Lily is the world's first throw-and-shoot camera. It lets anyone create cinematic footage previously reserved for professional filmmakers.
Lily is waterproof, ultra-portable, and shoots stunning HD pictures and videos.
Pre-order now at https://www.lily.camera/
Comments
Looks like it needs a bit of work still.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/video/2015/may/12/testing-the...
Yup, I conceded that the hand thing was a bit silly :)
This whole arena of tech is incredibly fast moving and inherently unstable. 3DR selling the Iris (it has had issues) DJI selling the Phantom, Naza etc etc. My point being the marketing team will always be ahead of the techies. Recklessly or not.
None of the above are hailed as "hobbyist" and they all have various issues.
I'm not against being cautious and where something is downright dangerous (and a real threat) then say something but the sledge-hammer with which this has been greeted is contrary to this very site. Rather constructive feedback and suggestions?
If someone had a drone which said it'll carry your 6 month old baby to nursery and you can buy it tomorrow then I would say ring the alarm bell. But for this? Come on, all the features are awesome and already available with the exception of the finger-trimming option. My suspicion though is that features like that might be put on the V2,0 list when reality hits home.
Is there someone from Lily that can comment on any of our questions? I'm frankly shocked at how many people are asking me about it.
@Crispin I think difference is that APM/Pixhawk has always been aimed at the hobbyist and maker end of the market.
The Lily is aimed at the very opposite, it's selling a dream to an innocent and unsuspecting public.
The real eye-opener to me is the take off/landing in the hand thing - that's a law suit in waiting to me...
History tells us that this kind of 'dream' video and the end product often don't match up...
@ Crispin
well "ready for market" and off the shelf is not exactly the same thing.....
I also have 3dr products and whilst not being state of the art IMHO they are worth the money, and you even get replacements on warranty for defective parts.....
I disagree.
Let's assume the project is backed and he gets all the money. He sells it and it's a flop because he chopped someone's hand up (I'll concede - the landing on hand thing is perhaps a step too far and suggestive) then he'll have his own problems for it.
As for "ready for market" then it's no worse than the first APMs I bought. After spending £500 on the first 3DR quad I had a few crashes, couple of fly-aways (which then crashed into trees) etc. How come that is ok to sell? It was no where near fully developed. Not in the slightest. DJI? Exactly the same.
My biggest gripe with people posting stuff is how often it gets attacked. Not constructive criticism but just plain slated. It sometimes feels like a bunch of old men sitting around grumbling over the young'ns.
That's my opinion anyway and it's unlikely to be everyone's :)
Exactly. If you were using APM1, 2, or Pixhawk, then you were building DIY Drones, and should expect to have some problems.
But people buying into these Kickstarter campaigns think they are buying into RTF machines that are basically ready for production. But it seems like for the majority of them, people are actually funding the R&D almost from square 1, and it results in lengthy product ship dates and delays. There's a couple that were funded over a million dollars last summer, and still haven't even gone into production yet. They were all pretty much advertised as ready to go, and the kickstarter campaign was just to pay for production tooling.
It's apparent that all the groups had was a sketchy 3D printed concept, using standard electronics. The designs were not production ready, and the software development hadn't even started yet.
Crispin - Please don't patronise me - I work in this industry and I know full well what is involved in the development of a vehicle like this.
The Lily could be a cracking product, when it's fully developed.
And that's the point, it isn't,and it will take time and money to get right. It just feels like they should be going a bit further before going to market....
@Laurent the new hex from Helen Greiner gets rid of the need for a gimbal because of the way the props are mounted and the angles that allows in flight. Add in the stabilized in camera footage and gimbal be gone.
@crispin I think the overall complain is more on their communication. They advertise a product that does not exist yet and are not honest about this. Nowhere in the video does it tells that it is all faked and that the video is not from footage from their device. In my country this is called fake advertising and you can face prosecution for misleading the consumer. I don't think anyone question the overall vision, we all know drones are going in this direction, people just question the short term timeline and unrealistic user expectations they set.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next