Anti-Photo Laser Shield

Chris Malcolm wrote:
Glen Talberts wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:40:48 +0100, "JamieM"
wrote:

LOL, didn't realise it was April fools day yet.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/22/r...-laser-shield/

"If you ask a young boy to spec out his ideal boat, you might hear
of helipads, swimming pools, missile-proof hulls, mini-submarines
and laser shields. Well, Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich is
one of those people with the time and money to listen to his inner
child, and he's gone and put all of the above together inside a
$1.2 billion 557-foot vessel of luxury and excess. The Eclipse will
attempt to repel paparazzi with a laser system that is said to
"detect CCDs" (we suspect they mean it detects the autofocus
light), and responds with an intense beam of light that precludes
unwanted photography. We don't know how well the automatic system
will work, but it must be fun to manually point the lasers at the
paps and go "pew pew!"

A much simpler, much more inexpensive, and more effective concept
was a baseball cap with 3 or 4 small slave-triggered flash-units in
it. Whenever paparazzi would fire a flash at the intended celebrity
the flash's would instantly fire back ruining all their shots. This
was of course most effective at night, but then that's when their
cameras are the most annoying.

So anyone using pre-flash metering would be able to photograph the
celebrity, since the pre-flash would fire the cap guns leaving them
empty for the proper flash. And anyone not using pre-flash would
simply need to trigger any old flash just before the real photograph.
Not really much of an obstacle. I suspect this device was far more
giggled over than ever actually used.

It's interesting how everyone rushes to a conclusion. Such a system was
developed and tested at Georgia Tech several years ago and the students
obtained a grant to develop it into a commercial product. It does not work
on preflash or on flash or on detecting any other kind of emission from the
camera, it works by detecting a reflected-light signature from the sensor.
The article I read said that it was specific to CCDs but that was some years
ago--whether they can also detect CMOS sensors I have no idea.

Has to be awful fast though to detect, aim, and fire during the brief
interval that the shutter is open.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:24:44 -0700, Mike Russell
wrote:

Just have the currency constellation printed on your clothing and Photoshop
will refuse to open the image, LOL.
http://www.zazzle.com/eurion_constel...09764478000766

Doesn't work. You can load, edit, and save the image with CS4 just fine.

Troll Amplifier II wrote:
On 22 Sep 2009 22:50:52 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:

The Troll Amplifier wrote:

Except that the moron troll is in total error. The slaves I use don't need
any "training". You set a switch to one of two positions,
non-digital/digital. "Non-digital" fires on the first flash like any simple
slave. "Digital" fires on the main flash after all pre-flash bursts from
*any* camera.

Name and model number of this device?

Oh look. The armchair-photographer Malcolm-Troll wants someone to save him
from some tedious web-surfing (his only camera and photography experience
in his whole life). Then he can be an even more believable troll next time,
to try pull the wool over the eyes of even more people.

In your dreams.

Go do your homework, virtual-life, role-playing, basement-boy!

Better yet, go buy an actual camera and try to use it one day. Maybe then
you'll research all the devices available for them.

I just love when these so-called virtual-life role-playing "photographers"
get caught in their own ignorance. It's like they purposely set themselves
up to get caught.

Find another newsgroup to troll where you aren't so easily revealed for the
basement-living pretend-photographer troll that you are.

A direct hit on the blowhard's hot button!

--
Chris Malcolm

-hh wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:
It's interesting how everyone rushes to a conclusion.

I noticed that as well.

Such a system was
developed and tested at Georgia Tech several years ago and the students
obtained a grant to develop it into a commercial product. It does not work
on preflash or on flash or on detecting any other kind of emission from the
camera, it works by detecting a reflected-light signature from the sensor.
The article I read said that it was specific to CCDs but that was some years
ago--whether they can also detect CMOS sensors I have no idea.

So the laser swings around wildly in all directions hoping to land right
in the eye of a camera when the shutter is open... not very likely for a
SLR at a long distance.


Sticking to what can be said in open literature, see this 1989
article:

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-15/news/mn-546_1_laser-weapon

Has to be awful fast though to detect, aim, and fire during the brief
interval that the shutter is open.

Don't forget clutter rejection. That's IMO probably why they
specifically said 'CCD's.

Use a CMOS camera g.


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/22/09 16:05 , Alan Browne wrote:
Gettamulla Tupya wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:40:48 +0100, "JamieM"
wrote:

LOL, didn't realise it was April fools day yet.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/22/r...-laser-shield/



I wonder if it works for speed cameras? ;-)


Here the law is very clear that you cannot make a contrivance to defeat
radar, lasers or cameras used in speed enforcement.



Here we have a Constitutional Right to face, and confront, an accuser.

You think it's different here?


Cameras may not qualify. There are court tests developing.

That's a BS defense. If the state puts technology to work to trap
speeders, then that is all that is needed (For example, France has had
smashing success in reducing auto accidents in direct correlation to its
massive photo-radar program).

On 9/23/09 19:35 , Alan Browne wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/22/09 16:05 , Alan Browne wrote:
Gettamulla Tupya wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:40:48 +0100, "JamieM"
wrote:

LOL, didn't realise it was April fools day yet.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/22/r...-laser-shield/



I wonder if it works for speed cameras? ;-)


Here the law is very clear that you cannot make a contrivance to defeat
radar, lasers or cameras used in speed enforcement.



Here we have a Constitutional Right to face, and confront, an accuser.

You think it's different here?


Cameras may not qualify. There are court tests developing.

That's a BS defense. If the state puts technology to work to trap
speeders, then that is all that is needed (For example, France has had
smashing success in reducing auto accidents in direct correlation to its
massive photo-radar program).



There are court tests developing for this in the US, now. Unmanned
technology is an opportunity for abuse, as has been demonstrated here
with red light cameras.

BS, or not. The court challenge is being developed.

A speed camera on 45 entering Mundelein, Illinois has been pulled
down in anticipation.

As for cameras reducing accidents...we have red light cameras popping
up here. The claims are being made that red light cameras reduce
accidents. DOT studies, however, have shown that by increasing the
duration of the yellow light by 3 seconds drops intersection accidents
by nearly 30% overnight. Red light cameras, however are not being
deployed for safety. In fact, yellow lights are being shortened by 3
seconds where red light cameras are deployed. Rear end collisions at
intersections are up. T-bones are up. And 80% of tickets issued with red
light cameras in Cook and the collar counties are for right turn on
red....a legal maneuver in Illinois.

Court challenges are being developed.


And for the record...France is not going to be your best example. The
most recent prime minister was elected on a platform of doing away with
the military in favor of a recored message outgoing on every telephone
in the event of an invasion that said 'We surrender,' in 10 languages.