6 ms·
Wouldnt a simple IR filter strapped to the camera lens neutralise the system? The filters are really not that hard to get - most cheap webcams use one because
by nickolai 15y ago
Wouldnt a simple IR filter strapped to the camera lens neutralise the system?
The filters are really not that hard to get - most cheap webcams use one because their CCD are actually very sensitive to IRs
- modernerd 15y agoIf 'blockable-by-IR' technology made it into the iPhone camera, it'd be a week before an IR filter exactly as you describe emerged as a Kickstarter project. It would probably be titled 'Decensored' and accompanied by a spoof of the famous 1984 Super Bowl ad. Or, failing that, a guy in a shed with some IR filters, a pair of scissors, some Pritt Stick, and a dream.
- crocowhile 15y agoIf I were Apple I would make the IR processing happen at hardware level (so no jailbreak) and I would make sure the hardware would stop working unless a physiological level of background IR light is picked up. That means that an IR filter physically placed in front of the objective would stop the secret signal but make the camera useless as well.
- lutorm 15y agothe hardware would stop working unless a physiological level of background IR light is picked up. It would also make the camera useless in situations with low light or lit by e.g. fluorescent lights. I don't think that would fly.
- modernerd 15y agoEven that could be circumvented: ---------IR Filter---------- ------IR Light Ring------- ---------Camera---------- Besides which, when Apple adds features, they traditionally do so to benefit their users. I'd suggest that, even though they cite concert censorship as an example of use in the patent, that's probably a cover-all-bases addition; we're more likely to see an iPhone IR sensor that enhances the user experience rather than one that impedes it.
- Construct 15y agoIt depends on 1) the IR attenuation of the filter and 2) the sensitivity of the camera element to IR. IR filters can only attenuate incoming IR so much while still allowing nearby red wavelengths through. And any filter will have a non-flat response through the visible wavelengths, slightly distorting the color response of your photos. A properly coded IR signal from the transmitting 'disabler' device could still be picked up by the iPhone even if it was severely attenuated. At ~30fps, you can quickly get 100+ samples to cross-correlate with to search for the encoded 'disable' signal. My gut feeling is that Apple patented this technology because it was low-hanging fruit. They saw they could roll it into a legitimate patent and prevent others from claiming it down the road. Still, I think it's worthwhile to send a quick letter to the powers that be to let them know we all disprove. If it does get implemented, the popularity of jailbreaking will move up another notch.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago> If it does get implemented, the popularity of jailbreaking will move up another notch. Unless they implement it at the hardware level.
- jrockway 15y agoIf only there were multiple suppliers of mobile phones.
- georgieporgie 15y agoA properly coded IR signal from the transmitting 'disabler' device could still be picked up by the iPhone even if it was severely attenuated. How about IR filter + 555 timer connected to an IR LED near the camera lens. Filter down the unwanted IR signal, then wash it away with a flood of intermittent IR of your own. At ~30fps, you can quickly get 100+ samples to cross-correlate with to search for the encoded 'disable' signal. Can you explain how that works? I don't have a deep grasp of CCDs, so I don't understand how a signal like this could be encoded within a single 1/30 second frame. I thought that all pixels were captured simultaneously, is that not the case?
- brown9-2 15y agoCan IR light pass through duct tape?