If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Shutterbugger)   Russian billionaire installs a laser-based anti-photo shield on his new mega-yacht. Nothing to sea here   (amateurphotographer.co.uk) divider line 174
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

26916 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Sep 2009 at 5:09 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-09-21 04:45:13 PM
What a laser powered anti-photographic shield may look like;
i36.photobucket.com
 
2009-09-21 05:01:44 PM
Meh. If he was a real Russian billionaire oligarch with a mega-yacht, he'd be able to afford real sharks as a delivery system for his anti-paparazzi laser beam.
 
2009-09-21 05:14:33 PM
That's like $30 million.
 
2009-09-21 05:15:11 PM
Reagan was a genius.
 
2009-09-21 05:16:25 PM
I need this for my car.
 
2009-09-21 05:16:41 PM
Once again, Science Fiction predicts the future.
 
2009-09-21 05:17:36 PM
System detects the IR beams that modern cameras use for range and focus, and fires a beam of light toward the source to disrupt the light-gathering aperture.

The article lists several folks who claim that the light-beams from the system could be counted as tortious interference with property and give rise to a claim of monetary damages.

I highly doubt that, since it's not interfering with the individual's property at all, merely providing more light to it. Unless Britain's courts are even more screwed up than those in the U.S., the HMS Lazerbeam should be OK. Fark the photographers anyway.
 
2009-09-21 05:17:58 PM
Probably better-off not getting unsolicited pics of powerfull Russians. They tend to kill journalists they don't ya know.

Hmmm...maybe we could get Rush to move his show to Russia for a year.
 
2009-09-21 05:18:11 PM
The article that this article was based on says the yacht will also have a missile defense system.
 
2009-09-21 05:18:23 PM
www.blogcdn.com

/hot like a popcorn laser
 
2009-09-21 05:19:03 PM
Approves

bradley.chattablogs.com
 
2009-09-21 05:19:16 PM
Time for the paparazzi to knock the tech down a notch and go analog.
 
2009-09-21 05:19:53 PM
I lol'd at cretinbob's picture
 
2009-09-21 05:19:58 PM
Damned paparazzi will be forced to use non-digital cameras and manually focus the shot. Oh the humanity.

JC
 
2009-09-21 05:20:00 PM
rriiiigggggghhhhhht
 
2009-09-21 05:20:49 PM
cefm: System detects the IR beams that modern cameras use for range and focus, and fires a beam of light toward the source to disrupt the light-gathering aperture.

The article lists several folks who claim that the light-beams from the system could be counted as tortious interference with property and give rise to a claim of monetary damages.

I highly doubt that, since it's not interfering with the individual's property at all, merely providing more light to it. Unless Britain's courts are even more screwed up than those in the U.S., the HMS Lazerbeam should be OK. Fark the photographers anyway.


Sounds to me like manual mode on an SLR would defeat this.
 
2009-09-21 05:20:53 PM
I have a hard time feeling sorry for paparazzi. Fark 'em.
 
2009-09-21 05:21:12 PM
FTA: The problem is that the press will say there are no private places on the ocean, as anyone can see you if you are on the deck.
So I can't take pictures of your hot wife through your fence, but if I go upstairs and do it then you have no grounds to be upset, as the fence isn't high enough. Right?
 
2009-09-21 05:22:57 PM
Sounds like bullshiat to me. A DSLR doesn't fire a lazor beam or anything like that. Autofocus works with edge detection and even if it didn't, manual focus at a distant target is not that challenging.
 
2009-09-21 05:23:21 PM
What, no pics of the yacht??!!
 
2009-09-21 05:23:22 PM
So is getting around this as simple as ::gasp:: using manual focus? If all it does is detect the range finding/focusing system of the camera, just disable those systems. Somehow, I don't think Mr. Rich Russian thought his cunning plan all the way through.

/Fark the paparazzi
 
2009-09-21 05:24:11 PM
The report added: '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.

I can say, as an engineer, this claim is impossible. Neither CCDs, nor any other imager, emits any detectable radiation at the target. Without a way to detect cameras, there's no automated system. This "high tech system" can't be anything more than a guy pointing a glorified laser pointer at people.
 
2009-09-21 05:25:42 PM
I have a hard time believing that this system will be effective. If you can see the yacht with your eyes, there'll be a way to take a photo of it.
 
2009-09-21 05:25:45 PM
Pics or it didn't happen.
 
2009-09-21 05:26:15 PM
Wouldn't this IR laser only defeat a camera's auto-focus ability? I'm pretty sure a professional photographer would be able to overcome this by focusing manually.

/could be thinking of an anti-photo thing I read about someplace else.
 
2009-09-21 05:26:35 PM
The owner of the company I work for just got a new boat too.

i33.tinypic.com

Came with a matching semi for towing.
 
2009-09-21 05:26:43 PM
Picture, or it did not happen.
 
2009-09-21 05:26:53 PM
I want to shoot lasers at him, then we can be laser pals!
 
2009-09-21 05:26:56 PM
cefm: System detects the IR beams that modern cameras use for range and focus, and fires a beam of light toward the source to disrupt the light-gathering aperture.

The article lists several folks who claim that the light-beams from the system could be counted as tortious interference with property and give rise to a claim of monetary damages.

I highly doubt that, since it's not interfering with the individual's property at all, merely providing more light to it. Unless Britain's courts are even more screwed up than those in the U.S., the HMS Lazerbeam should be OK. Fark the photographers anyway.


In the same way that a gun merely provides more bullets to your body.
 
2009-09-21 05:27:06 PM
johnnyTex: What, no pics of the yacht??!!

i221.photobucket.com
 
2009-09-21 05:28:23 PM
i37.tinypic.com
 
2009-09-21 05:29:14 PM
Sitting by the phone, waiting for the call...

upload.wikimedia.org

Does NOT approve!
 
2009-09-21 05:29:15 PM
Savoir-Faire: cefm: System detects the IR beams that modern cameras use for range and focus, and fires a beam of light toward the source to disrupt the light-gathering aperture.

The article lists several folks who claim that the light-beams from the system could be counted as tortious interference with property and give rise to a claim of monetary damages.

I highly doubt that, since it's not interfering with the individual's property at all, merely providing more light to it. Unless Britain's courts are even more screwed up than those in the U.S., the HMS Lazerbeam should be OK. Fark the photographers anyway.

Sounds to me like manual mode on an SLR would defeat this.


I was gonna say a "Polaroid Sun 660" (ultrasonic ranging FTW)...

/has several, purchased from Goodwill...
//robotics...
 
2009-09-21 05:29:23 PM
Oznog: The report added: '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.

I can say, as an engineer, this claim is impossible. Neither CCDs, nor any other imager, emits any detectable radiation at the target. Without a way to detect cameras, there's no automated system. This "high tech system" can't be anything more than a guy pointing a glorified laser pointer at people.


I remember reading about some people working on a system that detected the lens of the camera, I don't recall whether actively or passively. In their case, it was just to detect surveillance and locate the person doing it, not defeat it.
 
2009-09-21 05:30:37 PM
Jument: Sounds like bullshiat to me. A DSLR doesn't fire a lazor beam or anything like that. Autofocus works with edge detection and even if it didn't, manual focus at a distant target is not that challenging.

Oznog: I can say, as an engineer, this claim is impossible. Neither CCDs, nor any other imager, emits any detectable radiation at the target.

The way I understood it is that it isn't detecting any radiation emitted from the CCD. Rather, the system emits its own radiation and watches for reflections off the CCD, then fires a laser at the CCD to blind it.

I've never heard of such a thing, but it doesn't sound totally implausible.
 
2009-09-21 05:31:08 PM
Hey! Nobody pay any attention to me!
Ignore Me!
 
2009-09-21 05:33:06 PM
MIguy: The owner of the company I work for just got a new boat too.



Came with a matching semi for towing.


He likes to get out there in nature, huh?
 
2009-09-21 05:33:11 PM
AlwaysRightBoy: johnnyTex: What, no pics of the yacht??!!

i221.photobucket.com


That's a bloody nice yachit.
 
2009-09-21 05:33:18 PM
Jacque said it. Jeez, if the crapparazi cannot take the "Analog step", and then scan the image, perhaps a future with "McNuggets" could prove more lucrative.
 
2009-09-21 05:33:42 PM
cefm: System detects the IR beams that modern cameras use for range and focus, and fires a beam of light toward the source to disrupt the light-gathering aperture.

Only partly correct. Passive autofocus emits no IR. Active autofocus does. SLRs as mentioned above are not affected. If the system exists -- there was a discussion about this here years ago when it was invented (or the invention and proposed product announced). It did supposedly see the sensor the camera used to take pictures. SLRs were pointed out as not vulnerable then.

Look at the front of your camera. If there's nothing but a lens, there's no active autofocus. Since most cameras don't use that any more, a system detecting that would be not so useful.

There are IR cutoff filters.
 
2009-09-21 05:34:22 PM
Laser is easy to filter, and these in TFA can be proven to not be eye-safe.

/yes, I do happen to be a certified laser technician
 
2009-09-21 05:34:37 PM
Fuyugai: FTA: The problem is that the press will say there are no private places on the ocean, as anyone can see you if you are on the deck.
So I can't take pictures of your hot wife through your fence, but if I go upstairs and do it then you have no grounds to be upset, as the fence isn't high enough. Right?


Fuyugai.. where do we even start? Let's begin with "what is backyard personal property to the ocean"

Wait..
Waaiiittt......

Answer: Not even close to a discussion. Go get drunk. It will sharpen your senses.
 
2009-09-21 05:34:40 PM
Gawdzila: he way I understood it is that it isn't detecting any radiation emitted from the CCD. Rather, the system emits its own radiation and watches for reflections off the CCD, then fires a laser at the CCD to blind it.

The only way it could do that is after the first picture was taken. In an SLR, the mirror flips up to expose the film/ccd to light. Wouldn't it be easy enough to make a filter for your lens to block that particular wavelength of light used by the anti-camera sensor?
 
2009-09-21 05:35:00 PM
dillengest: In the same way that a gun merely provides more bullets to your body.

Not really.
I believe that the laser doesn't actually damage the CCD. It only blinds it temporarily.


jjorsett: I have a hard time believing that this system will be effective. If you can see the yacht with your eyes, there'll be a way to take a photo of it.

Probably.
The way they described it, it only works on the CCDs in digital cameras -- film cameras probably work fine.
 
2009-09-21 05:36:26 PM
He's got money to spend since Chelsea got banned from transfers, I guess.
 
2009-09-21 05:36:57 PM
for good or for awesome: Hey! Nobody pay any attention to me!
Ignore Me!


i249.photobucket.com
 
2009-09-21 05:37:29 PM
MIguy: The owner of the company I work for just got a new boat too.
Came with a matching semi for towing.


APPROVES
http://tinyurl.com/kqg9h7
(copy and paste)
 
2009-09-21 05:38:13 PM
not that he/she will get much in the way of compensation unless they do [prove loss].

If only there were some device with which you could record events...
 
2009-09-21 05:38:22 PM
What would make more sense is a series of motion detectors or even just simple spotter security guards that turn on what amounts to infrared floodlights all around the ship. Most digital cameras including SLRs don't have very good built-in IR filters and the exposure will essentially be blown out.
 
2009-09-21 05:39:21 PM
top.bullfrog: The only way it could do that is after the first picture was taken. In an SLR, the mirror flips up to expose the film/ccd to light.

True.
Then again, I was only talking about what I understood the article to have said -- reporters frequently get technical details wrong. Someone else mentioned that there might be a system to detect lens reflections. I don't know how plausible that is, but it would certainly work better.


top.bullfrog: Wouldn't it be easy enough to make a filter for your lens to block that particular wavelength of light used by the anti-camera sensor?

Yeah it probably would, but I suppose it is also possible that the people who designed the system are using a wavelength outside the normal range for IR filters. Speculation is difficult on such a unique system.
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report