Alphecca is a member of "the lunatic fringe of the US right"
--Guardian (UK) 6/26/06

*******************


Yeah, so?


Even my cats
have guns!

serbu_sidebar_125.jpg
Me with Serbu BFG-50

Email me at:
gunnut -at-
alphecca -dot- com

Check it out:

My group sci-fi blog novel:

Colony: Alchibah






Featured in
Outdoor Life Magazine:

outdoor_small.jpg

Yes, I coined the term
"stupid-fucking-computer"

Alphecca gets noticed!
Check out these
GLOWING REVIEWS
I've just made up:

"Sparkles like pewter"
-- Collector's World

"Wonderful, terrific, splendid"
-- Roget's Thesaurus

"Really good"
-- Stereo World, Gun World,
Car World, Travel World,
Computer World, Roger Ebert,
Martha Stewart, Barney, etc...

"I am not an idiut"
--Barbra Streisand



Proud to be an American
US Flag
standing with Israel
Flag of Israel

PageSpinner

...but all errors and sloppy code should be blamed on me...

All non-credited writings
and photos on
Alphecca.com are
(C) Copyright
2002-2008
by Jeff Soyer
All rights reserved.



October 03, 2006

Digital Camera Developments

Forget your megapixel digital cameras, now there's a one pixel camera in the works:


Instead of employing thousands of detectors to record megapixel images, which in itself would be an advance, Baraniuk with electrical engineer Kevin Kelly and their colleagues are trying to use just one pixel detector. Basically, instead of having thousands of detectors each simultaneously scanning a scene once, these researchers are using a single detector to rapidly scan for data from thousands of pixels. The researchers will present their findings regarding the first such single-pixel camera on Oct. 11 at the annual meeting of the Optical Society of America in Rochester, N.Y.

Aside from saving power, the researchers explain that a single-pixel camera could also capture different kinds of light aside from the visible, such as infrared or ultraviolet, "so you could do neat things like night-vision or low-light cameras," Baraniuk said. This would involve a fancier and more expensive light detector, something easier to implement with cameras using just one such detector as opposed to thousands.


On the other hand, there are now plans for devices that disable digital cameras:

Researchers have built a prototype device that disables digital cameras. Future versions might thwart unwanted photo-taking at a specific location and even prevent clandestine videos from being made.

The technology might one day prevent espionage in a building or stop pirating of movies from theaters.

It could even be used to stop Mom from taking pictures of her child with Santa to avoid paying for the professional shot.

The device uses sensors, lighting equipment, a projector and a computer to scan for, find and neutralize digital cameras. It looks for the reflectivity and shape of the image-producing sensors used in digital cameras. Future versions might operate in the invisible infrared range so the neutralizing technology would work unnoticed.


Where there's a will, there's a way, and a way to stop that will. Or something like that...

Posted by Jeff Soyer at October 3, 2006 05:55 AM
Comments

I wonder if DSLRs would be affected. The sensor unit isn't exposed (the mirror reflects the image up to the eye-piece) until the picture is taken, and then for a small (say, 1/60-1/500 of a second) amount of time. Of course, DSLRs aren't very "clandestine." And, if espionage were the goal, I'm sure some enterprising soul would make a mini little camera that kept the sensor covered until use like the SLR.

Anyhoo... Someone smart will probably chime in.

Posted by: AughtSix at October 3, 2006 09:35 AM

I imagine every government vehicle will be topped with one eventually...And to think I was about to put my old 35mm SLR on ebay. I think I'll hold on to it.

Posted by: Anon at October 3, 2006 11:15 AM

Digital cameras already do IR (and possibly some UV); they come with filters built-in specifically to remove it and keep your pictures from looking funny. You can pay people like the guy linked there to remove the filter so you can do IR+visual photography, or with an additional everything-but-IR filter, do IR-only.

Presumeably the researchers knew that and the press report mangled it.

Posted by: Sigivald at October 3, 2006 01:22 PM

something to block the digicam in roadside speed cameras would be neat.

for the low light stuff take a look at defence vision systems (I think it is www.dvs.com, failing that try www.photonicscience.com)they have NON INTENSIFIED starlight cameras (they are really tough), as well as the 16 bit capture scientific cameras (the sort of thing that counts single photons)

Posted by: keith at October 4, 2006 11:01 AM

Sigivald: Thanks very much for the tip about Jim Chen's conversions. I may have to stop saving for guns and instead save for one of his converted Nikons. There are some truly amazing photos in his gallery!

Posted by: Jeff Soyer at October 5, 2006 06:33 AM
Note: Comments close down on posts after seven days and then
the comment input form disappears.

Your comments are welcome. You don't need to enter a URL and you don't need a "valid" email address, either. Note though that MT Blacklist is installed to flag suspiciously spam-like strings. Unfortunately, because of the bastard spammers, the strings "google.com" and "yahoo.com" (even in your email address) are currently banned as well. So are strings such as "cialis" (a common spam) which rules out words such as "socialism". Try putting a hyphan in a word like that.

By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...



Into science fiction? Check out my group blog novel, Colony: Alchibah.
See the reader's guide there for first-timer tips.