digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Invisible flash takes photos without the glare

newscientist.com — A camera system that uses infrared and ultraviolet light to illuminate scenes produces sharp, natural images without the dazzling effect of a normal flash.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jul 17, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

51 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • kubedawg, on 07/17/2009, -1/+35http://tinyurl.com/26dwyj
  • cryonix, on 07/17/2009, -0/+25They failed to mention another important effect of IR light. You to see through clothes depending on the UV properties of the material worn.

    um... NSFW: http://www.impactlab.com/2008/11/28/the-x-ray-visi ...
    EDIT source: http://www.davidsteele.com/X-ray-Vision-Camera-Len ...
    I've experienced the same effect without the fancy filter and instead used 3.5" floppy disk material or a piece of exposed Film Negative (appears all black/burgundy)
  • everyonegohome, on 07/17/2009, -0/+12the peeping tom's life just got a little bit easier
  • smackydoodle, on 07/17/2009, -0/+11I can do that easily in Photoshop, sooooo send me a picture and I'll send you an invoice.
  • thegools, on 07/17/2009, -0/+8I love how people totally disregard the fact that the technology will improve with time.

    "But it's not exactly like my sci-fi mind imagined it! It's Sucks! Abandon...All...Endeavors!"

    Pretty kickass discovery IMO.
  • Anand999, on 07/17/2009, -0/+8On just click the link that says "See an image gallery explaining the dark flash system" in the posted article.
  • inactive, on 07/17/2009, -0/+8Pervs must be rushing to pre order this.. now they can snap all they want without being caught
  • Jektal, on 07/17/2009, -0/+7Linked from the middle of TFA: http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn17468-dark-f ...
  • zacharywoods, on 07/17/2009, -0/+7Time for pictures, please put on sunscreen!
  • fxu1989, on 07/17/2009, -0/+5That never gets old.

    I laugh every time.
  • LostOnion, on 07/17/2009, -0/+5The picture of the owl looked great.
  • crh3f, on 07/17/2009, -0/+5wow. Stay off the meth, dude.

    blhack didn't like the pics...it's an opinion (a little stronly worded, yes, but still an opinion.) I happen to disagree with it as well...the end result is much better than a long exposure shot that is blurry. However, it's definitely not going to win any photo awards.
  • TMWO, on 07/17/2009, -0/+5*Paparazzis
  • DrKnowitall, on 07/17/2009, -0/+5Looks fine in the pics. Long exposure time will definitely make it blurry.
    Just wonder how far the dark flash can reach.
  • hays, on 07/17/2009, -0/+4The project page, with the SIGGRAPH paper
    http://cs.nyu.edu/~fergus/research/dark_flash.html
  • rento, on 07/17/2009, -2/+6Go to the bathroom and use you mother make up, she will understand...
  • merdok, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3hehe I've not LOL'ed like that in weeks :)
  • no8286, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3I would PAY to see myself without freckles. I wonder what I would look like.
  • ihate2regist, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3or just use an umbrella
  • blhack, on 07/17/2009, -5/+8I'm sorry, but the resulting photo looks like absolute and complete ASS.

    This might be useful for people popping off photos with their camera phones, not likely that it will be useful for much else.
  • blhack, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3Good one.

    Except for that part where the combined photo is ***** covered in fringing and compression artifacts. In other words, it looks like complete ASS.
  • davewelsh79, on 07/17/2009, -0/+2Wasn't this how the Incredible Hulk was created?
  • nextekcarl, on 07/17/2009, -0/+2I was expecting a Rick Roll or something, but that was actually good.
  • skidork, on 07/17/2009, -1/+3Yes there is?
  • gdha, on 07/17/2009, -1/+2Hmm...interesting read.
  • uptwolait, on 07/18/2009, -0/+1Sshhhh!!!
  • FredFredrickson, on 07/17/2009, -0/+1Haha, yeah, I can do that in Photoshop as well. I retouch stuff as part of my job. Send the image to me and I'll do it for less than Smacky. :D
  • nextekcarl, on 07/17/2009, -0/+1Sadly, sometimes they do.
  • RealmDown, on 07/17/2009, -0/+1Flash. The *flash* didn't happen .... oh nevermind, they can't ALL be gems...

  • firebhaal, on 07/18/2009, -0/+1there it is :)
  • blhack, on 07/17/2009, -0/+1Perhaps. I'm talking about the really horrible chromatic abberation you see all over the photo.

    This is a result of the technique that they are using to correct the colors.
  • MooseOfReason, on 07/17/2009, -0/+1You want a picture of a vampire?
  • thefreak, on 07/17/2009, -1/+2http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/dn17468 ...
    It looks pretty damn good.
  • blhack, on 07/17/2009, -1/+2Thank you for repeating exactly what I said.
  • HavocXphere, on 07/18/2009, -0/+1UV light?

    To have a decent effect, it would have to be a fairly bright source. And UV damages the retina. So instead of *temporarily* blinding people with normal flashes, they plan to use something that would, if used enough, permanently blind them. wtf
  • colosis, on 07/17/2009, -4/+5heres the article on engadget with pictures
    http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/17/invisible-flash ...
  • MooseOfReason, on 07/17/2009, -1/+2Now models will have to put on sunscreen to have pictures of them taken in front of a green screen.

    Not that there's a problem with that.
  • inactive, on 07/20/2009, -0/+0There's no hope left for the human race.
  • Zomgondo, on 07/17/2009, -2/+2Agreed about the quality, but it might be possible to get good black and white shots out of it.
  • grzelakc, on 07/17/2009, -2/+2Either they tested this in a morgue or color reproduction of this algorithm still leaves a lot to be desired.
  • specialK16, on 07/17/2009, -1/+1hmm now that you mention it. screw it, it's friday and I'm to eager to finish my work day.
  • FredFredrickson, on 07/17/2009, -1/+1You didn't click through to the second and third images, did you?
  • ebcreasoner, on 07/17/2009, -3/+2People still rickroll? WTF?
  • ajv205, on 07/17/2009, -3/+2its about time progress is made
  • specialK16, on 07/17/2009, -4/+3"hey look at me, i am professional photographer and this *****, even thought it will satisfy 90% of the customers out there, it's not up to my level so I will just call it ***** so I can feel cool and hip about my job"
  • holysin, on 07/17/2009, -5/+2Coming soon to a speed camera near you? (no flash = no photo blocking spray = more revenue :( )
  • nurbsenvi, on 07/17/2009, -8/+3Rejoice Paparaches!
  • inactive, on 07/17/2009, -8/+1Are you stupid? look at the combined photo, that's the end result you ass. Can you even ***** read this? CAN YOU? ffs.

    http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn17468-dark-f ...
  • skidork, on 07/17/2009, -14/+6That's dumb...Removing the sensor filter automatically makes an unrealistic image. Plus, some "after-images" might be too blurry or underexposed to make any sense.
  • nesstheking1, on 07/17/2009, -16/+2No picture of it?

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.