Stop using flash!

[Robo]

I'm curious, which part of this actual device do you think is impossible?

None of it is possible. (Or, maybe, not "practical.")

Someone has come up with a gizmo,
1. it's a stand alone flash with a stencil over the end.
2. It's triggered by the flash of another camera by a slave circuit. So when people take a picture of something this gizmo goes off and
3. paints the target with a picture for just that 1/10000 of a second. You can't see it with the naked eye really but the pictures will all come up with your picture on them.

1. THAT wouldn't work. A stencil needs a projection lens system.
Without that, it would just lower the brightness of the light behind it.
And, if it had a lens system (for projection of a shadow/image) it would have to
be focused to the surface on which it was being projected.
Otherwise, the intended "disruptive shape" might be nothing but a soft, nondescript blur.
(Which would defeat the entire purpose.)

2. THAT wouldn't work, as by the time a sensor in our image projector
detected another flash, that other camera would be finished exposing its photo.
Our projector unit's flash would be going off too late.

3. THAT wouldn't work, as a strobe of only 1/10,000 of a second...
A. is not possible with standard (affordable) strobe technology.
B. would not overcome the bright on-access strobe of the original camera.
C. would be visible to all guests... if it WAS bright enough to have any effect at all.

A case (if it DID work) where the "cure" would be as bad (or worse) than the "disease."

 

[cobright]

None of it is possible.



1. THAT wouldn't work. A stencil needs a projection lens system.
2. THAT wouldn't work, as by the time a sensor in our image projector
detected another flash, that other camera would be finished exposing the photo
in the other camera. Our projector unit's flash would be going off too late.
3. THAT wouldn't work, as a strobe of only 1/10,000 of a second...
A. is not possible with standard (affordable) strobe technology.

1. I had hoped that my description would be taken to be that of a general account. I was concerned more with describing what it does than how it does it. Yes, the system does use a lens set either before or after the stencil.
2. A slave sensor is common in photography where one wishes to use more than one flash. The camera triggers the one and the slave sensors trigger the rest. As shutter duration when using a flash is usually 1/60 seconds, there is plenty of time for multiple flashes to go off. I have at times taken a picture and accidentally caught the strobe from a photopass gunner or another guest. It happens all the time.
3. 1/10000 of a second is a typo that I have corrected. It should have read 1/1000, which is a common flash duration. That said, you can buy a Yongnuo YN560-IV for about $70 with a flash duration as low as 1/25,000 of a second. As originally conceived I don't think such a fast flash was common but in this day that is simply not an outrageous number. Flash duration is how the camera (or the flash) sets the amount of exposure on the film or sensor. If the photographer's camera says it needs x amount of light from the flash to properly expose it can't vary the brightness of the flash, it varies the duration. Adding a second flash that is only illuminating his picture in the parts exposed by the stencil definitely does show up on the developed film or digital image. And since the fulgurator strobe is firing at exactly the same time as the photographer's strobe, people looking at the scene being photograph do not notice a difference.

A simple google image search will confirm that just such a device is possible and the results are much as I describe. I'm happy to concede on stickling points of technical minutia, though in fairness I did refer to it as a "gizmo" and limited my description of it to like 3 sentences. So perhaps ask for more detail before proclaiming something a hoax? Maybe a better response to express your concern, would have sounded more like, "I would need to hear more on how this works, but this sounds like magic to me and as such I am dubious that it exists at all.". Proclaiming that something is a hoax implies intentional deception and amounts to calling the person who said it a liar.

 

[beesly]

They? I'm just me. Here's a link...

http://makezine.com/2011/10/19/projector-disguised-as-camera-flashes-images-into-others-photos/

Thanks for the link! I think I'll be reading more about this over the weekend.

I didn't want to assume "he" or "she" and get it wrong, but I suppose I could have just tagged you instead. While I wouldn't use "singular they" in formal writing, it's fairly common in informal English. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/using-they-and-them-in-the-singular

 

[cobright]

Thanks for the link! I think I'll be reading more about this over the weekend.

I didn't want to assume "he" or "she" and get it wrong, but I suppose I could have just tagged you instead. While I wouldn't use "singular they" in formal writing, it's fairly common in informal English. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/using-they-and-them-in-the-singular

I'm actually a big fan of 'singular they' as an elegant solution to the neutral pronoun problem. I even convinced a few of my professors when I was in school. Thanks though for the thought

 

[Robo]

Proclaiming that something is a hoax implies intentional deception and amounts to calling the person who said it a liar.

It was not my contention that YOU made up the hoax.
I just said it was a hoax.
And, it still is as far as I'm concerned.
Especially, as was described, for the reasons I detailed.

 

[ucfknight]

2. THAT wouldn't work, as by the time a sensor in our image projector
detected another flash, that other camera would be finished exposing its photo.
Our projector unit's flash would be going off too late.

I'm not arguing that the device would be possible as described, because the other issues you mention would be there, but this particular point I don't agree with. Unless the flash on the original camera was set to rear-curtain (2nd curtain), there is no reason this 'flash projector' wouldn't be able to fire in time to contribute to the exposure. It is done all the time with slave units. You could even have the 'flash projector' rigged to operate at full power and have it run in a multiple-pulse mode like in high-speed sync to make the flash's contribution to the exposure be much greater than the original flash on the camera. And any halfway decent external flash can greatly overpower the one or 2 LEDs on a cellphone. You could certainly use such a system to greatly overexpose someone else's photos, but then you'd be contributing to light pollution on the ride even worse than the original offender.

Your other points may be good, and I seriously doubt you could get an in-focus stenciled image onto someone else's exposure unless you were in very carefully controlled conditions with the distance and power of the 'flash projector' set precisely.

 

[bladiator]

I personally don't want anyone taking pictures and videos on rides because I took a short 15 second video of the transition between sets on COP during one trip (and I rarely take videos or pictures at all) and the CM came over the loud speaker to "remind all of us" that there will be no video taking while on the ride. And then you get home and there are 5,247 videos of everything at Disney. Come on, Disney! Start ripping down those videos of your copyrighted stuff!

 

[ucfknight]

I personally don't want anyone taking pictures and videos on rides because I took a short 15 second video of the transition between sets on COP during one trip (and I rarely take videos or pictures at all) and the CM came over the loud speaker to "remind all of us" that there will be no video taking while on the ride. And then you get home and there are 5,247 videos of everything at Disney. Come on, Disney! Start ripping down those videos of your copyrighted stuff!

Those Sherman Brothers (RIP Robert) don't play around with people illegally recording their music. They've been known to break kneecaps.

 

[Robo]

You could certainly use such a system to greatly overexpose someone else's photos, but then you'd be contributing to light pollution on the ride even worse than the original offender.

Hense, the "cure" worse than the "disease" comment.

Unit wouldn't work "unnoticed" as described.

 

[bladiator]

Second, because film was expensive, folks didn't want to waste it. Part of the problem is that digital images are effectively FREE and UNLIMITED. Film also has technical limitations that make it hard to take good photos on dark rides, like long exposure times (=no moving the camera). In practice, most people just figured images taken in low light = a waste of film.

I was going to say ... I wish that digital photography wasn't free sometimes because then people wouldn't frivolously be taking pictures every single second unless they were super into taking pictures. I know, I know, do what you want, this is my thing, enjoy Disney how you want to enjoy Disney etc ... I know a lot of people want to remember their moments at Disney World which is great, but I think that even without the technology we have today everyone could come home happy. I don't want to just blanket statement say "it was better in the olden days" but it does seem like we had a bit more imagination back then...

I'm also a social media hater, so you can see where I'm coming from here, I imagine.

 

[eileenjez]

I have problems with my eyes adjusting to the differences in lighting. When someone was asked politely to stop using a flash and didn't I got very upset.

 

[buzznina]

I get a kick out of some of these posts, go watch someone else's video on youtube, really??? It's amazing (not really for DIS) that this thread went from the inconsiderate people using flash's and raising their iPads in the way, to having the people that do not take photos criticizing the people that do
I totally agree with faulting the big iPads or flash photo's and people that hold their camera's "above" their heads etc. but I know how to use my camera and get good shots in the dark without a flash. I also make sure that when I use our video camera, it is right in front of me at my head level, not holding it up above my head. But the ONLY time I would want to view a video that someone else took would be to review rides or something like that, NO WAY would it replace our videos. I want to make sure I do not miss "my DD's" "ooh's and aah's" or their comments during the fireworks or castle shows. Not listening to some strange family Short story: we met some friends of ours at US for a weekend of Harry Potter fun. Our friends rarely ever take any photos and have made comments at how we always take pictures. On the last day their oldest DD(12) asked my DW if she could email most of the photos to them because she would love to have some photos from the trip.
All that matters to me is that our DDs love re-watching our family trip videos.

 

[Mambo Junkie]

I get a kick out of some of these posts, go watch someone else's video on youtube, really??? It's amazing (not really for DIS) that this thread went from the inconsiderate people using flash's and raising their iPads in the way, to having the people that do not take photos criticizing the people that do
I totally agree with faulting the big iPads or flash photo's and people that hold their camera's "above" their heads etc. but I know how to use my camera and get good shots in the dark without a flash. I also make sure that when I use our video camera, it is right in front of me at my head level, not holding it up above my head. But the ONLY time I would want to view a video that someone else took would be to review rides or something like that, NO WAY would it replace our videos. I want to make sure I do not miss "my DD's" "ooh's and aah's" or their comments during the fireworks or castle shows. Not listening to some strange family Short story: we met some friends of ours at US for a weekend of Harry Potter fun. Our friends rarely ever take any photos and have made comments at how we always take pictures. On the last day their oldest DD(12) asked my DW if she could email most of the photos to them because she would love to have some photos from the trip.
All that matters to me is that our DDs love re-watching our family trip videos.

We love to watch our trips also. We take pictures and video but we make sure we aren't bothering anyone. Nor do we do it where asked not to. Like you, I value my memories and love all the pictures and videos we have taken throughout the years. Memory Maker helps a lot but we still have our candids to add to the mix.

 

[bobbiwoz]

I hate it when flashes go off during "Under the Sea. "

 

[soniam]

I have a confession to make. The first trip we took with our new, really great DSLR and our awesome no flash required super fast lens, I was taking pictures, without the flash, on the dark rides. Well, the stupid camera had the range-finder light enabled It's not nearly like a flash, but it's still an annoying light. I couldn't tell it was on. In fact, with all of the other flashes, I wouldn't have noticed any other lights. It wasn't until the second ride, Haunted Mansion, that I noticed a light coming from my camera in the reflection of a mirror in the banquet hall room. I was mortified! I stopped taking pictures right then. We figured out how to disable it and haven't had an issue since. I really wish someone had said something though. We have never had a DSLR with a range-finder light or one that was enabled by default. Apologies if you were on a ride with me I do love taking pictures on the dark rides without the flash, but you really have to have the proper equipment to do so. Even then, the movement of the ride vehicle is difficult to deal with.

 

[Robo]

I hate it when flashes go off during "Under the Sea. "

In which attraction?

 

[Mambo Junkie]

If i was your son i would be mortified also. One stupid act does not justify another. A simple "stop taking flash pics" would be sufficient. Lets all be adults here!!

Yeah you're right. But if we were all being adults they would have stopped after being asked 5 times to stop. Twice by me, once by someone else in the boat and twice from another boat. It was that obnoxious. After trying to lean over behind someone to block the flash from my face (ineffectively I might add) for most of the ride and knowing not only was my experience ruined but my family's as well and finally getting aggravated I gave in to my inner child. However, it would have been nice if a simple "stop taking flash pictures" would have sufficed.