What is Digg?253 Comments
- NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+294I want to give a bunch of shirt out that say "I Eat Dick" or something pretty offensive around Christmas. It would result in the most priceless family pictures ever.
- tianfan, on 10/10/2007, -13/+207how does the iphone see the lightning, yet the camera that took this photo of the iphone and the girl not see it?
- 0two, on 10/10/2007, -23/+170This would definitely be good for the movie industry. They could implant a huge message saying "LATER PIRATES" on the movie screen so that those camera recordings would be useless. I wonder if the MPAA is looking into this, because they really should be.
- eric0213, on 10/10/2007, -3/+125Couldn't you just put a filter over the lens of the camera that would block out the high frequency lights?
- Otto, on 10/10/2007, -2/+89High quality digital cameras use an IR cut filter to eliminate that sort of thing. Cheap ones, like your camera phone and webcam and virtually all consumer level digital cameras, don't have such a filter. So the main picture was taken with a good camera. The iPhone is not a good camera.
Since the CCD in these cameras is sensitive in the infrared range (and renders it as white due to the intensity), all you need is infrared reflective paint or dyes and voila, hidden images on your shirt. - fragsta, on 10/10/2007, -7/+62I can see all the slogans now, a favourite of course being:
"I'm in ur camera, editin ur fotoze." - xtmno3, on 10/10/2007, -4/+58The movie idea sounds pretty damn interesting. What they could do is put random garbage over most of the screen, but include the movie location the reel was sold to right in the middle so any attempt to distribute it would result in that location cracking down on it in the future.
- HalFTW, on 10/10/2007, -5/+44Magic.
- Fosef, on 10/10/2007, -0/+35Gonna have to take a digital camera shopping with you now to make sure you aren't buying the "I eat Dick" shirt that NinjaBoy is having made for his family.
- masterstan, on 12/06/2008, -2/+33So now high schoolers can wear shirts to school about sex, drugs, and rock & roll...
- CraigJ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+29probably very easy to defeat with the proper type of filter.
- LR2_, on 10/10/2007, -13/+41How come the camera that took the main picture does not see the "invisible" ink?
- gregdigg, on 10/10/2007, -8/+35Was that the best example they think of to promote it? A lightning bolt coming from a cloud?
- fanas, on 10/10/2007, -4/+31Yes, you're sick
- BESTenemy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+28Great for voicing protest, while trying to blend in with supporters.
- Mouser58907, on 10/10/2007, -4/+29Or you could get one of the pre ripped dvd's. Who the ***** downloads hand videotapes films?!?!
- PFinn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24Imagine if this were possible to do with graffiti... you could write all over landmarks or famous places or whatever and have no one notice until they went to look at the photos from their trip
- bodd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+27your an evil bloody genius you are
- johnn11238, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24wow, you just paraphrased the last half of that article. congrats.
- rspeed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23Yes.
- Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21I'd put a picture of a ghost on mine.
- aikimann, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Is anyone else tired of people submitting comments without reading the others first?
It would make the comment lists about 50% shorter - redforty, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Dude, if you're using a digital camera, you would see the results right away. If you're using a film camera, you have nothing to worry about.
- toganet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Somebody buy that model a sandwich.
- triblinator, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20I went into the comments section hoping to find an answer to that question. :/
- XxIronhidexX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21That chick needs to eat something.
- OwdenBowden, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24Actually is totally ***** up because I can see this being abused by many in a variety of forms. An example is via the company's website where you have the mona lisa on the wall that everyone is talking Pictures of (the do not see the projection) but when they get home they have Monalisa.com just over her head. Now just imagine they do this with everything - all art, events anything you can think of but without the public knowing they are tampering with the advertised image. So in the case above - you spent a lot of money on a vacation and took the most amazing pictures only to have them ***** up because someone wanted to advertise their product without you knowing.
Also - not long before they figure out the right spectrum so that you actually see it but it falls into the subliminal area of your brain. That is the real scary part - any eventually it will happen. - Manuelmty, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18besides, you can actually see the paint even before hitting the shutter in the preview LCD right?
- JamesWilson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17i want a shirt with that ink that says "THIS PICTURE OF ME USED WITHOUT MY PERMISSION"
- rspeed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17There isn't a spectrum of light that's visible to your subconscious mind that's invisible to your conscious mind. They use the same eyes and get the same information. You sound like a conspiracy nut.
- blacklint, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16In what way are green screens ugly? You don't see them in movies. That's the... whole point.
- capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20um, no. If they can get this in a bottle imagine the use for graphitti. Just apply directly to a highly photographed object.
- loconet, on 10/10/2007, -8/+23so how did they take the bigger picture? 35mm/scan?
- GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13He's right. Almost all dedicated cameras have "hot mirrors", which will filter out IR and UV light. This tech is useless unless you're using a cheap camera phone.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12"This would definitely be good for the movie industry."
That's exactly what I was thinking the second I checked out the original page. But instead of some message on the screen, it just whites everything out when viewed with a digicam. It would make camming in theaters completely useless. - MacGyver2210, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13that's graffiti where you put up a grid of lines first and use it like graph paper, right?
- Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Most likely because the IR filters in phones are thin and not good at all (hence you can see the hidden image) whereas a more professional camera would use a better and thicker filter to completely block out the UV light.
- mapez, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15The question is, who actually watches shaky camera movies? Yeah the MPAA could use it.. but really who watches shaky cam.
- rakstar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13it's a new iphone feature
- MemeWarrior, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1199.9% of the release groups out there don't give a ***** about The Pirate Bay.
- Bahimiron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Perhaps they meant to say subluminal.
- KnightMareInc, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15if your eyes cant see the image, how is it subliminal?
- akatherder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11I was wondering the same thing. I just assumed the picture was taken with a non-digital camera or they put a filter on the camera (as people mentioned above).
- ngandy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12because photoshop is easy to use these days
- csb92376, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Isn't it similar to TV commercials for new TV's showing off their awesome picture clarity ... "look how clear that TV is honey! We need to get one"
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubblegum."
*Puts on shades... sees through your ***** haX... wrestles a black guy in the alley...* - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14and No.
- psylemon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8do you mean that someone utilized Adobe (R) Photoshop (R) to edit this photograph?
- DarkDx, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Dugg for "the iphone is not a good camera"
/sarcasm - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7No, YOU can't own information.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 252 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is