| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/27/2005 08:57:34 AM · #1 |
|
|
|
01/27/2005 09:05:11 AM · #2 |
I think the "what if" question has to be considered. Such technology can easily be manipulated. Yet another way for cyber criminals to help real life criminals.
|
|
|
|
01/27/2005 09:38:51 AM · #3 |
If true, and practicable (and none of my digital cameras could actually receive such an instruction, nor any others that I know of, if the photographer didn't want them to), and if this isn't nonsense, then it's a good argument for film.
Could I use the same thing to stop speed cameras reading my number plate do you think?
But there's too many ifs ...
e |
|
|
|
01/27/2005 09:47:53 AM · #4 |
I can't imagine that technology could actually blur a face, as opposed to the entire image. Seems simpler to me to affect the entire image, sort of like jamming radar or radio signals...
Sounds like the makings of an April Fools Day joke. |
|
|
|
01/27/2005 09:53:17 AM · #5 |
There is no way that a device on a user could blur images on a camera unless the camera was able to receive a signal and understand the instruction. While I'm sure this is technically possible, your camera would have to support it. It's an interesting thought, but unless somebody passes a law requiring all cameras to support this I cannot see how you would be forced to have the technology enabled in your camera.
Companies like HP like to count their patents, so they will patent many ideas that will never be used in practical applications.
|
|
|
|
01/27/2005 09:58:00 AM · #6 |
Hahaha what a load of bowl ox
|
|
|
|
01/27/2005 09:59:23 AM · #7 |
This technology has been used for years: |
|
|
|
01/27/2005 10:03:43 AM · #8 |
OH, it's real alright, if not currently practical.
"Increasing usage of portable camera devices means that the privacy issue of capturing images of subjects who would prefer not to be photographed has increased," according to the application. "Because portable cameras are small and are likely to be unseen by a subject, persons generally cannot choose to avoid being in the field of view of a small portable camera and are likely to have their pictures taken without their knowledge or consent."
A system that allowed people to selectively opt out of having their photo taken would address such privacy concerns without resorting to more draconian measures such as banning cameras, as numerous authorities have done with camera-equipped mobile phones.
The patent application covers technology that would have to be incorporated both into cameras and the "image inhibitor modules" that would signal "No photos of me, please," plus a system for spontaneously registering inhibitors with cameras. The in-camera technology includes sophisticated image-analysis software to selectively identify faces so they can be obfuscated.
An HP representative said the company had no current plans to commercialize the technology, which would require widespread adoption by camera makers and possibly government mandates to be financially practical.
//news.com.com/HP+focuses+on+paparazzi-proof+cameras/2100-1041_3-5550415.html?tag=nefd.top
Will it ever happen? I donno. But the thrust of it seems to be to make us "safe" from the rapidly-proliferating "tiny" cameras, a subject that's much on the mind of a lot of people now that telephones have cams in them...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/27/2005 10:10:20 AM · #9 |
| It aint going to happen... you could go back to film and their stuffed or just use a different manufacturer to those that subscribe to the system, or probably after a nano second of it's release get your camera 'chipped' so it didn't get sensored... |
|
|
|
01/27/2005 10:16:04 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by e301:
Could I use the same thing to stop speed cameras reading my number plate do you think?
|
This technology already exists. It comes in a can of transparent and otherwise unnoticable high gloss coating. Most traffic cameras shoot at a hard angle from above and the glare prevents the camrera from capturing indentifiable numbers on the plate. This stuff is sold in spray cans by many auto parts stores and is illegal in some citys. In this case lo-tech beats hi-tech.
|
|
|
|
01/27/2005 10:27:30 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by PeterC:
It aint going to happen... you could go back to film and their stuffed or just use a different manufacturer to those that subscribe to the system, or probably after a nano second of it's release get your camera 'chipped' so it didn't get sensored... |
Assuming that you can still buy film in 10, 20 or whatever years time. And if there are any manufacturers who don't subscribe to the system.
Plus, would you be willing to break the law and be lumped in with all the other "terrorists"?
I hope it will never happen, but we already have CDs which won't play in any of my CD players and movies which I have to break the law to watch on my computer, so it's entirely possible.
|
|
|
|
01/27/2005 10:44:29 AM · #12 |
Ok what I meant by my short answer is it would take total manufacturer cooperation plus total government cooperation, is that really going to happen!! even if say the EU + US agree and stop sale of camera's without the feature can you see asia etc agreeing so then would the EU and US ban the use of non compliant camera's within there countries opp's that's going to help tourism etc etc
CD's and DVD's is about copy rights, which the companies etc and us as photographers feel strongly about.
And ok film might die out but not if there is a demand promotef by a big brother control over electronic's it's supply and demand if the demand is there the product will be marketed. |
|
|
|
01/27/2005 11:16:17 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by PeterC:
Ok what I meant by my short answer is it would take total manufacturer cooperation plus total government cooperation, is that really going to happen!! even if say the EU + US agree and stop sale of camera's without the feature can you see asia etc agreeing so then would the EU and US ban the use of non compliant camera's within there countries opp's that's going to help tourism etc etc |
Are you guaranteeing that it won't happen? Or just sticking your fingers in your ears, singing "la la la" and saying it might not?
; )
If it's Asia who drive something like this through then the US & EU will have no choice in the matter.
If the likes of Warners find some way of making money (how much would worldwide exclusive J-Lo photos be worth?) off the back of it then they'll buy another law.
Originally posted by PeterC:
CD's and DVD's is about copy rights, which the companies etc and us as photographers feel strongly about. |
Don't ever lump me in with "the companies". I do have strong views on copyright, but not ones which completely prevent fair use and make people buy multiple copies for multiple devices, or suing 12 year olds and pensioners for $150,000 per track ... but that's a whole different discussion!
Message edited by author 2005-01-27 11:30:46.
|
|
|
|
01/27/2005 02:36:24 PM · #14 |
It's an interesting technonlogy that, from the patent paper, requires a transmitter and a camera that recognizes it. It also allows for choosing between radio or infared signals (the camera would have to receive both I suppose) and selecting omni-directional brodcast or being more selective ("photograph only my good side please").
What I found interesting was what the camera was suppose to do after it recognized a signal was present; locate the source coordinate, search around it for an area of 'relatively higher light intensity', isolate skin tones and then unfocus just that area of the scene. Apparently, since it only locates areas of 'relatively higher light intensity', they think only members of the relatively lighter skinned races would want to use it. I'm sure you can name more combinations of clothing and background coloring, lighting arrangements and such that are going to play havic with this method.
It may become something to deal with years down the line, but it will require a great deal of research to make it practical.
David
|
|
|
|
01/27/2005 02:49:31 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by e301:
Could I use the same thing to stop speed cameras reading my number plate do you think?
|
This technology already exists. It comes in a can of transparent and otherwise unnoticable high gloss coating. Most traffic cameras shoot at a hard angle from above and the glare prevents the camrera from capturing indentifiable numbers on the plate. This stuff is sold in spray cans by many auto parts stores and is illegal in some citys. In this case lo-tech beats hi-tech. |
Shown to be not effective by a local news expose'. Actual traffic camera photos showed the license numbers in every case.
|
|
|
|
01/27/2005 05:22:44 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by jemison:
Shown to be not effective by a local news expose'. Actual traffic camera photos showed the license numbers in every case. |
It might depend on the system used maybe, but yup, I believe the paint is ineffective as well. The spray doesn't work here in Queensland at all, partly because the cameras are hidden in stationary police vehicles, and thus take the photo straight on, and not from a severe angle.
Message edited by author 2005-01-27 17:23:18.
|
|
|
|
01/27/2005 06:20:42 PM · #17 |
Someone would just find a "hack" for the equipment like a 300D
ROFLOL
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/15/2025 05:22:18 PM EST.
