Well if you want to see the kinds of things I shoot, here is one of my current video projects (well only the title sequence, but that’s pretty representative, which I think is about 1:45min long). This was all shot back on the 7D actually, and is deliberately given a grainier/gritty black-and-white retro look/sound. (don’t worry not gross surgery in the title sequence - the real video, well let’s say you want to be a medical professional). This is all edited in FCPX, all shot by me, music licenses from Musicbed.
For those curious what robotic conversion means, is how to get out of the surgical robot if an emergency occurs, and convert to an old-fashioned open surgery. It turned out to be more complicated that anyone thought, which is why we are making this video.
Very cool but I get irrationally angry that everyone goes out of their way to not call Waldos*, Waldos. I’m the same way about the Clark orbit. Something about giving credit where credit is due.
*After Waldo and Company by Robert A. Heinlein if you are not familiar.
These are not robots as robots have some level of autonomy.
Haha. Actually that turned out to be the problem. It does make some independent decisions, during filming #1 of the main video it decided something we were doing was a threat to the “patient” (mannequin) and locked itself to the floor and locked its arms. And now that it auto-sutures (e.g. you define a wound, and it will suture it closed totally by itself using machine vision) not sure that you are correct in this case. So while it doesn’t move across the room on its own, it can move its arms completely autonomously. Also when you do beating heart surgery it does machine vision to track motions and takes what you input and translates that into motion on its own to perform the desired action with you seeing a still field.
Off topic regarding photography and Glowforge, but knowing people performing robotic surgery routinely, a problem on the horizon is the lack of training in routine open cases of old. Today’s new physicians may know how to convert to an open case, but it is likely that they have very little actual experience doing the open case. One day the old guard will die off, and so will much of the experience of open cases of old like nephrectomies and prostatectomies. Progress marches on, and yet we still need some of the old skills - including how to undock the robot and operate the old fashioned way.
Yup! Transfer trajectories are “Hohmann transfer orbits,” highly eccentric and inclined orbits with huge hang time are “Molniya orbits” (although I believe Molniya means ‘lightning,’ as opposed to being a person’s name), and of course there are “Lissajous orbits” used to reach the Lagrangian points.
But no love for Clarke (geosynchronous)…
Sorry for the off-topic digression, but I loves me some orbital mechanics.
Depending on the specialty we still do the majority of our cases non-robotic. With rare exceptions it doesn’t provide a measurable benefit (and since the majority of our patients are either managed care or alternative-contracts we can’t just bill more because it’s robotic). And again depending on specialty we do a fair number open vs. laparoscopic. For a lot of cases, the visualization is better with robot as best (3D), laparoscopic better (HD super close vision) and open (best feel, worst visualization). The thoracics team I do most of my research with does an even 1/3 of each type. Mostly due to visualization needs.
There seem to be a few surgeries that benefit from the robot specifically as its multi-jointed arms allow for reaching behind structures that reduces torque injury to organs in the foreground. But otherwise it’s not a huge advantage over laparoscopic in my opinion yet.
While I totally agree and love my DSLR, my husband recently got the new Google Pixel phone. The first photo he took was of me in the dark and it was wildly impressive for a phone camera. I was really shocked by it. My Nexus 6 doesn’t compare. Of course, it’s still no DSLR.
It’s all about the optics. Strap a great lens on the Pixel and you’ll likely get incredible results that will absolutely rival your DSLR.
I used to sell cameras back when digital became affordable for the masses. And it was like “No… You don’t buy the camera with the most digital features, or the ‘most megapixels.’ You buy the best camera. Period. You buy the Canon. You buy the Nikon. Why? Because they’ll always make the best cameras.”
I’m actually a little upset by this term. Unless you are turning someone into cyborg or transfering there consciousness into a robotic body, then I don’t think it should be called “robotic conversion”!
In all seriousness, that is super awesome! I should show it to my wife, she’s an automation engineer and deals with robots all day.
Was thinking about something like that as well, but use mine (20D) not often enough anymore. The 1 gig cf cards were a hundred bucks back then, but still using em. On my 3rd set of batteries though. Got it for a trip to Germany and shanghai around 2004 or 2005.
Hard to say what is more awe-inpiring to me: dropping the camera lingo, buzzing the medical frontiers or @dwardio’s orbital mechanics. Thanks for a special peak inside the amazing worlds you all live in.
Haha. The subject is not the patient but the surgery. Just like when we say we are doing a robot case, we don’t mean we will operate on a robot (well, I do that as well, but not in the OR)
I’m a Canon guy through and through. I had my dad’s 35mm Canon when I was growing up, picked up a Rebel 35mm in college, have had three or four point-and-shoot digital cameras, and my current DLSR is a Rebel, I think T3i. - It’s a few years old.
For the record, Canon’s 20D (I have one as well) is now 13 years old, and the 8 megapixel sensor captures tighter detail than is achievable with Canon’s L-glass (and the L-glass focus is sharp enough to cut yourself, LOL). What this means is that at that point of perfectly sharp, the sharpest of the sharpness available from those best in class L series lenses, there’s actually a group of pixels receiving the image data. Viewing the image at 100% pixel size on screen actually looks softer than what you’d expect, although at regular relative viewing distances it looks sharp as a tack.
So, who knows how many digital cameras before the 20D also out-resolved those fine lenses! And now with cameras pushing 20-30 megapixels on imaging sensors that arent much physically larger (thus increasing pixel density) those 100% pixel size images just keep looking softer and softer. Not that it matters, really. There’s enough resolution to make HUGE prints or get creative with design, or if an image is printed at a regular photograph size it will still look nice and crisp.
The advice to invest in camera optics is definitely sound! GoPro and RED both offer 4K cameras, but we know who wins on the image quality there!
