DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> No More Pictures? Digicam blocking technology
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 24 of 24, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/19/2006 11:00:35 PM · #1
Link.
06/19/2006 11:03:12 PM · #2
Originally posted by faidoi:

Link.

Welll... back to film. LOL!
06/19/2006 11:06:00 PM · #3
There are some caveats, according to Summet. Current camera-neutralizing technology may never work against single-lens-reflex cameras, which use a folding-mirror viewing system that effectively masks its CCD except when a photo is actually being taken.

WOOT! :-)
06/19/2006 11:07:45 PM · #4
Seems like it would be completely ineffective for dSLRs. The sensor (for which they are expecting to find reflectivity) is hidden behind the shutter except during exposure.

But I'm guessing they are really after video cameras more than stills. Because you tend to hold a video camera still for long periods of time (time to sense, verify and neutralize it). Still cameras you tend to point and shoot and point elsewhere and shoot again. Too much movement.
06/19/2006 11:08:20 PM · #5
Too slow. :-(
06/20/2006 02:28:45 PM · #6
Very interesting technology that will be accepted with open arms by the movie industry. However it may be a lot of money spent for naught if the pirates simply switch to film instead of digital cameras.

And the possibilities for abuse are disturbing. People or companies that simply don't want their picture taken could defeat legitimate photographers in areas where their picture taking is good intentioned and 100% legal.

And I wish they were a little more forthcoming about what the system would do to a suspected camera. The term "neutralize" isn't very specific. You could neutralize a clandestine video cam's usefulness in a darkened theatre by simply shining a visible light no stronger than a small flashlight into it. Or you could neutralize it by shining an invisible laser beam into it that was stong enough to vaporize the entire camera, and maybe it's operator too.


06/20/2006 02:31:18 PM · #7
ok.....so I guess its time to clean off the dust on my film camera
06/20/2006 02:34:53 PM · #8
Originally posted by digitalpins:

ok.....so I guess its time to clean off the dust on my film camera


or just stick with the dSLR... as stated in the article, the technology is worthless against them, because the CCD is hidden behind the mirror until the shutter release is pressed. This technology is mostly aimed at video cameras and I suspect camera phones will be a likely target also.
06/20/2006 02:59:03 PM · #9
Originally posted by The Article:

“Movie piracy is a $3 billion-a-year problem,” Clawson maintains— a problem said to be especially acute in Asia. “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 think that's a load of crap. Movie industry comes up with ridiculous numbers and theoretical losses to get the government involved in passing laws that benefit them.

My opinion of course. :)
06/20/2006 03:18:58 PM · #10
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by The Article:

“Movie piracy is a $3 billion-a-year problem,” Clawson maintains— a problem said to be especially acute in Asia. “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 think that's a load of crap. Movie industry comes up with ridiculous numbers and theoretical losses to get the government involved in passing laws that benefit them.

My opinion of course. :)


I think your opinion is a good one. Really, who wants to watch a crappy capture from a camcorder handheld in a theatre. Definitely not worth the two days of download time it'd take to download a full-length feature movie. Really, the movie industry is wasting money trying to fix a problem that doesn't need to be fixed.

Now, if only Hollywood would quit producing crap, they might make more money. :-)
06/20/2006 03:29:56 PM · #11
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by The Article:

“Movie piracy is a $3 billion-a-year problem,” Clawson maintains— a problem said to be especially acute in Asia. “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 think that's a load of crap. Movie industry comes up with ridiculous numbers and theoretical losses to get the government involved in passing laws that benefit them.

My opinion of course. :)


Agreed...filthy bastards
06/20/2006 03:33:06 PM · #12
I belive that 3 billion migh5t be a little high but if you have ever traveled to anywhere in Aisa there are pirated movies everywhere. I have dine two tours in Iraq and both times you could get good quality copies of movies sometimes before they even came out in theaters. So it may not be that bad in the states, but for 2 dollars you can get a movie that is brand new in Iraq.
06/20/2006 03:37:51 PM · #13
Originally posted by liv4him330:

I belive that 3 billion migh5t be a little high but if you have ever traveled to anywhere in Aisa there are pirated movies everywhere. I have dine two tours in Iraq and both times you could get good quality copies of movies sometimes before they even came out in theaters. So it may not be that bad in the states, but for 2 dollars you can get a movie that is brand new in Iraq.

My personal take on this is, So what? The movie industry already generates an obscene amount of money. Out of the grand total, how much is this really hurting them?

Not much. Creating a Star Wars anti-camera system is a knee-jerk reaction made more out of ego than sense.

My $.02
06/20/2006 04:37:15 PM · #14
In principle the technology would work to stop digital video. but consider the facts they state. the camera has to be in the same position for a good amount of time in order for a scanner to locate it in a big room. second that the ccd must be directed right at the screen in order for the light to be reflected back directly. you could still use digital video so long as you point your camera at a slight angle away from the screen... Right?
06/20/2006 04:47:34 PM · #15
The article specifically states "CCD". Would it work on a CMOS sensor too?
06/20/2006 04:51:29 PM · #16
same thing. ccd is the typical referance term for the same thing in a scanner. cmos the name for the same technology in a camera but applied in a matrix grid instead of a scanners array.
06/21/2006 10:25:16 AM · #17
If it wasn't $9 to see ONE BLEEPING MOVIE IN THE THEATER I'd go to the movies instead of downloading them. If I feel a movie is worth my money, I usually buy it from the local used media shop for $5-10. Because I am a starving college student and it shouldn't cost me half a week's worth of groceries to sit in a theater for an hour and a half with a lot of loud obnoxious people to see another crappy movie Hollywood cranks out. Boo hoo the movie industry is losing money, Mr. Director can't buy his third private jet oh noes! Must Rip Off More People Who Can't Afford To See Movies In Theaters On A Regular Basis!

Sorry, this is rather off-topic and ranty, I'm just stuck at work and kind of irritable. Also, no one watches cam versions of bootlegged movies around here, anyway...they're really such low-quality that if a bootleg is marked as cam usually no one wants to download it. Unless it's not marked as cam...in that case, after finding out that it's a cam most people promptly delete it and look for a DVD rip.

[quote]In principle the technology would work to stop digital video. but consider the facts they state. the camera has to be in the same position for a good amount of time in order for a scanner to locate it in a big room. second that the ccd must be directed right at the screen in order for the light to be reflected back directly. you could still use digital video so long as you point your camera at a slight angle away from the screen... Right?[/quote]

In order to make a cam in the first place, the camera DOES have to be in the same position for the entire duration of the movie...if not, then it's going to be a very shaky bootleg. And if the camera isn't pointed directly at the screen, it also makes for a very crappy cam.

But at least in the US, cams aren't very popular at ALL anymore...you might get a couple of them the day or two after a bit movie is released but no one really wants to watch a crappy version. They'll either wait for the DVD to come out and watch a DVD rip (in which case this new technology won't help) or just cough up the money to go see it in theaters if they're really in a rush to see it.

Keep in mind that I'm only speaking from the point of view of a broke college student in the US...but then again, a lot of movie bootlegging is targeted at this demographic, I suppose.

The bigger concern about this is that they'll eventually come up with a consumer-level product made available to the general public, and then BAM, we can no longer take pictures of people out on the streets because there will be LITTLE LASER BEAMS ZAPPING OUR CAMERAS EVERYWHERE.

Again, I apologize for being snippy today. Hunger + lack of sleep + several hours of codewanking makes my brain sad.
06/21/2006 10:37:09 AM · #18
The technology should work on either CCD or CMOS sensors... they both will have the retroreflective property. It will also work even if the camera is pointed slightly off-axis to the point of observation, since a retroreflective object returns light in the direction of the source, no matter the direction (within limits).
It won't work for cameras where the sensor is obscured until the exposure is taken, e.g. SLRs. Some point & shoots may also be hard to detect, but most will be susceptible; the sensor must be exposed in order for the LCD viewfinder to work. Still, if someone knew what they were doing, they could defeat the system at least most of the time.
06/21/2006 10:49:35 AM · #19
This might not work, but I'm thinking a polarizer would throw the system off.
06/21/2006 02:04:47 PM · #20
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by The Article:

“Movie piracy is a $3 billion-a-year problem,” Clawson maintains— a problem said to be especially acute in Asia. “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 think that's a load of crap. Movie industry comes up with ridiculous numbers and theoretical losses to get the government involved in passing laws that benefit them.

My opinion of course. :)

Funny, the movie industry thinks it has no competitors. They don't realize that thier competition is for people's lesiure time, not money. "New" technologies, like video games and the internet have a lower cost per hour, and are more attractive to some groups of people.

IMO, the movie industry is losing money because of the competion. The fact that they put out mostly garbage just helps all thier competitors--video games, the internet, books, board games, etc.
06/22/2006 03:45:33 PM · #21
It sounds like those of us using DSLRs would be fine, since our sensors would normally be open for only a very short amount of time and it also seems like this sort of system could be thwarted by having multiple Digital cameras going at once.

How many beams of white light could it project at different targets at the same time?

Beyond that, what about range? How far would this system detect Digital cameras?

Sounds like vaporware to me.

(The above is what I put into another thread, that was subsequently locked...)
06/22/2006 03:56:12 PM · #22
Nice technology if you want to stop someone with a camera phone from snapping a pic of your ass ... lol

Yes, it's vaporware. This is a neat experiement, but like most experimental technology it will probably remain in the lab and take no real role as a whole in real world applications.

My guess is that some of it will make it's way into new technologies, but as a whole the system will never be implemented, because of costs and limited usability.

All that money and it is thwarted by either using film or by placing a mirror in front of the sensor. Both of which are quite old technologies. :-)


06/22/2006 04:05:46 PM · #23
Very slick technology, but it won't do squat to stop piracy. A bootlegger will only need to hold up any small piece of retro-reflective object that resembles the description to distract the laser beam device away from the real camera.
06/22/2006 04:37:29 PM · #24
Originally posted by peterish:

Very slick technology, but it won't do squat to stop piracy. A bootlegger will only need to hold up any small piece of retro-reflective object that resembles the description to distract the laser beam device away from the real camera.


Yup, all one would need is a camera phone in another part of the theatre to distract the system. A camera phone would be more apparent to the system because of its more forward placed sensor.

Oh, and think... how many teenagers carry camera phones into theathers?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/03/2020 04:25:29 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/03/2020 04:25:29 PM EDT.