Break out the 800mm lenses!!
I am not a pap, but I knew I was doing something right carrying a film body along with my digital one in my bag! Try and disable my M42 Fujica then! Go on...
Da Boys will be round soon -I am not a pap, but I knew I was doing something right carrying a film body along with my digital one in my bag! Try and disable my M42 Fujica then! Go on...
Bawbee BSRIPN
Life, is only as complicated, or as serious, as you want it to be - your choice.
This sounds like nonsense to me. Detects a CCD? What about people using a CMOS sensor? My sensor isn't exposed until the mirror goes up anyway. And if they want to 'disrupt' it, then presumably they mean shine a light onto the sensor - yeah, good luck there. The further away you are from the camera the more power you'll need. Aren't there generally multiple paps shooting celebs.
Finally, as the article mentions, if photographers can only claim for loss, and the only loss is any money they'd have made from taking a picture, then I can't see them ever winning any more from anyone.
Quiet news day?
AFAIK such systems are very much still in the research stage- as here the difficulty being pointing the laser. I suspect someone was leading the (cub?) reporter alongHow would you acquire the camera as a target? And wouldn't the laser need to be powerful enough to cause eye damage?
I'd like a device that would interfere with people's mobile phones. I would only use it on those who don't understand that the microphone on a mobile is highly sensitive and there is no need to shout down the phone.
"Wrong on so many different levels."
Blog - Contre Dour - Capturing the ordinary for posterity.
Flickr
Such devices exist and can be bought - illegal though ...I'd like a device that would interfere with people's mobile phones. I would only use it on those who don't understand that the microphone on a mobile is highly sensitive and there is no need to shout down the phone.
The laser stuff sounds like a wind-up spun to some gullible reporter.
So if the sensor isn't exposed until the picture is taken they are shining a powerful laser directly into the retina of anyone taking photos? Damn right the lawyer thinks its a good bet, how much compensation is the loss of an eye in the army?
Atavar - Adjective - One who, in reaction to any news or statement, knee-jerks in extreme manner.
"Did you see that Atavar? He knee-jerked so hard its a wonder his shoes aren't in orbit."
It is likely that only a small number of laser types will be used. Dichroic filters will soon appear to deal with the problem.
Yup. Such technology would be years away, plus the R&D costs alone would far exceed decades of compensation payments to blinded masses of paps, plus the fact that by the time such things emerged, sensor technology would have moved on. How do you detect a passive ccd? It would be far cheaper, equally legally contentious, and more plausible (assuming anyone went down the development route in the first place) to issue high powered rifles to anti-pap personnel on the boat.The laser stuff sounds like a wind-up spun to some gullible reporter.
Should such technology be developed, there would be far more lucrative applications than 'Paparazzi -blinding-systems' for such advanced, stabilised, self-targeting laser platforms. By the way, the same weapons team are developing minaturised EMP systems that only affect photographers' equipment...
[I'm surprised that the conspiracy theorists haven't leapt on this one yet, bleating about how the CIA / area 51 folks developed things like this in the sixties]
This device has been deployed - in some cinemas, targeting people who are bootlegging movies (where the sensor is permanently exposed). CMOS or CCD makes no difference, the point is that the sensor is shiny, reflecting back a substantial proportion of the light hitting it.This sounds like nonsense to me. Detects a CCD? What about people using a CMOS sensor? My sensor isn't exposed until the mirror goes up anyway.
The effectiveness of the device is undocumented but the fact that bootlegged movies continue to exist suggests that it's less than perfect.
The technical problems associated with detecting an uncovered sensor, in a few milliseconds, at long range and in full daylight, are such that I doubt that it can be made to work at all effectively ... in any case there are obvious and less than obvious countermeasures to consider, as well as the risk of injuring the innocent.
If you're not living on the edge, you're wasting space
Sorry guv, but such devices are still more likely to feature on shows like "American Inventor". Cinema anti-piracy devices of this type have been demonstrated but all fail by the speed at which they are defeated (at low cost to the pirates). The industry is instead devoting most of its efforts on watermarking and digital-fingerprinting technology, as the return on investment is far higher than simply annoying a few pirates.This device has been deployed - in some cinemas, targeting people who are bootlegging movies (where the sensor is permanently exposed). CMOS or CCD makes no difference, the point is that the sensor is shiny, reflecting back a substantial proportion of the light hitting it.This sounds like nonsense to me. Detects a CCD? What about people using a CMOS sensor? My sensor isn't exposed until the mirror goes up anyway.
If you think about it, you'd be much more likely to find this sort of technology protecting buildings in Langley, Virginia; Vauxhall Cross, London; Lubyanka Square, Moscow; etc than a Playboy's yacht in the Med. So far, the buildings all appear on various photographs without visible security-induced artefacts. [Including photos from each others satellites!]
Nice idea though.
Shiny, a bit like my glasses ... blast, should have gone to Specsavers and bought non refective coatings.... arrghhhhhh I've gone blind, arrghhhhhhh !This device has been deployed - in some cinemas, targeting people who are bootlegging movies (where the sensor is permanently exposed). CMOS or CCD makes no difference, the point is that the sensor is shiny, reflecting back a substantial proportion of the light hitting it.This sounds like nonsense to me. Detects a CCD? What about people using a CMOS sensor? My sensor isn't exposed until the mirror goes up anyway.
The effectiveness of the device is undocumented but the fact that bootlegged movies continue to exist suggests that it's less than perfect.
The technical problems associated with detecting an uncovered sensor, in a few milliseconds, at long range and in full daylight, are such that I doubt that it can be made to work at all effectively ... in any case there are obvious and less than obvious countermeasures to consider, as well as the risk of injuring the innocent.
Cavyslave
Lasers can be used to reveal cameras - it's something that is well advertised.
However, you do have to point the laser at everything you think is a camera and look for a reflective glow, and when you consider that a laser beam is probably 2mm diameter, that is hard enough in a room, at say 2 metres.
Now they expect us to believe that they can scan from a yacht?
You would need a continually scanning prism with a high powered laser (otherwise the reflection would never be detectable) on a gyro, and a separate one which could then lock on to any detected camera.
then it would have to deliberately focus on the camera before 'disabling' it.
Now considering this thing is supposed to be on a moving vessel, and the photographers are hardly likely to be stock still, you're going to need a bit more sophistication in order to track your target.
An E3 sentry could be used, and I think this is the best way to go. Just call up the RAF or USAF, book a sentry for a few weeks, and then you're safe.
Unless there's more than one photographer... better make it 2 sentries, a destroyer, .....oh buggger, let's just get a machine gun
The worst battle cry I ever heard - "Look out! He's got a bigger camera!"
Formerly deddard
It's not just lasers that Mr A has on his yacht. She also has missile and torpedo defence systems.
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
Actually the detection is very easy. You use a DEFOCUSSED source that floods the area you're searching with a short duration pulse of light at a particular wavelength. Then photograph the scene through a monochromatic filter that passes only the light of the wavelength you've used. Reflectors - including camera sensors - show up as "hot spots" on your image.Lasers can be used to reveal cameras - it's something that is well advertised.
However, you do have to point the laser at everything you think is a camera and look for a reflective glow, and when you consider that a laser beam is probably 2mm diameter, that is hard enough in a room, at say 2 metres.
Now you've found the "suspects" you've got the much harder task of directing enough radiation at them to disable their functionality. This requires accurate pointing and tracking of possibly moving targets and is at least 100 times harder than actually locating exposed camera sensors pointed in your direction.
If you're not living on the edge, you're wasting space
Beejaybee is quite right, the beam is quite broad. And that makes it easier to point and track. You guys are just not taking it seriously enough. You should be more concerned about losing your eyesight than your pictures or your sensor. It's just like looking at the sun: you can look at it with your eyeballs momentarily – we've all done it; but now look at it through a telescope (or your telephoto lens) and you're capturing maybe 400-500 times the energy and focusing this onto your retina. In an instant, you have another blind spot! Even if the laser is "eye-safe" (and that's "if" with a big "I" – pardon the pun but eye couldn't resist), it almost certainly isn't safe for your eye behind magnifying optics. Until we know more about the specs (here I go again...) for this thing, live view or EV is the only safe approach for paps. Forget the puns, this is serious stuff, potentially electro-optic warfare on the streets.
Assuming Marvel Inc. is not sponsoring some sort of trans-forum gathering or outing, I am driven to say "What a bode of lorrucks!"
Before anyone else runs about warning of the sky falling in, please have a quick thought about the physics of the gear about which you are fantasising. The behaviour of diffuse lasers operating around 850nm is well researched and well documented. Read about the likely effects of using them at range and over water. Add into your equation some basic economics and the cost effectiveness of these Star Wars solutions compared to other less exotic anti-pap devices (including mahoosive security guards) and you'll see why this stuff would make Q blush. [And if you're thinking, why has this guy assumed it's an IR laser I'd point out the other undesirable features of deep-uv lasers, and you're surely not thinking about visible light lasers - so easy to detect and 'assign blame'!]
Guys, lasers are usually - by their very nature - coherent light sources, and therefore absorbed or deflected by simple filters or dichroics. There are some very specialised lasers which produce polychromatic light, but again a multi-section / multi-layered / multi-coated filter removes the threat. Generally speaking, light (however exotic the source) is light.
So can I suggest that next time you're in the vicinity of a boat-owning oligarch, then put on your RayBans (everyone else will be doing the same) and take a chill pill.
I'm not saying that such things are theoretically impossible, but within the context of this thread I'm also not going to lose any sleep about losing my sight in this way.
This is WAR!!! I suggest Anti-anti papparazzi phasers and photon torpedoes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
