2 ms·

Thanks for the link. Yes, that's technically video I guess, but it's trash and doesn't look like the camera was set up to capture takeoffs and landings. More l

Thanks for the link. Yes, that's technically video I guess, but it's trash and doesn't look like the camera was set up to capture takeoffs and landings. More like a utility shed and road... at '90s webcam frame rates and quality.

DidYaWipe 2y ago
Hahah, wow, who was offended by those easily-verified observations?
- prododev 2y ago
  They're obvious hyperbole complaining about how you can't immediately have access to high res, high frame rate footage of a disaster with casualties. Maybe people think you are kind of creepy for being so insistent (and hyperbolically so)?
  - DidYaWipe 2y ago
    What are you talking about? I merely criticized THIS shitty footage, which is so poor that you can't tell what happened to the plane. Useless. Maybe you're replying to the wrong person. Otherwise, the only hyperbolic statement is your own.
Arainach 2y ago
Any such cameras would have to be operating in a full range of weather, temperature, and lighting conditions, and would need to have power/data infrastructure run out to it around/under runways. Plus you'd need dozens of the things, all of the networking infrastructure to support them.....this isn't going to come out looking like Hollywood. Have you ever worked with security cameras or footage anywhere?