FALL SALE - 20% OFF - USE CODE: FALL20 (24 HOURS LEFT)
June 28, 2008 @ 10:10 AM
AfrocentricPatrick

Post: 2375

Join Date: Aug 2006

Location: 910 side of thangs,...

June 28, 2008 @ 09:23 PM
soupreme

Post: 78

Join Date: Jan 2008

Location: H-Town

scary...
This could be so abused. I don't want my photos watermarked with some trademark because I took a picture of something in public that is owned by some company. Crazy.
June 28, 2008 @ 10:39 PM
indirectdelete

Post: 1900

Join Date: Nov 2007

Location: Brooklyn, NY

Saw an article of that the other day. Pretty crazy.
June 29, 2008 @ 03:28 AM
WE DONDA.

Post: 768

Join Date: Feb 2007

cliffnotes?
June 29, 2008 @ 04:02 AM
iggy-koopa

Post: 585

Join Date: Jan 2008

To see why, consider how it works. The device is a modified camera -- in this case, an old manual Minolta SLR. A flashgun fires through the camera in reverse, from the back. The flash picks up the image of a slide inside and projects it out through the lens and onto any surface.

The trick is in the triggering. The Fulgurator lies in wait until an unsuspecting photographer takes a picture using a flash. When the device's sensor sees this flash, it fires its own unit, throwing up an image which is captured by the hapless photographer's camera while remaining unseen by the naked eye.

Now, imagine for a moment that an ad agency gets hold of this. You couldn't take a photograph of a tourist attraction ever again without worrying that some marketing crap would be pushed into your camera. As Julius told me, "I see it as a piece of media art. It could be a dangerous attack on media. [But] if people do shit with it, I feel bad."
June 29, 2008 @ 05:25 AM
rickqlo

Post: 1049

Join Date: Jun 2008

Location: melbs

So basically, when you take a picture of say The Eiffel Tower, this Image Fulgutator could detect that and "project" a word/slogan/picture/etc into your image?
June 29, 2008 @ 07:43 AM
Rizzo

Post: 338

Join Date: Aug 2007

Location: some where else.

^ yap. thats fucked up....but kinda cool, too.
June 29, 2008 @ 09:55 AM
indirectdelete

Post: 1900

Join Date: Nov 2007

Location: Brooklyn, NY

It doesn't project it directly to your image, it projects it to what you're taking a picture of. Because of this it will only work on flat objects, like a sign (which is what was used in the video about it.)
June 30, 2008 @ 11:16 AM
Deemy

Post: 1835

Join Date: Aug 2006

I think it would be more likely used in art galleries and stuff like that, where copyright could mean a big thing. The Eiffel Tower and such, everybody knows it's from France and I'm sure the French wouldn't want to destroy their most famous work.
June 30, 2008 @ 07:00 PM
DREWKKAKE

moderator

Post: 9648

Join Date: Oct 2007

Location: 707/562

suprised this hasnt been used for viral marketing yet and/or street art

like someone putting some sort of street art on the side of a huge building or something. would be kind of cool.

but it would definitely ruin photography

Forum Administrator • @DREWKKAKE

June 30, 2008 @ 07:21 PM
Langox510x

Post: 1435

Join Date: Jun 2006

Location: Oakland, CA/Stevens...

Bet it won't be missused. I bet companies will use this to protect their own pictures.
June 30, 2008 @ 09:30 PM
entangledvyne

Post: 998

Join Date: Aug 2006

Location: Boston

i cant see it being too bad, i mean at big tourist attractions, or landmarks you are outside, and would not need a flash therefore the furgulator would not be able to send its image out. And in museum or most other places inside you shouldnt be using a flash anyways. I think it is way too pricey to have one of these setups, when a company could just put up a no flash photography sign, and 99% of people would abide by that.
July 1, 2008 @ 12:56 AM
DREWKKAKE

moderator

Post: 9648

Join Date: Oct 2007

Location: 707/562

i guess thats true.. still scary though

Forum Administrator • @DREWKKAKE

July 4, 2008 @ 08:26 PM
Chang.

Post: 324

Join Date: Mar 2008

well this is only if you use flash right? that can't destroy us too horribly. and how does the camera know if its a flash? what if a cars headlights turn on? will it go off and send the watermark shit ?
July 4, 2008 @ 11:32 PM
WE DONDA.

Post: 768

Join Date: Feb 2007

^^ what affect would that have on anything?..
July 5, 2008 @ 02:02 PM
SaVaGeDrIfTeR

Post: 320

Join Date: Oct 2007

Location: North Las Vegas, NV

Video of it in action...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAX_3Bgel7M
July 5, 2008 @ 05:32 PM
Chang.

Post: 324

Join Date: Mar 2008

^cot damn
July 8, 2008 @ 11:10 PM
Chris

Post: 1662

Join Date: Aug 2006

Location: Washington

I predict a lot of these being vandalized and broken if they ever do start to be used.
August 4, 2008 @ 02:45 PM
kID_dyNamite

Post: 100

Join Date: Nov 2006

Location: Miami

Hey but if you make one of your own you can graffiti on other peoples pictures lol......
August 8, 2008 @ 01:18 AM
Ryon

Post: 2465

Join Date: May 2008

Location: 818

It only works if it sees a flash, so take pictures during the day with good lighting.
August 11, 2008 @ 01:08 PM
erasa510

Post: 19

Join Date: Feb 2008

It only works if it sees a flash, so take pictures during the day with good lighting.


very true, any weapons have it's weak point. However, this invention is quite interesting.
August 23, 2008 @ 11:04 PM
jsoller

Post: 5

Join Date: Aug 2008

damn. the technology is cool but hopefully this doesnt get into the wrong hands. i would hate to think i just captured a dope picture but then later find out its been marked.
August 24, 2008 @ 05:11 AM
twothousand1.

Post: 609

Join Date: Feb 2008

what the fuck
August 24, 2008 @ 05:12 AM
Calborn

Post: 1599

Join Date: Mar 2008

Location: BAY, CALIFAS

technology is slowly ruining life

As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.

August 24, 2008 @ 05:51 PM
derpderp

Post: 247

Join Date: Aug 2008

Location: Winnipeg.

Just fukken break them all
September 4, 2008 @ 04:20 PM
xdiddykongx

Post: 1063

Join Date: Sep 2006

Location: Miami / Cuba

yeah i don't know why everyone is "scared" it only seems to work with flash. set up a tripod, and do a long exposure haha. thats all. Not even a big deal..
September 7, 2008 @ 06:13 PM
Hybrid Moments

Post: 747

Join Date: Feb 2006

Location: nowhere.

I'd have no problem breaking someone's if I saw them fucking around. I'm sure I'd have a lot of backup too.
September 7, 2008 @ 07:56 PM
dUn DeKid

Post: 1467

Join Date: Aug 2008

Location: Seven7Ceven

I'd have no problem breaking someone's if I saw them fucking around. I'm sure I'd have a lot of backup too.


i still have no idea what this is, the description was f*ckin too techy.
September 7, 2008 @ 08:29 PM
Hybrid Moments

Post: 747

Join Date: Feb 2006

Location: nowhere.

i still have no idea what this is, the description was f*ckin too techy.


It projects an image onto yours, but you can't see it if you look at it, you can only see it AFTER the pic is taken. Like you can shoot and not review them on-site, get home and be heated cuz you have someone's name or brand or whatever image incorporated into your pic. Mad corny.

Please login first to reply.
Back To Top