| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/23/2006 01:30:05 AM · #1 |
Gonna have one installed in my bedroom just in case.
Piracy?
|
|
|
|
07/23/2006 01:34:38 AM · #2 |
What if they are shooting with film? :D
Mike
|
|
|
|
07/23/2006 01:35:11 AM · #3 |
This has been posted here somewhere before but i can't find the thread...
|
|
|
|
07/23/2006 01:35:50 AM · #4 |
| Works on Peashooters and Digicams... won't get the dSLRs |
|
|
|
07/23/2006 01:38:29 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
This has been posted here somewhere before but i can't find the thread... |
Several times in fact. Here's one. |
|
|
|
07/23/2006 01:48:29 AM · #6 |
"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 CCD is found, a thin beam of white light is shined on it, rendering the recording unuseable."
Sounds complicated, I was thinking of something more along the lines of a transmitter than emits some invisible frequency that would interfere with the CCD's picture taking.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2006 07:44:29 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
"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 CCD is found, a thin beam of white light is shined on it, rendering the recording unuseable."
Sounds complicated, I was thinking of something more along the lines of a transmitter than emits some invisible frequency that would interfere with the CCD's picture taking. |
Most cameras filter out all the "invisible frequencies" (UV and IR in this case) fairly well, so that wouldn't do anything unless the emitted EM radiation is extremely strong, then it could be a health hazard. |
|
|
|
07/23/2006 09:56:32 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Raziel:
Most cameras filter out all the "invisible frequencies" (UV and IR in this case) fairly well, so that wouldn't do anything unless the emitted EM radiation is extremely strong, then it could be a health hazard. |
I don't know about that, every P&S I've seen that uses a wireless remote uses an IR remote. The remotes aren't very strong and I doubt much of a health hazard. |
|
|
|
07/23/2006 10:00:19 AM · #9 |
| there are other frequencies, such as microwaves. |
|
|
|
07/23/2006 10:12:25 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by Raziel:
Most cameras filter out all the "invisible frequencies" (UV and IR in this case) fairly well, so that wouldn't do anything unless the emitted EM radiation is extremely strong, then it could be a health hazard. |
I don't know about that, every P&S I've seen that uses a wireless remote uses an IR remote. The remotes aren't very strong and I doubt much of a health hazard. |
An IR remote isn't strong enough to stop a camera from taking a picture, unless the remote very close to the lens. |
|
|
|
07/23/2006 12:14:51 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Raziel:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by Raziel:
Most cameras filter out all the "invisible frequencies" (UV and IR in this case) fairly well, so that wouldn't do anything unless the emitted EM radiation is extremely strong, then it could be a health hazard. |
I don't know about that, every P&S I've seen that uses a wireless remote uses an IR remote. The remotes aren't very strong and I doubt much of a health hazard. |
An IR remote isn't strong enough to stop a camera from taking a picture, unless the remote very close to the lens. |
Never said it was. However, it was early and I was unclear so I'll rephrase. The point was you said that most cameras filter out all IR fairly well. The common test to see if you can take IR photos is holding the remote in front of the camera and if you can see the IR emitter light up then the camera is sensitive to IR. Every P&S camera I've tried has been able to see the IR source of the remote even if they have a strong, weak, or no IR filter. |
|
|
|
07/23/2006 02:03:11 PM · #12 |
All digital cameras will have an IR filter, otherwise IR light will completely contaminate the picture.
My point was just that to swamp all digital cameras in a cinema you would need a extremely powerful IR transmitter. Also due to attenuation as the wave propagates the source, if the source can reach all the way to the back of the cinema, it will be very strong at the front, possible harmful to people. |
|
|
|
07/23/2006 02:34:56 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Raziel:
... due to attenuation as the wave propagates the source, if the source can reach all the way to the back of the cinema, it will be very strong at the front, possible harmful to people. |
If the concession stand starts handing out bags of unpopped kernels and says to "just wait a few minutes" you know you're in trouble ... |
|
|
|
07/23/2006 04:04:51 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Raziel:
... due to attenuation as the wave propagates the source, if the source can reach all the way to the back of the cinema, it will be very strong at the front, possible harmful to people. |
If the concession stand starts handing out bags of unpopped kernels and says to "just wait a few minutes" you know you're in trouble ... |
Lord I love this place.... this is just too funny. Atta go General.
Ray
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/20/2024 12:24:25 PM EDT.
