It might be lucrative for the first sale or two, but someone like Abramovich sees firing people who disappoint him as a hobby (if you can judge from what's happened to the last several managers of Chelsea).
All cameras I've ever owned used purely passive, optical autofocus with rarely activated IR assist off the flash unit, which only fires when it gets really dark and works only for distances under 10-15 feet.
From the article it's completely unclear to me how could that possibly work: those "lasers" would have to scan every square inch of the landscape (possibly a couple square miles) at the rate of about 100-1000 times per second in order to blind an SLR camera during the day.
Agreed, this description makes no sense. If you're talking about a point & shoot camera, or any camera with a live preview where the CCD is continually exposed, then it might work. But a plain old SLR is going to expose its CCD for maybe 1/1000 of a second on a sunny day.
I have seen a system like this that worked by detecting flash photography, and firing a flash back at the source of the original flash. If you react quickly enough to a flash, you can blind the CCD while it's still exposed, ruining the image. Can't find the link right now. But if you don't use a flash, then that system doesn't work.
You're exactly right (though I'm no expert). SLRs use contrast detection focusing. I have no idea how you could detect a CCD at any point in space all around you for the tiny fraction (1/1000 wouldn't be uncommon outdoors on a sunny day) of a second that it's exposed, _and_ react to it in that same time span. Sounds to me like someone just scammed a rich idiot out of a bunch of money.
SLRs use phase-detect actually, using separate AF sensors. Contrast-detect is used in compact cameras (non-SLRs) and optionally in live-view mode on some DSLRs.
IANAN. The sensor detection sounds pretty unlikely. But what about some other possible methods:
The end of an SLR lens is domed/convex, and slightly reflective (even the best ones are slightly). The lens would have to be pointed at the ship for the system to care about it. In that state, shining a laser at the lens and detecting the reflection would pick up the reflection profile of the convex surface (you'd need a 2d array of sensors to pick up the range of return angles as the laser moves from the center of the lens), and finding the center would be fairly easy - so you'd know where to fire. How many other reflective convex surfaces have their axis of rotation pointed straight at the boat?
I imagine this is mostly a problem when in dock, or at anchor, where the paparazzi are probably all in one location (or a few), so the search space could be very quickly narrowed down by a human.
Seems like a pretty frivolous way to spend money, but at least it's being spent.
No expert, but is it possible that this technology could be coupled with cameras using an object recognition algorithm? Once it had narrowed the space, it could then scan.
"The JD-3 laser dazzler is mounted on the Chinese Type 98 main battle tank. It is coupled with a laser radiation detector, and automatically aims for the enemy's illuminating laser designator, attempting to overwhelm its optical systems or blind the operator. The ZM-87 Portable Laser Disturber is a Chinese electro-optic countermeasure laser device. It can blind enemy troops at up to 2 to 3 km range and temporarily blind them at up to 10 km range."
Though there was also a bizarre spy incident with Russian "merchant" ship blinding US & Canadian helicopter-surveillance operators where it's not clear if they used laser range-finding:
I'm curious as to how a second-hand private yacht ($1,200 mil) can be worth more than the build cost of the largest cruise ship in the world ($700 mil). Don't watercrafts depreciate like crazy?
Especially since the CCD is only exposed for a fraction of a second while the shutter is open and the image is captured. It'll have to be scanning at a crazy fast rate (35 mm square at 200 meters, 30+ times a second?) .. and good luck getting the light cannon pointed in the right direction and fired before the shutter closes.
What I reasoned when I read this, was that the system would detect whatever it is the auto-focus emits, and point a laser/sharp light in that specific direction, obscuring any further pictures, and at least forcing the photographer to move. Of course, it's ridiculous easy to hit with a denial of service attack, and even easier to circumvent -- just don't use auto-focus, which isn't needed at distance anyway.
Auto-focus on most cameras (those that use phase / contrast detecton AF, at least) doesn't emit anything, unless you mean emissions from the circuitry used to control it. Some cameras have a AF assist light for helping the AF in low light, but that won't come on in daylight.
You do need to focus at distance with long, fast lenses.
Not the CCD. Handheld detectors (like this one http://www.lightinthebox.com/Super-Sleuth-Camera-Detector_p5...) work by strobing an array of very bright LEDs and looking for reflections from lenses. I've seen manufacturers claim it's good out to 900 feet and I see no reason it wouldn't work in principle, but a shrewd paparazzi could probably just set up a few ordinary mirrors around his observation point and confuse the system that way.
Sounds like a repurposed military anti-sniper device or similar. Then again maybe the whole thing is just exaggeration designed to give paparazzi nightmares about having their retinas burned.
>"intermeddling with goods belonging to someone else, or altering their condition, is a trespass to goods and will entitle the photographer to claim compensation without having to prove loss."
The goods belonging to someone else (paparazzi) ARE photographs with a bolt of light. How can a photographer's photo be altered with a bolt of light if it was created with a bolt of light in it in the first place.
