Anti-paparazzi laser

[axero]

I'm thinking about building a device that can damage digital cameras preferably based on a laser that operates in the infrared (or NIR) spectrum.

Does anyone know how much power that is required to completely damage a CMOS (or CCD) sensor at a given distance and how long exposure times would be required?

By destroying I mean now permanently and not just temporarily saturate the sensor with light and completely, not just by killing a few pixels.

[Strada916]

Most DSLRs have a view finder. You'll bust there eyes before you bust there sensor

[Falcon69]

Hmm, I smell lawsuits.

But, sounds like a fun project.

[Boltar]

Quick google and I came across this page.
http://www.laserist.org/camera-and-DLP-damage.htm
Stating a 1-2W green laser damaging CCDs. Doesn't mention IR but lets assume the power is going to be pretty much the same. 1-2W of laser is seriously powerful and I would think almost certain to blind someone if it were accidentally directed at their eyes, so you'd need a perfect aiming system.

[Lightages]

This is not even worth investigating.

#1. The power needed to damage a camera would put the laser into a class that would be considered a weapon.
#2. You will kill everyone's eyes near the camera before the camera is damaged.
#3. Intentional damage to another person's property would be a criminal act.
#4. Even if you could be sure to only hit the camera, you would destroy the eye of the person looking through any optical viewfinder.
#5. The cost of the imagined ideal device would be more expensive than anyone would want to pay, much cheaper to pay the vultures to go away
#6. The batteries needed to have the thing useful and ready to blind people all day would probably make an electric car go for a day.

Sorry, give the idea up, it is a dead and dangerous end.

[Falcon69]

Aside from that, I would think if you got caught with it, you could be in trouble. Don't be shining it up in there air at flying objects, if you know what I mean.  A guy here just got sentenced to prison for doing just that.

[ConKbot]

Relevant research, to the topic.
http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/anti-camera.htm

Though I'd have a feeling paparazzi would most likely not be the target of anything the thread starter is looking to dazzle, given the prevalence of security cameras redlight cameras and other sources of debatable privacy problems. 

[Falcon69]

He's preparing for when the government launches a gazillion automated flying drones (4-6 blade mini copters) to spy on us all.

[axero]

Interesting that a laser show system can be classed as safe and yet damage a camera. So I take it that a CMOS camera is more sensitive than the human eye.

The nifty thing with the laser is that the beam doesn't spread so I guess that the Beer-Lambert law for the atmosphere is all that is required to calculate how much the intensity gets weaker over the distance.

I understand that such a system is not pleasant but they are being in use by the military and people who apparently don't want to get photographed.

It sounds reasonable to be able to fend oneself from drone threats when times get more dire. We sure can't take for granted that the society forever will stay as safe as it may be today.

[Boltar]

Relevant research, to the topic.
http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/anti-camera.htm

Though I'd have a feeling paparazzi would most likely not be the target of anything the thread starter is looking to dazzle, given the prevalence of security cameras redlight cameras and other sources of debatable privacy problems.

That's a point, such a system could potentially damage a security camera at a significant distance. Although I imagine most burglars already know that, they aim laser pens at them.

[Yago]

DSLRs have a shutter covering the sensor, pretty much all the time (except when recording image).
Sensor being "naked" for just fraction of second when shooting stills (it IS a DSLR after all:P).
Need a damn strong laser to cut through shutter!?!

[eneuro]

He's preparing for when the government launches a gazillion automated flying drones (4-6 blade mini copters) to spy on us all.

Those copters will fall from the sky with raptor birds help 


Anyway if they were to close ultimate weapons exists for years 

[G7PSK]

If you want to spoil a paparazzi day just go to a camera shop and buy a few small slave flash units, then fix them around the rim of a hat. Every time they take a photo with a flash they will get flashed back at, I have never seen one of these paparazzi not using a camera mounted flash even when they are using telephoto lenses they use a flash. 

[mzzj]

DSLRs have a shutter covering the sensor, pretty much all the time (except when recording image).
Sensor being "naked" for just fraction of second when shooting stills (it IS a DSLR after all:P).
Need a damn strong laser to cut through shutter!?!

Shutter AND mirror! 

[bills]

Most DSLRs have a view finder. You'll bust there eyes before you bust there sensor

Wow you are not very nice.
If you want to disrupt them safely there are ways, the idea with the slave flash units looks promising just sub the strobes with some high output IR leds .

[_Sin]

Water pistol + paint.

[Psi]

A RED camera (EPIC?) was taken out by a stage laser at a concert once.

There is video of it happening but it got taken down real fast. (I suspect RED offered them a new camera if they took the vid down.)

From memory, at first it got some lines and then died completely. 
Since that was from a "safe" laser-show doing audience scanning i suspect the sensors are sensitive to high power lasers, even when they are scanning fast enough to be safe to humans.

But you will never be able to make something handheld that is "safe" and definitely not something that is legal.

For it to be safe you need to know the min distance from device to eyeball and then do the math for energy vs time at that distance.
That's something you can do for a fixed position concert laser with the audience in a known location, but you can't do for something handheld which could be used point blank.

The legal requirements for using high power lasers in public are VERY strict and require lots of certifications.

[Legit-Design]

Camera only gets those famous 3 dots.
I think the best option is to go full MJ (Micheal Jackson) if worried about dem paparazzi.

[GreyWoolfe]

Water pistol + paint.

Not paint.  Really cheap perfume so they smell like a whorehouse after a long day of customer service.

[Marco]

Interesting that a laser show system can be classed as safe and yet damage a camera. So I take it that a CMOS camera is more sensitive than the human eye.

Citation about the camera damage?

[Simon]

If you want to spoil a paparazzi day just go to a camera shop and buy a few small slave flash units, then fix them around the rim of a hat. Every time they take a photo with a flash they will get flashed back at, I have never seen one of these paparazzi not using a camera mounted flash even when they are using telephoto lenses they use a flash. 

I think there is a similarly designed product out there with a mass of LED's and a sensor that flashes off the LED's when it detects a flash going off on a camera.

[Matje]

Interesting that a laser show system can be classed as safe and yet damage a camera. So I take it that a CMOS camera is more sensitive than the human eye.

The laser at the show either never does point at the crowd or is required to move quite fast. Certification includes checks that if it ever stops moving the laser will safely shut down.

A camera sensor is most certainly not more sensitive to damage than a human eye, the idea to rely on that is, hmm, maximally stupid?

I understand that such a system is not pleasant but they are being in use by the military and people who apparently don't want to get photographed.

You do understand that there are completely different rules for the military than for ordinary folk?

As for the people who don't want to get photographed, citations or it is just a rumor. Mind you, a "dazzler" kind of device with a laser moving fast to "scan" some segment of space might work for that. That article linked in the thread talks about small spaces, possibly darkened. Quite different from outdoors out to several hundred meters.

It sounds reasonable to be able to fend oneself from drone threats when times get more dire. We sure can't take for granted that the society forever will stay as safe as it may be today.

While in principle I agree, the idea that you actually would be able to defend against drones in the future sounds dubious.

Heck, you can't even detect a Predator is up there without a quite sophisticated radar setup. Which is why people in Afghanistan and elsewhere get blown up by the Hellfire missiles launched from them instead of blowing the suckers out of the sky with a SAM (that they don't have either of course).

Personal opinion about paparazzi: It should only take that many broken kneecaps to make that shit stop. Concrete boots and a jump into a suitable body of water for a few of them at most...