Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

#71

Post by georgieporgie » Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 12:07 AM UTC

Construct wrote: post #22

nickolai wrote: post #11

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

It 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…

A 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?

Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

#72

Post by camiller » Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 4:14 AM UTC

thebooktocome wrote: post #70

camiller wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worked for the SawStop, oh wait, no it didn't. Despite their intense lobbying to get congress to mandate that all table saw manufactures use their patented tech, congress never went for it.

It failed for SawStop because the inventor chose to attempt to leverage his monopoly instead of licensing the patent. He also charged pretty outrageous prices for the tech -- wasn't it 3k or so a blade? I don't really remember.

And it was, at least in the beginning, self destructive. The original version engaged a breaking mechanism that basically destroyed itself. So a false positive caused by the wood being a little green/damp would cost $300 to get the saw back up and running. I think the new version rapidly drops the blade below the table surface instead of destroying itself.

Still, it fits sixtofour's #1 and #2, they invented a tech, tried to get it mandatory by law, so they could charge large license fees.

Edit: Besides, what IS licensing a patent if not leveraging a monopoly.

Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

#73

Post by wnight » Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 8:41 AM UTC

georgieporgie wrote: post #71

Construct wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It 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…

A 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…

No, they simply mean that you quickly gather many whole frames and even if the signal is mostly lost in most of them, enough would remain.

Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

#74

Post by icebraining » Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 2:16 PM UTC

antihero wrote: post #51

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem - if it only existed on the iPhone you basically have no significant suppression, particularly once it's known. Going to a protest, take your Flip, your camera, your Android phone, whatever. Unless it's almost universal there's little or no point. And Apple just patented it so no-one else can implement it....

And most handsets can be rooted/jailbroken to disable said features anyway.

I think the patent includes a specialized chip. The OS may be unable to control it, if it communicates directly with the camera.

Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

#75

Post by thebooktocome » Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 9:12 PM UTC

camiller wrote: post #72

thebooktocome wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It failed for SawStop because the inventor chose to attempt to leverage his monopoly instead of licensing the patent. He also charged pretty outrageous prices for the tech -- wasn't it 3k or so a blade? I don't really remember.

And it was, at least in the beginning, self destructive. The original version engaged a breaking mechanism that basically destroyed itself. So a false positive caused by the wood being a little green/damp would cost $300 to get the saw back up and running. I think the new version rapidly drops the blade below the table surface instead of destroying itself. Still, it fits sixtofour's #1 and #2, they invented a tech, t…

When you license a patent, somebody else can take on manufacturing costs and/or risks. Theoretically, there is competition, consumers have options, and the argument for legislation doesn't look quite so self-serving.