The boat’s most unusual feature is perhaps the anti-paparazzi “shield”:
Infrared lasers detect the electronic light sensors in nearby cameras, known as charge-coupled devices. When the system detects such a device, it fires a focused beam of light at the camera, disrupting its ability to record a digital image.
via Times Online .
Comments 14
Another good reason to use film. :)
[Reply]
Daf Reply:
September 24th, 2009 at 11:12 am
@liam strain,
Or CMOS chip D-SLRs
[Reply]
Tim Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
a lot of technical suggestions here. but, uh, why not just go with the obvious one, don’t be a damn paparazzi!
[Reply]
manual focus.
[Reply]
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 10:15 am ¶Fiction – This might work for a video camera but not a DSLR as the sensor is covered by a shutter/mirror. Also, if we can photograph a person with the sun behind and still have a usable photo, what sort of light are they thinking of shining to spoil the picture?
[Reply]
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 10:25 am ¶Doesn’t sound very feasible, but even if it does work as others have suggested there are obvious ways past it.
[Reply]
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 11:07 am ¶Quavondo is right!
The laser is not detecting the CDD device, thats crazy as it purely a passive device and has no emissions. Its just a light bucket. What this system is detecting is the IR focus assist pulse that is emitted by almost every camera today. So, the simple answer is to manual focus. Or of course, use your film camera, provided it is manual focus.
[Reply]
craig Reply:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
@John Scherer,
No modern camera uses an IR focus assist – it’s notoriously inaccurate and worthless outdoors. The last I saw was a point and shoot 10 years ago. Certainly no camera a pap is using does. AF is all done by edge detecting chips in the camera’s internal lightpath.
[Reply]
No more auto focus. Learn to use the depth of field scale on your camera lens. Hyperfocal distance?
[Reply]
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 11:28 am ¶HAHAHAHA.
“The beams can also be activated manually by security guards if they spot a photographer loitering.”
It’s a $10M laser pointer.
[Reply]
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 12:18 pm ¶Next he could get trained sharks … with laser beams attached. :D
[Reply]
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 1:05 pm ¶Film film film.
[Reply]
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 4:04 pm ¶I’d love to be the guy that sold him this.
But I do have a bridge in new york to sell…
[Reply]
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 5:56 pm ¶Yeah,…like the glitterati don’t want their pix circulating
[Reply]
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 8:02 pm ¶If the system relies on detecting infrared reflections from the IR
filter on the CCD, it won’t work with SLRs where the mirror covers the
CCD most of the time. It’s only good against video cameras,
point’n’shoots, and camera phones.
See here:
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~summetj/cre/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5097774.stm
“the device is unable to block conventional film or the SLR cameras,
preferred by the paparazzi.”
(this system was making the news rounds a few years ago — even the
NYTimes: http://bit.ly/15dsqF — so this could be the first commercial
application of it)
If it relies on detecting retroreflections from the lens — or if the
guy’s just relying on a thug with a nice suit and no neck to aim the
laser — it doesn’t matter whether the camera is film or digital.
Various militaries have had similar devices for decades — the nastier
ones used high power lasers that would blind (or worse) soldiers looking
through binoculars. Basically, the systems sweep a very low-power laser
around. When the laser comes reflecting back to the source (due to some
enemy optics), boom — the system cranks up the power on the laser.
The technical term for this is a dazzler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzler_%28weapon%29
[Reply]
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 4:52 am ¶Screw the laser device. I think this is a WAY better way for them to avoid having their pictures taken…a FULL FACE VISOR. Now…if only Gucci or LV could make one that looks good. Hahah
http://www.facevisor.com/
[Reply]
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 12:20 pm ¶A very rich person got sold some very expensive snake oil.
[Reply]
Posted 29 Sep 2009 at 12:24 pm ¶Post a Comment