Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Journalists, and everyone: don't discard film yet

Reply
Thread Tools

Journalists, and everyone: don't discard film yet

 
 
Unclaimed Mysteries
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2006
New Device Disables Digital Cameras
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200606...digitalcameras

If this is for real, and when it is refined, you can count on this
technology to be "repurposed."

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2006
Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
> New Device Disables Digital Cameras
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200606...digitalcameras
>>

> If this is for real, and when it is refined, you can count on this
> technology to be "repurposed."
>

Yes, I saw the creature in "Surface" using that very technology.

Now, it'd be used by restaurants to kill cell phone use.

--
lsmft
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
2
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2006
"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<the_letter_k_and_the_numeral_4_doh@unclaimedmyste ries.net> wrote in message
news:aWolg.7706$(E-Mail Removed) ink.net...
> New Device Disables Digital Cameras
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200606...digitalcameras


To disable a camera in a random public place would require more beaming
disablers than are feasible.

But it's pretty much true that almost anything digital that can receive can
be crippled. It's a communication-theory kinda truth.

Hope this message gets ou


 
Reply With Quote
 
Charles
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2006
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:33:26 GMT, Unclaimed Mysteries
<the_letter_k_and_the_numeral_4_doh@unclaimedmyste ries.net> wrote:

>New Device Disables Digital Cameras
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200606...digitalcameras
>
>If this is for real, and when it is refined, you can count on this
>technology to be "repurposed."



I wonder how well it would work through a circular polarizer.
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2006
Charles wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:33:26 GMT, Unclaimed Mysteries
> <the_letter_k_and_the_numeral_4_doh@unclaimedmyste ries.net> wrote:
>
>>New Device Disables Digital Cameras
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200606...digitalcameras
>>
>>If this is for real, and when it is refined, you can count on this
>>technology to be "repurposed."

>
>
> I wonder how well it would work through a circular polarizer.


I wonder how well it would work if the camera wasn't pointed at the "thin
beam of white light". And that's going to go over _real_ big in theaters,
some gadget shining a light all over the place every time its artificial
stupidity (artificial intelligence has not yet been developed, but
artificial stupidity abounds) thinks it sees a camera. And it seems to be
tailored to CCDs so I find myself wondering if it will see a CMOS sensor at
all.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2006
John McWilliams wrote:

> Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
>> New Device Disables Digital Cameras
>>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200606...digitalcameras
>>>

>> If this is for real, and when it is refined, you can count on this
>> technology to be "repurposed."
>>

> Yes, I saw the creature in "Surface" using that very technology.


I thought the critter in Surface used an EMP.

> Now, it'd be used by restaurants to kill cell phone use.
>


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2006
"J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>I wonder how well it would work if the camera wasn't pointed at the "thin
>beam of white light". And that's going to go over _real_ big in theaters,
>some gadget shining a light all over the place every time its artificial
>stupidity (artificial intelligence has not yet been developed, but
>artificial stupidity abounds) thinks it sees a camera. And it seems to be
>tailored to CCDs so I find myself wondering if it will see a CMOS sensor at
>all.


From the description, it sounds like it depends on a video camera acting
like a retroreflector, sending more of the incoming light back in the
reverse direction from how the light arrived. Ordinary skin and fabrics
do not produce this directional reflection, but cameras (film cameras
too, not just digital ones!) do this particularly well if the lens is
wide open.

And if you're trying to make a pirate copy of a movie, you've got to
have the camera lens open all the time, and it's got to be set up to
capture the whole screen width. So the projector that shines a bright
flash of light at the camera is probably mounted just above the screen
(where it would be within the FOV), and it's not difficult to make the
direct projector beam aimed at the clandestine camera brighter than the
movie reflected from the screen.

But my knapsack reflects light back to its source too, because it has
strips of Scotchlite retroreflector sewn onto its surface. This system
had better not start shining white light on everyone in the audience
with a reflective jacket, or knapsack, or shoes, or it will be pretty
unpopular.

I don't see this working very well for still cameras. At an event
taking place in a room, people with cameras could be anywhere. You
might get a pretty poor reflection back from a DSLR or a P&S camera with
the LCD display turned off, because the shutter is closed and the sensor
is not illuminated except just before exposure. And how can you equip a
room with enough projectors to cover every possible direction a camera
can be aimed from every possible position in the room?

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2006
Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
> New Device Disables Digital Cameras
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200606...digitalcameras
>
> If this is for real, and when it is refined, you can count on this
> technology to be "repurposed."


From that description, I don't think it would do a thing against DSLRs,
since their sensor is not only inactive most of the time, but is also
completely hidden behind both a mirror and a shutter.

Live LCD cameras like point-and-shoot still cameras and video cameras would
be a different matter... But the DSLR should be untouchable by this sort of
device.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil Wheeler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2006
MarkČ wrote:
> Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
>
>>New Device Disables Digital Cameras
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200606...digitalcameras
>>
>>If this is for real, and when it is refined, you can count on this
>>technology to be "repurposed."

>
>
> From that description, I don't think it would do a thing against DSLRs,
> since their sensor is not only inactive most of the time, but is also
> completely hidden behind both a mirror and a shutter.
>
> Live LCD cameras like point-and-shoot still cameras and video cameras would
> be a different matter... But the DSLR should be untouchable by this sort of
> device.
>



Agree.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Roberts
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2006
Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:

>New Device Disables Digital Cameras
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200606...digitalcameras
>
>If this is for real, and when it is refined, you can count on this
>technology to be "repurposed."


Has no effect on digital SLR's, though.

--
Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Compare 2 files and discard common lines loial Python 12 06-03-2008 12:09 PM
Test message, please discard Liangg.4124@schwarzschild.mcgill.ca Microsoft Certification 0 10-26-2004 04:38 AM
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM
Starting up some profiles give a pop-up for working online or offline.How to discard that? Dirk BERTH Firefox 1 08-26-2004 06:49 AM
Keeping old versions of data for audit trails and save/discard feature David Smith Java 2 07-24-2003 04:03 PM



Advertisments