Image Fulgurator?

[megan]

I heard about a "paparazzi buster" on the radio today, so I did a quick 'net search and found this:
http://www.juliusvonbismarck.com/fulgurator/idee.html
Kind of NOT liking this.

But the product being talked about on the radio is supposedly by an Israeli firm, and it jams digital cameras.

Anyone know anything else about this?

[Axle]

weird. That looks interesting.

[Photo-John]

Hmmmm. Interesting. I guess I wouldn't be happy about it either. On the other hand, I say everything is fair game on the public streets. If I don't want my picture taken and there's technology that can block cameras (sunglasses), then I should be able to use that technology. If we want to protect photographers, we should also protect the right of an individual to use technology to protect their privacy. What I don't like is when people think they should be able to walk down the street, have their picture taken, and then have that photo supressed.

On a sidenote, if the device you're talking about jams digital cameras, maybe the paparrazi will go back to film. Blocking a digital camera doesn't stop photos from being taken.

[megan]

That's what I'm intrigued by - I'm thinking that both devices apply only to digital. How could someone do that to film?

Either way, it's an interesting conundrum in the digital age! And I think it would be kind of funny if the paparazzi suddenly had to scramble for film cameras!

[Frog]

From what I read it will only work if it is aimed at exactly what the photographer is shooting.

[fx101]

That's what I'm intrigued by - I'm thinking that both devices apply only to digital. How could someone do that to film?

Either way, it's an interesting conundrum in the digital age! And I think it would be kind of funny if the paparazzi suddenly had to scramble for film cameras!

Wow... seriously look at the patent.

This is not some space age image scrambler, it is merely a projector.

There is a flash behind ground glass that allows him to focus the soon to be projected image. Flash is triggered by another flash and as the flash ignites, it projects a film positive through a special lens and on to the subject. Basically a projector driven by a flash burst.

[brmill26]

This thing is a complete joke. When I first saw the word "jam" I was about to say it's an illegal violation of FCC rules to use any sort of broadcast jamming device. But when I saw their site, it doesn't even claim to do anything of the sort. As above, it merely projects an image at the time it's triggered - and quite unimpressively at that. Here's their example of it projecting a "building on fire" http://www.juliusvonbismarck.com/fulgurator/fertig.html , and the video below that shows how poor it is even at "intervening" in a photo.

[gahspidy]

This thing is a complete joke. When I first saw the word "jam" I was about to say it's an illegal violation of FCC rules to use any sort of broadcast jamming device. But when I saw their site, it doesn't even claim to do anything of the sort. As above, it merely projects an image at the time it's triggered - and quite unimpressively at that. Here's their example of it projecting a "building on fire" http://www.juliusvonbismarck.com/fulgurator/fertig.html , and the video below that shows how poor it is even at "intervening" in a photo.

Too impractical, it would never be effective.

[SmartWombat]

The fulgurator would work better with a projector lens, rather than trying to use a camera as a projector, but the principle is sound.
You could use it to put your own slogans on a celebrity's jacket for example.

The camera blocker has been around for a couple of years, only in R&D as far as I know.
It looks for non-SLR cameras by scanning the surroundings and detecting the reflected light from the sensor of a cellphone style camera - one without a shutter.
There is a particular colour that they look for and then on the same coordinates they send an Infra Red pulse back that the camera will see - and it sets the gain control all the way down so you get a dark photo, or nothing at all.

[Charles Hess]

Recently, in Malibu, a more effective camera blocker was a group of surfers. I almost felt sorry for the paparazzi.

[SmartWombat]

I thought I remembered someone using an infra red laser to have fun with DSLR toting photographers?
They had it set up to write something, perhaps a holographic sheet in front of the laser to project something over the intended subject.
Maybe it's a FOAF tale.

[Ultra Magnus]

More info- http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/06...-standing.html

In my understanding, it's more of a practical joke kind of gadget. And from what I've read, it's just an optically triggered strobe, albeit a very sophisticated trigger...

Though, I do understand, and I think the inventor does too, that it can be used for more sinister intentions that he wants to protect against wtih his patents.

BM

[Asylum Steve]

I heard about a "paparazzi buster" on the radio today...

Yep, it's interesting. One things it's not, though, is any kind of paparazzi buster, that's for sure. I mean, it's not hard to see that it'd be next to impossible to use this for that purpose.

Personally, I see all kinds of cool spy uses for this. Like altering the look and content of unauthorized photos of sensitive government or corporate property or materials.

I also see advertisers using this device to "insert" their message into tourist photos all over the place, much like the demonstration video on the web site. Creepy...

Oh, and speaking of creepy, one other use I see is on those ghost hunter reality tv shows. They could show someone taking a seemingly innocent photo of an object, then when the image is processed, a mysterious message (perhaps from the dead!) would appear in the picture...

[adina]

That's what I'm intrigued by - I'm thinking that both devices apply only to digital. How could someone do that to film?

Either way, it's an interesting conundrum in the digital age! And I think it would be kind of funny if the paparazzi suddenly had to scramble for film cameras!

Could be a good thing, for all you filmies. Imagine how much more accessable film and processing would be if the paparazzi needed it. There is literally nowhere but Walmart in my area that processes.

[Lori11]

Steve your quote is HYSTERICAL, I remember those commercials :lol: :lol: as far as the "buster" who is the "inventor" marketing to?

[California L33]

The camera blocker has been around for a couple of years, only in R&D as far as I know.
It looks for non-SLR cameras by scanning the surroundings and detecting the reflected light from the sensor of a cellphone style camera - one without a shutter.
There is a particular colour that they look for and then on the same coordinates they send an Infra Red pulse back that the camera will see - and it sets the gain control all the way down so you get a dark photo, or nothing at all.

That might raise the ire of the FCC, if they have authority to regulate in the IR.

[megan]

Well, it seems like there are two different products out there. The fulgurator, which is more of a prankster-type thing, and the other product that scrambles digital images somehow which is being marketed towards celebrities so they can keep the paparazzi from taking (digital) photos of them. I was thinking today about the implications of governments using this product (if it indeed exists and functions decently), and how that could be dangerous for the freedom of press and information and all that. Then again, there's always film.

[almo]

Some people just have way too much time on their hands.