The makers of
PhotoBlocker spray claim that their product will make your license plate invisible to photo radar, red light cameras, and infrared and laster cameras. Special crystals in the spray will reflect back the flash (or light source) used by these cameras, making your license look like a bright blur. Would this actually work? Would it be legal if it did? They say that the spray is invisible to the naked eye, which means that it won't be of much use if a cop pulls you over. Personally, I've always thought someone should make a stealth car, made out of the same material as the stealth airplanes. That would be cool. (via
Red Ferret)
Comments
as you can see it works and this is with a digicam flash, the speed camera flash is a lot more powerful
some of the pic you can see some of my letter but you cant make it out
Mate, those are good photos but cameras use FILM and you used a DIGITAL camera. Film is much harder to saturate than a digital imager, the latter having a limited dynamic range for all pixels. Also, because of the saturated nature of your digital photos, the jpeg compression algorithms WILL remove some of the detail; again that does not apply to film. Film would also record at a higher effective resolution than what you
I see all the time people hook up a lap top in the red-light camera and download the images I don
In a typical system, cameras are positioned at the corners of an intersection, on poles a few yards high. The cameras point inward, so they can photograph cars driving through the intersection. Generally, a red-light system has cameras at all four corners of an intersection, to photograph cars going in different directions and get pictures from different angles. Some systems use film cameras, but most newer systems use digital cameras.
all of them in australia is digital they only started poping up 2-3 years ago
Besides, digital imagers can be made to do something special. Your average consumer digicam uses an 8-bit, slightly non-linear, fixed gain ADC (across each photo), as well as a cheap CCD imager, the pixel wells of which can
i didn
Film and specially setup digital cameras can capture a very wide range of light intensities, especially compared to cheaper consumer digital cameras storing photos using the poorer JPEG format. Also, many plates are retro-reflective anyway (just like what your spray is supposed to be to be able to blind the camera) so enforcement cameras have to be setup to be able to photo plates with a PROPER retro-reflective backing without the risk of blooming or saturation. Therefore, the whiteout you see in your photos, impressive at they may appear to be, is not a reflection of what it would look like in a real enforcement photo.
In fact, closely examine the area immediately below the plate in your photos. There is a very strong white haze where it should be totally dark (apart from the first photo); that haze alone registers more than halfway up the displayed intensity scale. This is indicative of a poor camera optics system; it could well be this artefact alone that resulted with the lettering of the plate being almost indistinguishable.
Your photos have proven one critical thing to me:
Whether or not your plate is retro-reflective, the spray you used, while seemingly retro-reflective, is not retro-reflective enough to render the lettering indistinguishable from the background. In fact, the background would likely have been many times brighter than the characters, but your setup will have masked this so casting the FALSE ILLUSION that they are washed out.
In English: even though your test is invalid, it still proves your spray to be a total failure. Sorry.
If I may repeat myself:
I can even dismiss the photo (from the video) of the result of the "independent testing" on Phantomplate.com - why? Basic examination of the image shows it has been severely subjected to compression artifacting (you can easily see the 8x8 blocks where the average intensity has been used, yet I clearly see some detail on the plate!?!?!). I note the Denver Police Department didn
im still selling the spray and covers and have been doing well,
now that summer is here i will be at a number of car shows and show and shins...
the covers work great and teh spray is working well,
i sell the photostoper spray and not teh photoblocker spray now,
teh only reson i changes is because teh Photostopper is made and shipped in Canada, i saved me thousands in S/H cost.
but i stil sell plenty.
I think you are photoblocker, and mad at on track that they sell better products.
Their Photostopper works great, and it does not yellow on your plate like the other one does. It is cheaper tooo.
Ontrack is business the longest, before any other guys even existed!!! Their sprays have been around for way longer than anybody. They know what they are doing. I have a cover and spray, and no tickets for a very long time.
What Dorf says is true. Look here:
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=3712
The attorney general has leaned on Photoblocker really heavy, for doing bad stuff, like deceiving people and lying about their products. They got a huge fine of $25,000 for doing this.
On Track is the way to go boys. 😊
If you had actually read and digested the posts in this thread, you would have realised that deliberately triggering a camera and not getting a ticket is not proof that the sprays really work. This was the point of my contribution to this thread - to highlight and logically explain the flaws in the given arguments, not simply to spout "yes it does, no it doesn't". I'm also looking for real results, but I like to know that the claimed 'reality' is genuine! If you wish to simply take posts at face value, then Steve
Dave from N.Y.
Course that all got to the point one in ten people know someone who has an uncle who has one mounted on an SHO that is constantly speeding without being ticketed 🙄
If these photoblocker sprays actually were retro-reflective (that
what's funny is that you don't have to pay the ticket, they won't put an arrest warrant on you like a real ticket, but you get bad credit cause they claim you owe them money. The actual company is based in Arizona, we have to pay the company in arizona, is that effed up or what? Personally I have never been caught by those cameras although on a couple of occasions i felt like "oh sh*t I'm sure I crossed that when it was red!", but no tickets as of yet :D
When using teh SPRAY your plate as instructed,
BUT NOW GET A CLEAR COVER, LIKE THE ONES FROM TEH DOLLER STORE AND SPRAY THE INSIDE OF THAT COVER A FEW TIMES LETTING IT DAY AND A FEW COTES ON TEH OUTSIDE AND LET IT DAY.
the reason for teh change is the cops are reversing the image with photoshop, so using the clear cover will give you a stronger flash back.
we were only notified by two people who sent us in a copy of the summons and you can tell the first picture of the whole car the spray worked, you cannot read the plate, but the close up of the plate was lightly able to read, but you can see the different shows now and tell what the cops did.
htp://www.photoblockercanada.com
they must be worried.
That said, Although it probably does work in ideal circumstances (if your plate is spotlessly clean and at the correct angle) Photoblocker spray is probably the least effective tool for defeating our unconstitutional speed cameras. But it is the most invisible. So if you're worried about anyone seeing your countermeasures it is your only option.
The most effective countermeasures are the clear lenses that distort the view of the plate when viewed at an angle. Despite the illegal nature of the lenses I've been driving around with them for just shy of four years and haven't had a problem with law enforcement.
In fact, the law enforcement personell that I've spoken to regard speed cameras the same as a clerk regards self-checkout registers. They're there to eliminate jobs. So as long as you're not driving like a nut it is doubtful you'll encounter a problem.
Any one who says this snake oil in a can works is lying through their teeth.
There is a big difference between driving on the edge through cities in a heavy vehicle, and normal travelling. It is expected that slowly accelerating vehicles, when negotiating their way through short straights (congested cities), will rarely manage high speeds; the higher speeds they do reach last for very short periods. Your comparison couldn
I have faxed one of the tickets to the makers per their request and have as of yet heard nothing.In my opinion, this is a scam product.
http://www.ketv.com/news/8068453/detail.html
So the best thing to do would be to see if it works for yourself and stop believing the bullshit on the news. I am turning off my TV for good as the bullshit is at an alltime high. WHY DO YOU THINK OBAMA HAS ALL THIS REPORTING ON HEALTH CARE, IT IS SUPPOSE TAKE OUR ATTENTION AWAY FROM WHAT HE IS DOING OVER IN AFGANISTAN!!!!!
"WHY DO YOU THINK OBAMA HAS ALL THIS REPORTING ON HEALTH CARE, IT IS SUPPOSE TAKE OUR ATTENTION AWAY FROM WHAT HE IS DOING OVER IN AFGANISTAN!!!!!"
Actually, it's even more insidious than that. If you look closely at the anchors on CNN, you'll see that they're actually all Obama wearing different masks. Yes, "President" Obama is the person READING THE NEWS. That way he can insure that the "news" is exactly what he wants it to be.
I don't know all the details of this vast conspiracy concerning health care and Photoblocker, but I'm sure it involves the pyramid with the eye on the back of the dollar bill in some way.
i was very interested in this topic that i read the whole 5 yrz thread.
regarding the spray thingy, from a photographer view and the radar cameras in our cameras, that think cannot work at all, let's go technical ..
in our country there r both digital and films speed cameras, both with flash built in which fires all the time no matter what is the time of the day.
as a photographer i would rather say that the flash is too strong that it wont affect the picture weather its in the daylight or in the night. cuz once u have a strong flash and there's sumthing reflective in the other side, everything surrounding becomes black .. it totally black out.
and yes we have a glowing plate numbers. to get a right picture, the aperture would be really small. the speeding cameras are so advanced in technology that it's being bought in $10,000(s) bills, its able to focus, fire a flash and process a picture in less than a second.
for those who claim it works .. i would rather say u jst got lucky with it, like what happened with me once, i was driving like 180+ one day and i got flashed, i went mad so i sped up more to reach 200+ sumthing, and guess what, i got flashed again, till this moment no speeding tickets (or got jailed).
yet u cnt depend on luck every time, u cnt live forever, cuz i got flashed once at 237 and i got ticketed, since it was my first "mad" thing i jst paid the ticket without getting jailed .. xD
since that day i never got a speeding ticket again, i drive up to the speeding limits (that's why cruse control was made for), i reach my destinations at the same time, and i can assure im gna come back in one piece.
When I took a picture to test it, they were all blurred beyong recognition.
Works well with my camera.