What is Digg?84 Comments
- DougTanner, on 10/12/2007, -3/+54This is a bad thing; one of the only weapons we have against police brutality is the video camera. If they succeed in blocking all video cameras, they can operate with almost complete immunity.
- boomerxl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34I'd love to see you pirate a movie with a Nikon F100.
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34Id like to see them block my trusty film Nikon F100
- marksy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25i'd love to see a pirate movie featuring a Nikon F100!
- selphishnerd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26very interesting point, but the idea of police using these machines would be just as controversial as the actual brutality.
- halavais, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Let the camera wars begin. How long before anti-anti-camera-cameras are marketed.
- ana10g, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Yet another reason that film cameras will be around forever.
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21And yet, police brutality still happens.
- LordProx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18About 2 hours I'll have my anti-anti-camera system up on eBay consisting of
1. Decoys. Get there system chasing ghosts.
2. IR Strobe. Get their stuff twitching by sprinkling IR LED low freq strobes
3. Active countermeasures. Laser pointer will blind their CCD - mikebeauchamp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"The current prototype uses visible light and two cameras to find CCDs"
Solution for spies: Stick a visible-light filter infront of the camera. These are extremely common for IR photography and can even be made using a piece of exposed 35mm film. This won't work for pirating films, but if this thing is being marketed towards thrwarting spies... then they'll have no problems getting useful pictures.
Solution for movie pirates: How about putting a big one-way mirror infront of the camera lens? Surely these reflections will completely throw off the sensors looking for the small reflection from the CCD itself.
I'm also under the impression that there is only a single laser that is used to blind the camera. So, use 2 camers at once. Tape a few lens/ccd assemblies right next to your good camcorder..
There are SO many ways to beat something like this, and I only thought about it for maybe 10 minutes. I'm not a spy with government backing, a terrorist with millions of dollars, or even someone who gets paid to pirate movies. My point is, if my lazy-ass can sit here and figure out potential ways to beat this thing that are low/no cost, then I'm POSITIVE the people that they are trying to stop will have no problems figuring out ways to beat this system. But of course, this could be said for basically any system that gets put in place to try to stop certain things.
Infact I'd love to have access to this machine just to try to fool it.. could I get some of that research money too?
These things are cash grabs for researchers, they work on these half-assed things that will probably end up blinding more people than stopping potential spies or movie pirates. Of course, there's no way to actually quantify how many people it actually stops if they ever do get installed.. the only thing you can quantify is how much money these people got paid to come up with this crapola.
Lastly: “If someone videotapes a movie in a theater and then puts it up on the web that night or burns half a million copies to sell on the street – then the movie industry has lost a lot of in-theater revenue.”. I'm sure we all know how much of a joke statements like that are. For you to LOSE money, you had to have originally had posession of it.
Mike - coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Apparently these gizmos have no effect on SLR's, so basically if some guy throws one of these up next to his piece of art that he doesn't want in any photographs, only the pros get a chance to shoot it, while families won't end up being able to take their pictures in front of it.
The only reason I brought up this scenario is that I live near Chicago and the creator of "Cloudgate" (Known as "The Bean" locally), was getting all pissy that people were taking photographs of his sculpture.
I love my Nikon and it's inability to be stopped. At least until they somehow perfect this for SLR's - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Yet another reason that film cameras will be around forever."
Just like daguerreotypes are still around? - zweben, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"All you would have to do is cover the lens until right before the picture is taken."
Yes, that would let you take one photo, but that method wouldn't work on video, which is much more important to them. There isn't much of a piracy market for photos after all.
If I'm understanding the technology though, there may be a simpler solution. A lens hood plus an IR filter for the camera. Unless the beam of concentrated light is coming from somewhere inside the area of the screen, the light could simply be blocked by using a lens hood. If it is coming from behind the screen, it would have to be inferred light, which could simply be blocked with a good IR filter. - Aidenag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8im more worried about this bieng used by orgs other than the MPAA... Imagine if this gets installed in all those parks that our screwed up govt now wants to charge photogs to use......
Or worse yet.. imagine these types of things bieng placed during political events... and my worst of all scenario... the corporations and people doing things soo bad they dont want the chance of it bieng caught on film.. so they do this with entire factories in china, or Central america and so on....
This is just a bad idea, its going to limit freedom of the press for photographers VERY severly...
And yeah i know film is still around, i still own 2 35mm bodies, a 4x6 and a few large format bodies as well.. but considering all of my newspaper & magazine clients these days want digital so i can send it to them 20min after the event/protest/sports game happened.. this REALLY sucks - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Not much. Most pro-photographers will carry SLR cameras.
- dredwolff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Heh, I can think of a couple problems, any sort of SLR camera (digital or film) you can usually put a UV filter (or other filter) on the lens, which effectively changes it's shape. Also, since eyes have lenses, I bet this system scanning and finding your eye and blinding you would be too much of a possible lawsuit hazzard to ever employ this tech in a public place.
- tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6How much do you want to bet that if movie theaters install this, ticket prices will go up even though they say piracy will go down?
- selphishnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8all you would have to do is cover the lens until right before the picture is taken.
- tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I have an idea, how about polarizing filters? Only allow light to pass from the screen, if it's off the side from a laser or whatever, the angle won't match and the filters will block it.
- schmiggyjk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I am so sick of this whole thought process:
"If someone videotapes a movie in a theater and then puts it up on the web that night or burns half a million copies to sell on the street %u2013 then the movie industry has lost a lot of in-theater revenue.%u201D
This is totally off base in my opinion.
While I can only speak for myself and friends of mine, who is to guarantee that all the people who did pirate something would have actually paid for it, and thus, there is an actual loss to the theater.
Sure there are some people who maybe were on the line about seeing something, and a bootleg online changed their mind about going. But If i want to see a movie, I go see it. If its something I am not that apt to go and watch, maybe I will seek other means, or wait for it on VOD.
This "for every copy of X bootlegged or copied we lose Y amount of dollars" is ridiculous.
Pay for your high end copy protection and lighting trickanery, the true pirates will always find a way. - brashquido, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Conspiracy theories asside, I'm more worried about my movie experience and health;
1) If they use visable light to block sensors, it will detract from my movie experience that I've paid money for.
2) If they use lasers in the commercial version, what testing is going to be done to ensure my vision does not have any long term damage from having a laser poked in it? Sure they are going to say it is safe, they stand to make millions from it, and I think we all know where the recording industry would stands on it. Isn't the retina in the human eye reflective? - chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i suspect a polarizing filter would probably stop this from working.
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Like the 55mph speed limits of the 1980's, this is just a bad idea.
- Llan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wow, working at a university but for the movie industry's (claimed) benefit. That must be fulfilling. And so nice for the movie industry as they don't have to pay for their research...
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's not the creator of Cloudgate who is angry, it's the city.
The city wants to charge professionals to take pictures in the park. Which is BS. They pretend it's becuase of something SBC (the donator of much of the stuff in the park) did, but that's just a ruse.
And there are jillions of pictures taken of Cloudgate, SLR or no. One of my coworkers took plenty of pics with his regular digital camera.
http://norum.homeunix.net/~carl/photos/ChicagoSummer2004/ChicagoSummer2004.html
Also, this whole article and the whole idea is a rerun. - celerate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The way the article described it's functionality, I think it wouldn't be that difficult to circumvent.
From the article:
"A camera’s image sensor -- called a CCD -- is “retroreflective,” which means it sends light back directly to its origin rather than scattering it. Retroreflections would probably make it relatively easy to detect and identify video cameras in a darkened theater.
The current prototype uses visible light and two cameras to find CCDs, but a future commercial system might use invisible infrared lasers and photo-detecting transistors to scan for contraband cameras."
And then:
" “The biggest problem is making sure we don’t get false positives from, say, a large shiny earring,” said Summet. “We need to make our system work well enough so that it can find a dot, then test to see if it's reflective, then see if it's retroreflective, and then test to see if it's the right shape.”
Once a scanning laser and photodetector located a video camera, the system would flash a thin beam of visible white light directly at the CCD. This beam – possibly a laser in a commercial version – would overwhelm the target camera with light, rendering recorded video unusable. Researchers say that energy levels used to neutralize cameras would be low enough to preclude any health risks to the operator."
So it seems that just making sure the CCD appears to be the wrong shape on the outside will fool these devices, or at least the early models. People could also wear decoy devices on themselves, the machine would have to have some limit as to how many devices it could block. Frankly the police don't need anything near this complicated to prevent people from taking pictures, bright enough halogen lamps or lasers shining in every direction could just the job just as well. - richardiscool, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Oh man, the Rokkaku just showed up!
- theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Look jackass, the MPAA will bloody well tell you what you like and you will bloody well live with it. And if you have the audacity to bring a video camera in then you quite frankly deserve it if the laser accidentally hits you in the eye instead of the camera. You will be given release forms to sign before you see the movie - and you _will_ see the movie because it is so ***** awesome you will not be able to resist! And if you're one of the few percent who are too stubborn, well you can just live the rest of your life without film entertainment.
- wthnow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"this definitely seems funded by the government. i think the students are trying to do something good, but it will be used for bad things"
Real Genius
http://imdb.com/title/tt0089886/ - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why don't they use the system to find the camera, then escort the guy out?
- JackSpratts, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6‘Course the police will all have them, you know, to maintain order. No more worries about those pesky Rodney king-type situations. Ditto homeland security and the FBI. Naturally, States will make the personal use of these devices illegal - can’t block the cops from turning their cameras on the citizens can we? Certainly not.
So great! Can we build the Police State any faster? Thanks guys!
- js. - absurdist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Who gives a damn about filming movies in theaters... can this technology be used to defeat traffic and speed cameras?
- dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Even if it does stop people bringing a camera into the theater, it wont stop screeners being leaked, and the other ways films are leaked
And to all the people saying "my SLR wont be affected!" : it's not about stills cameras (unless you want to take millions of pictures and redub it).. DV cameras use CCD's as well, remeber.. It's about movie piracy
And if someone has a camera in the projection room, I'm sure it wouldn't be impossible for them to simple shove a bit of tape over the two cameras for the lenght of the movie.. Or even just talk to/bribe the people monitoring the system (Which could be the person in the projection-room thing, not sure though..)
It's an interesting idea, but I doubt it'll stop piracy (Well, it will NOT stop piracy, but I doubt it'll reduce it by much either)
- Ben - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://phantomplate.com/
Kevin Rose's review: http://phantomplate.com/vidpop_techtv.html - SlashNot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4nice. We needed a easier way to block evidence of theft, robbery, murders and the like.
- Computer_Kid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2instead of paying $25.00, cant you just give your plate a good cleaning and give it a couple layers of clear coat.
- aThing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4So soon film cameras will be illegal in the US with the DMCA.
- Informer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Hahhaah, cheap and inexpensive!
Just bring one of these things into the theater, and let it loose. Should another one be operating, it is ruined!
The two will ruin eachother, leaving you ok! - wthnow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just another way to monitor or suppress reporting. Who gives a crap about pirated movies? Its all about controlling the channels of distribution. Glad they didn't have this at the Versus Utah rave. Look at the people smiling who made it too. Technology of oppression. yay! :(
- DjDimitrious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah, they had a beta version of this at Gatech going for a while.. about a year ago. My brother's a grad student at Gatech and this project was underway in the office next to his. Neat Stuff.
- el_jefe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ zweben
"There isn't much of a piracy market for photos after all."
Isn't much of a market?
People use photographs everyday in flyers or ads for their business, for their websites, or for whatever and do not pay for the right to use the photograph. But when you do not have a huge organization like the MPAA or RIAA making a huge deal over it, then no one pays attention. There is a huge problem with piracy of copyright material of any medium, not just movies and music.
And as far as the technology preventing people from taking photographs inside a venue? They already do that, without this technology. The American Airlines Center in Dallas, will not let you take a lens in over 4" in length or "professional cameras". Why is that? So that from the seats you can not take a better picture than they want to sell to you or someone else, thus "cheating" them out of revenue.
Sounds to me like this technology's purpose is to be used in theaters, preventing people from recording the movie with a video camera.
As someone who makes a living from the sale of my copyrighted photos, i am all for this. They would never use this or be able to use this technology to prevent photos of National parks, because "we" as the people of the U.S. own those parks. Now, private property, like say, a privately owned lighthouse, I can see them using. Since if i wanted to sale a picture of a privately owned lighthouse under current copyright law, I would have to get a property release from the owners, otherwise they are entitled to a percentage of money i make from the sale of images of their lighthouse.
- theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Of course the potential for abuse is through the roof. Abu Grahibs of the future will be fitted with these to minimize the 'collateral damage', police will find an excuse to use it to prevent police brutality... i mean to prevent police brutality from being caught on tape. Just about every commercial enterprise will want to make sure you pay to take a picture of just about anything. It doesn't matter if the picture is prevented from being taken, all that matters is that the system can alert that a camera is present.
Obviously aliens in their UFO's will want to license this technology too and im guessing many governments will have 101 creative uses for it.
Thats if it actually works, which is very unlikely - you just need to disguise the lens well enough, cover it, or even just use a film camera. I think what this will do however is fuel the search for a viable camera detection technology using a combination of these ideas plus things like electromagnetic signatures of common electronics products and components, mandatory RFID on camera equipment etc. - RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wouldn't a polarizing filter help to reduce some of the retroreflectivity of the CCD? You could come up with some elaborate ways to block this... Spies in particular could trick out their equipment so this was not an issue.
I think that serious pirates will laugh at this. Already they are finding ways to get pretty decent video cameras into movie theaters, and telesyncing the audio. You think they are afraid of a stupid box beaming white light at them? - Johnbinarystar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is just plain evil. They grin while they goest to the dark regions.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1turgor:
This has nothing to do with CCDs. The article is misleading. CCDs aren't retroreflective anyway. Something that is retroreflective looks like a cat's eye (seems to gather all light in the dark and thus glow). Tri-corner (retroreflective) objects like reflective tape are even sometimes called "cat's eye" reflectors.
The works because anything with a focusing lens tends to reflect lite you shine at it back at where it came from. This is because you just need to hit one reflective surface that faces you, like the first convex lens in the system.
In an SLR (digital or no) even if the light didn't reflect off a lens, it would enter the camera, reflect off the objective glass and come back out to the source.
I would have thought the idea that a CCD was reflective at all (let alone retroreflective) would have been easily scotched by the point that any light which is reflected isn't captured and is therefore useless for capturing images with a sensor. You design the sensor to absorb light and turn it into electricity, not to reflect it. So it is as un-reflective as they can manage to make it. - mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've read something similar based on the "flash" from photography... it would counter flash from behind the scene when the picture snapped. Still, this could be refined to pick up the reflective prism in regular cameras after a few years of heavy use.
What about Cats? they have really reflective eyes... what would happen to them?? - Metal_Hurlant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If this becomes popular, someone is definitely going to figure out a way to make CCD cameras not retroreflective, probably as a little filter you mount on your lens (between polarizers and one-way mirrors, there's may already be something out there that'd work.)
What the RIAA really needs to do is to discover Minovsky particles (1). But then the obvious risk is that movie theaters all over the world might be overtaken by giant mobile suits piloted by angry kids.
Oh well. can't stop progress. especially if it leads to giant robots trampling helpless people.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Century_Technology#Minovsky_Physics - jmnormand, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1on that note i wonder if this tech could be used to counter speeding cameras and other cctv systems. i would suspect most of the sytems being installed in london and the like are digital. also this would be a huge boon for thieves as they could easly defeat security cameras from a distance with out any direct access to the system.
- Toloran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sounds like the Pap-blaster out of the story "The Free Lunch" by spider robinson (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812540220/sr=1-3/qid=1150677498/ref=sr_1_3/103-0363490-1112649?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books).
For those who haven't read the book, the pap-blaster was a device that did exactly the same thing. Its creator (who is an important character in the books past) created it for celebrities so that they wouldn't have to worry about the press intruding on their privacy (since it blinded any cameras that came close).
The same technology (as mentioned in the book) was modified so that it could find and detect peoples eyes and tthen use low powered lasers to create illusions. - eigen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are already some methods available for defeating this...I believe they use some technologies
from this company http://www.cdm-optics.com/site/
The military has been interested in reducing retro-reflectivity for a while ... ..think sensors over the whole EM spectrum -
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is