Comments on: The Paparazzi Laser Shield http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/ Former Photography Director Rob Haggart Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:20:08 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Tyler, Chicago http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52477 Tyler, Chicago Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:24:05 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52477 A very rich person got sold some very expensive snake oil. A very rich person got sold some very expensive snake oil.

]]> By: Tim http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52353 Tim Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:51:36 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52353 a lot of technical suggestions here. but, uh, why not just go with the obvious one, don't be a damn paparazzi! a lot of technical suggestions here. but, uh, why not just go with the obvious one, don’t be a damn paparazzi!

]]> By: danny http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52311 danny Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:20:48 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52311 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/ 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/

]]> By: Eric Schmiedl http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52273 Eric Schmiedl Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:52:42 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52273 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 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

]]> By: jimmy http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52265 jimmy Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:02:14 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52265 Yeah,...like the glitterati don't want their pix circulating Yeah,…like the glitterati don’t want their pix circulating

]]> By: craig http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52261 craig Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:56:58 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52261 I'd love to be the guy that sold him this. But I do have a bridge in new york to sell... I’d love to be the guy that sold him this.

But I do have a bridge in new york to sell…

]]> By: craig http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52260 craig Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:54:06 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52260 @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. @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.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52255 Sebastian Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:04:07 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52255 Film film film. Film film film.

]]> By: Gordon Moat http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52248 Gordon Moat Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:05:29 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52248 Next he could get trained sharks ... with laser beams attached. :D Next he could get trained sharks … with laser beams attached. :D

]]> By: dude http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52246 dude Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:18:37 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52246 HAHAHAHA. "The beams can also be activated manually by security guards if they spot a photographer loitering." It's a $10M laser pointer. HAHAHAHA.

“The beams can also be activated manually by security guards if they spot a photographer loitering.”

It’s a $10M laser pointer.

]]> By: mattmattmatt http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52241 mattmattmatt Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:28:06 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52241 No more auto focus. Learn to use the depth of field scale on your camera lens. Hyperfocal distance? No more auto focus. Learn to use the depth of field scale on your camera lens. Hyperfocal distance?

]]> By: John Scherer http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52239 John Scherer Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:13:26 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52239 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. 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.

]]> By: Daf http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52238 Daf Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:12:54 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52238 @liam strain, Or CMOS chip D-SLRs @liam strain,
Or CMOS chip D-SLRs

]]> By: Daf http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52237 Daf Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:07:52 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52237 Doesn't sound very feasible, but even if it does work as others have suggested there are obvious ways past it. Doesn’t sound very feasible, but even if it does work as others have suggested there are obvious ways past it.

]]> By: victor http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52234 victor Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:25:49 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52234 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? 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?

]]> By: Quavondo http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52231 Quavondo Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:15:41 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52231 manual focus. manual focus.

]]> By: liam strain http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/24/the-paparazzi-laser-shield/comment-page-1/#comment-52228 liam strain Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:29:14 +0000 http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=3992#comment-52228 Another good reason to use film. :) Another good reason to use film. :)

]]>