Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Product Availability' started by wildbill, Oct 15, 2005.
Photography is over.
Ha! They can split infinitives, but let them try to scramble my albumen technology!
Would that be scrambled eggs?
More like meringue - and that's no yolk!
There was an article or post about this about a year ago. Someone was making a device that could be carried on a person and would interfere with the electronics on a camera up to 30ft away. They talked about it being away for celebrities to foil in your face paparazzi or at least the ones using dgital or film cameras heavily reliant on electronics.
What if you could carry a device that did emit an EMP signal that could fry the insides or at least disable a digital camera. Would you be liable for damage to the phtographers gear or could you argue your were defending your privacy?
Don't know, but I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of the lawsuit when it got used in the vicinity of someone fitted with a Pacemaker...
Hey I got an idea on how to get around this! Ya start with a light sensitive emulsion, maybe one with silver, ya spread it on a ........
I suggested once to my electronics friend a portable destroyer of electronics, made that way: a small, GN 28 or more if possible flash with bad lamp has the lamp replaced with a coil - a pair or two of turns of thick copper wire, maybe with a ferrite rod inside. When the "test" button is pressed, the unit emits a strong directed electromagnetic instant impulse, enough to blow any input circuit of induction-based sensors or similar things. What's interesting, my idea worked - it was tested, as I was told, on a subway tourniquet. Well, I am not guilty that such ideas come to my mind... but maybe my scheme would work with digicams, too? Just take something like old Metz 60 with lead-acid power pack
Are we living in a totalitalian state? It's another military tool that's being introduced to us and that does perhaps more harm than good. Now whoever owns a piece of digital recording device is undoublty subject to this claim.
There are perverts and others who have no morals whatsoever with or without cameras, but that's a whole different issue as we know.
One of these and a cell phone jammer would qualify as nirvana for me....
If it's the USA, that's for sure - you can't imagine how much does it resemble the former Soviet Union to people who lived there. Looks like anti-communists after 1946 did something wrong in their effort to struggle with the USSR, copying some worst parts of it. Well, I can't say it's okay when a photographer from the USA tells as a good advice on his site, that one should never ever remain with or without his camera alone with the female models or, even worse, children. It's important to have witnesses around, just in case. Or the American Nationalism issue? Or many other things in school and governmental institutes? And, not to be mentioned here, the practice of total unconsented circumcision of every male infant in the USA for decades, still in birth clinics - does it resemble Gulag or Auschwitz in some aspects to one, no?
But, as in every other place, there are idiots and there are saints - and a big heap of people between, so everything is perfecly normal. At least someone didn't get yet a grant from the US government to develop a system of potential terrorist detection, preferably with chip grafting under skin. Or from our crazy Russian government
Not quite yet, but stay tuned...they're right on schedule.
I think a Metz 60, fired into the lens from a distance of no more than 10cm (4 inches) could fry any digital sensor chip
That's a big NMP*
*Not My Problem
I just hope that nothing like this would have any effect on any of my film cameras that use batteries/have electronically controlled shutters (Mamiya 645 Super/Pro :confused:
I switched over to non-electronic photography just in time. I just sold the last of my Canon EF gear and nearly have the first phase of my FD kit buit up. Sure, I could put a battery in my Canon F1, but I use my spot meter, so what'd be the point?
I can see one very interesting twist. If such technology becomes widespread, then maybe Paparazzi will be driven back to using film in cameras with spring driven shutters.
Hey eumenius, my process lenses and sock shutters sneer at your EMP device!
He-he, my own cameras do exactly the same
I would love to buy one of these!
Then I would just walk in the local photo club meeting and watch with a grin
while they digitoys blow up in the hands while I am taking photos of them with
Unfortunately EMP devices able to achive this sort of damage would not be portable. Besides the original article doesn't even mention EMP devices, it refers to some optical method of interference:
"The system then shoots a tightly targeted beam of light at the lens. The result: Your secret picture looks like a flashlight beam -- and nothing else"
it works ok;
see this video http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~summetj/cre/
So could you get around this technology by using a film camera?
Holga sales are going to go through the roof!
I can see many Apug memeber buying this. But serioulsy if the technology can be got round by use of film cameras then that is what people will do, might generate some sales.