New Paparazzi need for film cameras?

Austerby

Well-known
Local time
2:17 PM
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
1,069
According to Motor Boats Monthly magazine:

"Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich has installed a laser shield aboard his new yacht to prevent photographers taking intrusive pictures. The 170m yacht, named Eclipse, was built in Germany at a reported cost of £725 million.

Infrared sensors around the yacht detect emissions from cameras' light sensors, and automatically fire a beam of light at the source, disrupting the camera's digital imaging capability. The system, dubbed an 'anti-paparazzi shield', can also be operated manually by the yacht's security personnel."


Presumably that wouldn't stop a film camera then?

What would happen when such a blocking device becomes available to the mass-market? A new film renaissance?
 
This seems very dodgy, wouldn't it also blind the photographer, or perhaps the personnel aboard a Coast Guard ship using IR lamps or .... (the list is endless).

Then again, film AF SLRs also use the same technology and all that effort and money can be negated by the photographer flipping a little switch from AF to MF :)
 
The yacht also have a military-grade missile defence system, armour-plating around Abramovich's master suite, bullet-proof windows and there is also a private submarine, which doubles as an escape pod!
But this is secondary agains the paparazzi shield!
 
I’m told he sailed past one evening when I was on holiday, he was seen in a restaurant is Acharavi just down the coast, lots of folk took pics as he sailed past but I didn’t hear anyone complain it hadn’t come out OK, pointless really the boat was half a mile away, I just too a pic of two chaps watching

 
Last edited:
I’m told he sailed past one evening when I was on holiday, he was seen in a restaurant is Acharavi just down the coast, lots of folk took pics as he sailed past but I didn’t hear anyone complain it hadn’t come out OK, pointless really the boat was half a mile away, I just too a pic of two chaps watching

actually it was me! - our vessels are very similar, and I did not have my 'shield' turned on at the time, so you would have been o.k. to get a snap - if you had thought to take your long lens with you!
Cheers Dave.
 
actually it was me! - our vessels are very similar, and I did not have my 'shield' turned on at the time, so you would have been o.k. to get a snap - if you had thought to take your long lens with you!
Cheers Dave.

Ah … that’s why he left such a poor tip :angel:
 
We need to develop at RFF a GAS-Shield which protects us from more gear acquisition, with an internet submarine to let us slip away "under water" from such risks!
 
LOL! Sounds like one, doesn't he? Ha.

"No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to DIE!"

There was a cartoon in the press a few months back, it showed Stavro Blowfelt (sp) dripping wet wrapped in a bath towel answering the door to James Bond; and the caption read …… “ah mister Bond … I wasn’t expecting you”
 
Well, I know that the older autofocus systems, like on old VHS camcorders, used a beam of IR that was mechanically coupled to a rangefinder-like device on the video lens.

But most newer autofocus systems since then are strictly passive, evaluating either image contrast or high-frequency image detail to determine optimal focus.

But this is not to say there couldn't be ways to disrupt an electronic sensor's ability to capture an image. I'm almost certain someone, somewhere, is working on this idea already.

In the case of the Russian billionaire, I'd prefer to think that their anti-paparazzi technology uses a high-tech beam of encapsulated lead particles emitted from handheld, mobile platforms. I think they call them Kalashnikov's. ;)

~Joe
 
In the case of the Russian billionaire, I'd prefer to think that their anti-paparazzi technology uses a high-tech beam of encapsulated lead particles emitted from handheld, mobile platforms. I think they call them Kalashnikov's. ;)

hahaha, took me until the last sentence to realize what you were talking about.. although if he was blanketing the coast with AK-47 fire, paparazzi would probably be the least of his concerns. ;)
 
There is a technology that senses, sorry, sensors, actively and can blank them out with (allegedly) non-dangerous radiation: I wrote about it a few months ago in Amateur Photographer in the UK. The original paper was published under three names in the USA, as far as I recall, but I can't be arsed to dig it out.

That system doesn't use lasers and it only works aganst exposed sensors. I suspect the journalist writing for the boat comic may have been out of his depth (as it were) in this particular area.

Cheers,

R.
 
Use a RF camera without AF system to catch James Bond.

Every new technology has its built in Achilles heal. In the Winter war, Finnish soldiers armed with only a rifle and a small knife easily defeated Russian tanks by throwing found empty Vodka bottles filled with gasoline at them. I am quite certain the the more resourceful Paparazzi will find a counter measure to any anti-Paparazzi device they encounter.

And, yes, I am also certain that somewhere in the world, some gadget geek is desperately experimenting on just such a device. Necessity may be the Mother of invention, but a fertile imagination helps a lot! Mankind has a rich history of inventing the unthinkable to do the unimaginable. As I sit here in front of my lap-top, the most notable is the story of two young men working in a small garage building the first practical home computer! I wonder if their boss received a promotion and a raise for telling them to take a hike?
 
Sometimes it's best to forget technology & break out the old Spiratone 400mm. Great for sniping babes on the beach back in the 70's.
 
Creepy or not, I'm still using my 400mm f/6.3 cheapy lens maybe forty odd years after spending what? $34.50? It earned its keep years ago shooting a couple of record album covers. Now that lens just wants to enjoy retirement by shooting boobs and booty on the beach. :cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom