Live data from Hacker News

Hacker with iPhone takes over Times Square screens

alexandrosmaragos.com

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: Hacker with iPhone takes over Times Square screens

#51
post #4

99% chance this is just a Photoshop. The blog is about "visuals", not hacking or computer security, and I doubt that being a graphics designer is the key to figuring out how to transmit video to a Times Square video screen.

I'm guessing fake too. If you notice, one of the "demos" splits his video evenly over what appears to be 4 screens. If this were a real device, as described, it probably should have shown the same video on every screen.

Re: Hacker with iPhone takes over Times Square screens

#52
As someone that makes content for these types of displays I can almost guarantee that this is fake. Usually, my clients ask for a projector (Flash or maybe Processing) or have an embedded player. They are usually powered by PCs that have a direct connection to the display (or display array).

I’m trying to imaging the signal strength needed to override a cabled connection. I suspect it’s in the “lightning bolt” range of electrical power.

Re: Hacker with iPhone takes over Times Square screens

#56
post #4

99% chance this is just a Photoshop. The blog is about "visuals", not hacking or computer security, and I doubt that being a graphics designer is the key to figuring out how to transmit video to a Times Square video screen.

If you notice closely, you'll see almost the exact same video being repeated in all the screens- no matter how big/far they are. The size of the receiver/transmitter certainly isn't really big enough. If it was real, it would be grainier too. Good effort on the video though.

Re: Hacker with iPhone takes over Times Square screens

#57
post #4

99% chance this is just a Photoshop. The blog is about "visuals", not hacking or computer security, and I doubt that being a graphics designer is the key to figuring out how to transmit video to a Times Square video screen.

I agree, in the video it's kind of surprising how no one notices it.

I don't think that's a very strong counterargument.

Most people probably aren't really watching these things. They either process it with their peripheral vision or glance at it for a while when they're really bored and there's nothing else to see.

Now, the image is rather ordinary and stays there only for a few seconds.

This isn't flying saucer or a plane crashing into a building. It's just a dude on a TV that displays ads.

How different is it, really, from the famous Blade Runner ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ17UsZ0DEQ

Also, the camera almost never films people who actually see the screens. So even if there was someone pointing finger at it, we wouldn't see it in the video.

Re: Hacker with iPhone takes over Times Square screens

#58
post #19

Several comments on the Youtube page say it's fake, chiefly because the iPhone jack cannot output video. Is this true? If so, is it possible he wrote an app with special drivers to pull this off?

I don't know about the headphone jack as a quasi video output. You could, in theory, sample the video and create an audio stream that was an encoded version of the video (though I suspect resolution, frame rate and color accuracy would all suffer to the point that it was noticeable on the large screens). The bit that makes it suspect to me is that the iPad already has a VGA output, and even then standard iPhone/iPod…

Humorously enough, early television in the UK (from 1929-1935) had only 30 lines of resolution and so could be recorded at audio frequencies onto a "Phonovision" disk. You can see some examples at http://www.tvdawn.com/recordng.htm of the low quality of the results.

For a little while, the BBC did broadcasts of 30-line video using two AM radio frequencies (one for the video, one for the audio) that could be picked up by special recievers.

Post reply on HN