If the head of the project didn't even see any value of having them there for a safari (to record video/images of animals) then that tells me they're really not that useful.
Why would they be useful for taking images/videos of a safari? I am sure the resolution is far worse than the low end DSLR.
I do a little bit of hunting now and then. I can tell you that if you can record an animal with GG, that animal is a bear, and he is about to eat you. Anything else is a speck in a distance.
Hunters use very special recording setups to photograph animals. A homemade setup consists of a telescope camera mount (Orion) and a camera that can do photo or video. It's a bulky and complicated setup, and you have to use the camera's LCD to aim the rifle. The camera looks through the telescopic sight, that's why it can capture faraway targets. The GG has a ridiculously bad lens, and as such it would be hard pressed to see a coyote twenty yards away. This sample image (not a full res, though) depicts dogs three yards away from the GG, and even at that distance they are not clearly seen. People across the road, below the flag, cannot be recognized. You need to have a pretty good optical instrument - a lens or a telescopic sight - for it to be usable in hunting.
It’s not the right tool for the job. There’s no need of it on safari, and I’m sure they had much better filming equipment.
The cell phone cameras, which is what Glass uses, are suitable for some applications, but where the lighting gets complex, they absoultely fail.
There are mirrorless digital cameras that give great resolution, but it’s a matter of sensor size. The larger the sensor, the more complex of an image, no matter the megapixels.
Saying they didn’t take Google Glass on safari is like saying they didn’t take a microscope on safari. Wrong tool for the job.
