.

Is it wrong to add sound to drone footage? For instance, if you were filming a bunch of cows for a story via drone, and later on, you used a sound recorder of cows mooing and in post-production, merged the two together, is that unethical reporting? Arguments could be made on both sides.

Awesomely, I had the chance to chat with Ben Kreimer, who was featured in our asynchronous work for this unit, as well as photogrammetry. His latest focus is on 360-drone journalism. What I thought was really cool was that he saw himself not as an innovator, but as a problem solver, introducing these new technologies to areas that could benefit from it.

After completing the seminar (and returning from the madness that was air travel after the 2017 Eclipse in Portland Oregon), I immediately went to the nearest aviation testing site and took the exam to get my drone license.

After hours and hours of studying, I passed. We were required to take a selfie with our exams and post on the Drone Journalism Facebook Group.

Now that I can fly drones commercially, I’m trying to figure out what opportunities there are. I work as a Digital Marketing Specialist for a healthcare district called Palomar Health, so I can now create content with drones for my job. Below is a video I captured of our billboard next to the freeway with the hospital on the hill in the background.

Storytelling wise, I’m still trying to figure that out. Airspace is very restrictive in the San Diego area, so I can’t just fly anywhere I want because I’m licensed.

With the recent destruction caused by Hurricane Harvey, drone footage helps inform people just how much damage was caused. (Of course, typically only when these drones are flown under authorized sanctions).

Not all stories will benefit from the use of drones, however, so it’s really a matter of flying when it’s useful. I imagine that a story that could be told using drones could be a massive mob of belligerent protesters. Drone footage could help illustrate the largeness of the crowds and might even be able to identify routes people could use to avoid getting in the middle of it. The use of a drone would also ensure safety for the journalist, making it so they don’t have to be on the ground if something violent erupts.

 

 

Week 8: Can you put 360 on everything*?

*particularly with regards to field stories and with the exception of stories involving the expectation of privacy.

Because of how advanced technology has become, there’s a lot of new terrain to be explored, and this includes the world of journalism. One of these major breakthroughs is 360 video. This brings into question: is there a line to be drawn when it comes to using 360 video for news stories?

For my field test, I’m interested in identifying the line between when to use 360 technology and when not to for journalism. For me, I have to honestly say I was excited by this technology because of its cool factor. Once I figured out how to produce a story using a 360 camera, I wondered if this could be used in many of the stories traditionally covered in broadcast news. Is that really possible, though?

My optimistic hypothesis is yes, many traditional broadcast stories can be told using the 360 format (with the exception of stories involving the expectation of privacy).

This idea has evolved from what I originally envisioned. I wanted to do something involving drones and 360 technology, but I couldn’t quite figure out what I was going to test other than, “yeah it could be done.”

I haven’t gotten far beyond the idea of this test. I think to test it, I’m going to really study the local news to determine what stories are typically broadcast and then aggregate them into some kind of a categorical system. Based on the stories, I can try to see if I can replicate them using the 360 video format. If I can replicate x amount of stories out of the categories I identify, then I could measure its success.

UPDATE:

It seems a little too short of a time frame trying to recreate several types of news stories. I might instead focus on recreating one field story to see if the story could be told effectively, and survey people as to how they felt about the content.