It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BLINDED by the movie theatre

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
they are testing a device, that can send beams of "white light" to disable/render useless
CCD (camcorders,phones) to keep people from pirating their movies
at the theatre
only 1 problem....

""We need to make our system work well enough so that it can find a dot, then test to see if it's reflective, then see if it's retroreflective, and then test to see if it's the right shape.""

sounds like an eyeball would be the perfect target (at least the iris and pupil)
its about the same as the lense (dot) on most camera phones and point+shooots
does anybody out there in theese fields know about white light,reflective/retroreflective
or the eyes...

wouldnt this be BAD if it locked onto and targeted everyones eyes at the scene
and flashed them all??? ...oh wait.. i get it.. Flash Memory .ha.ha

their computer detects that everyone in the crowd is using 2 devices to record their
precious and they use FULL POWER on them!!!

worse yet ,, just a "shiny earring" can produce a "FALSE POSITIVE"


heres the link

news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Yes I find this worrying.
Worse if you wear contact lenses.
And easy to beat.
Just put a flat pies of glass in front of the camera.
then they just shoot every one with glasses on.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I rarely go to see movies in the theatre anymore--with loud, rude and obnoxious people of ALL ages, I'd rather watch it at home. Maybe I'm getting older, but I swear the problem is getting worse.

Combine that with crappy movies, and I have virtually no incentive to go to the theatre.

This is just my opinion, but I think that patronage at theatres is on the decline and will continue to do so in the future.. so even if this technology pans out and they get it working, will it be worth it?

I just don't see movie theatres as existing in anything like their current form in the future.

And finally, screw them... I'm not having some machine scan the room to see if I'm video taping the movie. Who knows what else they would scan for... if you are eating popcorn or drinking soda... are you almost out of candy? Are you making out in the back?

I would absolutely refuse to go to a movie theatre if this scanning technology were ever implemented.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I hate the idea of some system scanning the public for reflective objects. That's too much. As the posters said, human retina can be a false positive (just look at all those red-eye photographs -- that's a good proof). Not only jewelry items but God knows what else can be misidentified.

I wonder how easy it is to make an effective decoy. Such as dress in a beaded dress or put some glitter on.

I think consumer groups should protest this right away. I don't want to risk being hit with some freaking laser light in the dark. That's not what I paid for when going to the movies. Screw them.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Why would the 'light' beamed have any effect on the eye?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeah right
they are testing a device, that can send beams of "white light" to disable/render useless
CCD (camcorders,phones) to keep people from pirating their movies
at the theatre
only 1 problem....

""We need to make our system work well enough so that it can find a dot, then test to see if it's reflective, then see if it's retroreflective, and then test to see if it's the right shape.""

sounds like an eyeball would be the perfect target (at least the iris and pupil)
its about the same as the lense (dot) on most camera phones and point+shooots
does anybody out there in theese fields know about white light,reflective/retroreflective
or the eyes...


That's why it won't be implemented until they can test for the shape of the CCD - the chip inside a digital camera that actually records images

CCDs are SQUARE, it just the lens that is round, so the device won't target eyes, earrings etc and it won't work on old school cameras



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by please_takemyrights
And finally, screw them... I'm not having some machine scan the room to see if I'm video taping the movie. Who knows what else they would scan for... if you are eating popcorn or drinking soda... are you almost out of candy? Are you making out in the back?

I would absolutely refuse to go to a movie theatre if this scanning technology were ever implemented.


The system is only designed to look for highly reflective things, not candy or naked bodies, so not much to worry about really



The technology works by looking for the digital camera's image sensor known as a charge-coupled device (CCD).

These silicon sensors are retroreflective, which means that they reflect light directly back to its origin, rather than scattering it.

Some road-signs and vehicle licence plates are also retroreflective.


Although in the past it seems night vision has been used in theatres:


At present, the industry mostly relies on the alertness of staff at cinemas to spot people filming.

However, Disney took this one stage further in 2003 when it issued security staff with night vision goggles and metal detectors, ahead of screenings of the animated movie Finding Nemo.

source



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why would the 'light' beamed have any effect on the eye?


Try sitting in a darkish room for an hour and then ask your friend to suddenly flash you in the face with a decent flashlight or a laser pointer. I believe the effect will be felt.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Ah. I misunderstood. I thought they are saying that its a signal that will be picked up by the camera and result in not being able to record the movie,but its literally shinging 'white light' at the device.

They say it won't work on Film Cameras, and only on 'retroreflective' devices like ccds.

Maybe there will be an uptick in film movie camera sales!

[edit on 22-6-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
yeah thats one of my questions

are eyes retroreflective???

what exactly do they mean WHITE LIGHT?? just a LED FLASHLIGHT
kindof white light??

and i was thinking
about those 1/2 second clips of a desert
that make you thirsty....those subliminal messages

now that everything will be digital it should be very easy
to manipulate us since most people are glued to their
new super huge tv's



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
There seriously is nothing to be worried about.
No the eyes aren't the correct material to attract this system, nor is the beam thats sent out even visible to the huma eye.

The frequency used is that which is used by cameras to judge distance. Its sent out to confuse the camera as to the whereabouts of its target.
If it were hazardous to the eye, then taking pictures of someone (with or without flash) would be hazardous too, as the camera sends out this same frequency of light, to determine just how far you are away.

Again, the human eye is completley unaware and unaffected by this type of signal.
There really is nothing to worry about when it comes to personal safety.

When it comes to government bodies covering something up... now thats where you can fear the worst.

[edit on 25-6-2006 by johnsky]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

The frequency used is that which is used by cameras to judge distance.

Just to clarify, where did you get that?

Because the article says its white light only, which implies visible light.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
There seriously is nothing to be worried about.
No the eyes aren't the correct material to attract this system, nor is the beam thats sent out even visible to the huma eye.


I agree with nygdan in his request to clarify your claim that the light shone back is invisible. The article says it's white light.



The frequency used is that which is used by cameras to judge distance. Its sent out to confuse the camera as to the whereabouts of its target.


That would imply IR, but again there is no information on that. Is this your speculation?

As for confusing the ranging circuit -- there are cameras out there, I'm sure, with manual override.

The whole technique seems iffy... I can imagine a brouch that is designed to give a false positive, thus obscuring the nearby recording device.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Movie Theaters have problems as it is *sigh*

Our little local theater with 3 screens (in sweden) does not seem to be getting all the good movies.. there seem to be an unvilligness of SwedishFilmindustri to make copies for enough of Sweden.. like the New World movive was avalible in 10 copies i believe it was for all of sweden.. dunno if that movie was good or not.. maybe it wasn't. Movies like Fearless, Danny The Dog (both Jet Li movies) and french good movies like Banlieue-13 or Taxi 3 seem not even to make it to the theaters at all.. this is really sad imo.

As i said our little local theater has yet to get
Silent Hill (June 02 swedish premiere dates)
Omen 666 (June 06)
Hoodwinked (June 09)
Lucky Number Slewin (June 16)
Just My Luck (June 16)
Take The Lead (June 25)

there have been months in the past with as many films not showing localy also.
these are just the ones i think might bring an audience.. there are others too.
--

Instead of any of the above we got Poseidon on june 26th (should have been directly to dvd imho), and keep showing X-Men The Last Stand (atleast a movie i really enjoyed with much effects. perfect for the big screen). And also some other movie.. anyway its not that much of an audience in the summer so they can sort of be forgiven for not making supermany copies.. but films like Silent Hill and Lucky Number Slewin seems to be possibly very good.. and i dont get why they (SwedishFilmindustri) don't make more copies.

Ive heard rumors of even if changing from analgue to digital cinema.. you can't just order wich movies you want.. even thought then there should be just about no cost at all to make a copy. this consept if true seems very much like unfair competition to me.

ok enough ranting on this topic



[edit on 27-6-2006 by SilverSurfer]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by SilverSurfer]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Back on topic sort of


If there is any risk at all of hurting the eyes of the audience. i say trash it.
Same if there is an extra cost for the theater to install it.. also the text they have started like "this movie is not be be copied.. yada yada" its useless in Sweden atleast since the movies can be found online before they show in our theaters.

Maybe if there was someone with a bright idea.. like showing the good movies in the theaters (to get more people) instead of having some really good movies direct to dvd. And also world premieres would be an idea, then the movie can not be downloaded months before we get to show it.

A friend of mine once downloaded a movie 6 months before it showed in the theater.. i mean c'mon thats just silly to make people wait that long.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 07:12 AM
link   
What a silly thing to do...

A good percentage of pirated movies are first distributed by studio moles, editing guys, academy judges, producers, and other assorted folks in the loop.

Gonna flash them too?

This will stop one branch of the secondary market, but it does nothing to the root.

They're going to have to purge their industry if they want to see real results.

The whole thing is really stupid though, because the majority of 'consumers' who buy/download pirated movies are in no position to spend 9.50 on a ticket, or 24.99 on a new release DVD. They're not taking anything from the studio, if they weren't planning on purchasing the movie to begin with. It's not like a car, where, if you steal it, the former owner loses the ability to use/sell it. It's information...

It's not as though every time a movie torrent is downloaded, a hollywood executive's wallet is mysteriously lighter...

There was this great quote I read in Wired a while back, and I can't remember who said it, or exactly how it went, but I'm paraphrasing it for effect. Basically, if you sell bottled water in the desert, and one day it starts to rain, you have to find a new business model - there simply is no other viable strategy.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I was looking at this technology earlier, the article actually says "White Light"?

I think the article might have it wrong, because in my studies of the technology, its in the IR spectrum...

I'm going to look into this, perhaps theres two seperate versions of the technology... white light shawn from a point really wont do much to a camera though... maybe an old 35mm camera, as it would over expose the image... but not a digital camera, it would see a dot, whereever its shawn from, and the rest of the image would be fine.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by johnsky]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
To me it would make more sense to install sometype of emp devices or other electronic scambling gear under or inside the seats to disable all electronic equipment.

I must admit I am guilty of camming a few movies in my day now I just let other people do the work so I can download them. I should have Superman Returns tommorow morning sometime.


I know a guy who has like literally thousands of pirated TV shows,movie and games all categorized in alphabetical order his collection is absolutly insane.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
johnsky,,,

thats exactly what im trying to get at

white/infrared light
and the pupil of the eye

what damage would it do????????

and what is retro-reflective ?
is that kindof like the RED EYE EFFECT on pictures

to me that is definately REFLECTIVE



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I've always heard lots of the piracy comes from people at the DVD and VHS production houses. In order to produce enough copies they get their master copy months in advance sometimes even before the movie is in theaters. Ever see a copy of a movie that's too good to be made by filming a screen in a theater and wondered how it was obtained?As WyrdeOne said a lot of it comes from people on the inside and this will do nothing to stop them.

I also wonder if this system could be easily defeated by stretching some scrimm netting or fine mesh cloth over the lens and then installing one of these over the top of that
I think it would be pretty sad if the big expensive system was defeated so easily







[edit on 8-7-2006 by warpboost]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join