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.

There is a Wein device that will trigger on the 2nd flash. So half the
flashes you let go on the first flash, the other half with the Wein
trigger that skips a flash.

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.

Cameras may not qualify. There are court tests developing.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:43:50 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

Chris Malcolm wrote:

...you have to
set the generic kinds up or "train" them to each specific kind of
pre-flash. So not much use in the cap flash gadget, unless the
celebrity can rely on the photographic stalkers to be using one
specific kind of flash technology.

So you take the suggestion of having 3-4 of them, and set up one slave
for each of the most likely brands of protocols (eg, Nikon, Canon,
etc).

Kind of sounds KISS enough to work, and it will be smaller/cheaper
than the billionaire's yacht system.

-hh

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. Chris Moron's argument is the argument of a total troll that
has never used these devices. Self evident trollism. Signed, sealed,
delivered ... plonk.

The Troll Amplifier wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:43:50 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

Chris Malcolm wrote:

...you have to
set the generic kinds up or "train" them to each specific kind of
pre-flash. So not much use in the cap flash gadget, unless the
celebrity can rely on the photographic stalkers to be using one
specific kind of flash technology.

So you take the suggestion of having 3-4 of them, and set up one slave
for each of the most likely brands of protocols (eg, Nikon, Canon,
etc).

Kind of sounds KISS enough to work, and it will be smaller/cheaper
than the billionaire's yacht system.

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?

--
Chris Malcolm

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.

Even if you could defeat the pre-flash, the cap flashes will never
recharge in time to flash for every pap camera, there are dozens of 'em,
just look at the number of flashes going off on some celebrity on TV.

-- Colin D.

-hh wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
...you have to
set the generic kinds up or "train" them to each specific kind of
pre-flash. So not much use in the cap flash gadget, unless the
celebrity can rely on the photographic stalkers to be using one
specific kind of flash technology.

So you take the suggestion of having 3-4 of them, and set up one slave
for each of the most likely brands of protocols (eg, Nikon, Canon,
etc).

Only one is needed - Canon.
Nikon shooters could be diverted by using a decoy target with a brick
wall pattern, as they'd rather take test shots to show that their long
lenses are better than Canon.
None of the other makers have good paparazzi systems.

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.

ColinD wrote:
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.

Even if you could defeat the pre-flash, the cap flashes will never
recharge in time to flash for every pap camera, there are dozens of 'em,
just look at the number of flashes going off on some celebrity on TV.

What's needed is small dark hole technology where the pap's flashes are
sucked into oblivion before reaching the billlionaire.

--
john mcwilliams

In message , Alan Browne
writes
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...s-eclipse-has-
anti-photo-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.

There is no such law.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com