Can a TV camera be blinded by IR?

A friend of mine has a neighbor who has stuck a small video camera in his bedroom window to spy on the friend's yard. The problem is in clear view of the camera is the friend's 14 year old daughter's bedroom window. The neighbor claims that the friend is running an illegal business out of his home and the camera is there to try to catch him at it. My friend hasn't tried to get the state police involved yet but the local town cops won't do anything about it.

Anyway I had an idea. I keep a small B&W TV camera in the shop connected to a monitor which I use to check IR remote transmitters. When I hold a suspect remote a few feet from the camera and operate it the camera is essentially "blinded" by the otherwise invisible infrared pulse train. Can something like this be done cost effectively but naturally on a much larger scale to blind Bozo's camera? My friend got pissed off one night and sat there with a laser pointer directed at this camera for a couple of hours. Although it didn't resolve the problem, it did bring the cops down to advise my friend that he couldn't do that without violating the neighbors privacy! Makes you question the definition of "freedom". The distance looks to be about 200 feet. Thanks, Lenny.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 4/16/2015 11:21 PM, captainvideo462009@gmail.com wrote:

A friend of mine has a neighbor who has stuck a small video camera in
his bedroom window to spy on the friend's yard. The problem is in
clear view of the camera is the friend's 14 year old daughter's
bedroom window. The neighbor claims that the friend is running an
illegal business out of his home and the camera is there to try to
catch him at it. My friend hasn't tried to get the state police
involved yet but the local town cops won't do anything about it.

Anyway I had an idea. I keep a small B&W TV camera in the shop
connected to a monitor which I use to check IR remote transmitters.
When I hold a suspect remote a few feet from the camera and operate
it the camera is essentially "blinded" by the otherwise invisible
infrared pulse train. Can something like this be done cost
effectively but naturally on a much larger scale to blind Bozo's
camera? My friend got pissed off one night and sat there with a laser
pointer directed at this camera for a couple of hours. Although it
didn't resolve the problem, it did bring the cops down to advise my
friend that he couldn't do that without violating the neighbors
privacy! Makes you question the definition of "freedom". The
distance looks to be about 200 feet. Thanks, Lenny.

Sounds like this neighbourhood war has been going on for quite awhile,
and this is just the latest episode. Sometimes the only solution is to
move, and be nicer to the next set of neighbours.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Tim R]

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 11:21:58 PM UTC-4, captainvi...@gmail.com wrote:

> \ My friend got pissed off one night and sat there with a laser pointer directed at this camera for a couple of hours. Although it didn't resolve the problem, it did bring the cops down to advise my friend that he couldn't do that without violating the neighbors privacy! Makes you question the definition of "freedom". \

Nah. Makes me question the definition of adult.

If you pull the shade on the window, there is no problem.

If you damage his camera, he will have a legitimate case and you will end up paying for it. What is he going to see with a camera that he can't see by looking out the window? Are you going to paint over his windows, too?

No point in moving. You (er, I mean your friend) are likely to find a neighbor you can't get along with everywhere. Get a prescription for Xanax and chill.

 

[Pat]

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 20:21:55 -0700 (PDT), captainvideo462009@gmail.com
wrote:

A friend of mine has a neighbor who has stuck a small video camera in his bedroom window to spy on the friend's yard. The problem is in clear view of the camera is the friend's 14 year old daughter's bedroom window. The neighbor claims that the friend is running an illegal business out of his home and the camera is there to try to catch him at it. My friend hasn't tried to get the state police involved yet but the local town cops won't do anything about it.

Anyway I had an idea. I keep a small B&W TV camera in the shop connected to a monitor which I use to check IR remote transmitters. When I hold a suspect remote a few feet from the camera and operate it the camera is essentially "blinded" by the otherwise invisible infrared pulse train. Can something like this be done cost effectively but naturally on a much larger scale to blind Bozo's camera? My friend got pissed off one night and sat there with a laser pointer directed at this camera for a couple of hours. Although it didn't resolve the problem, it did bring the cops down to advise my friend that he couldn't do that without violating the neighbors privacy! Makes you question the definition of "freedom". The distance looks to be about 200 feet. Thanks, Lenny.

Many of these cameras are VGA resolution (640x480) so the main worry
about the daughter's bedroom window at 200 feet is unlikely to be a
problem. During the day, nothing will be visible through the window
due to how much brighter it is outside. At night, even if she leaves
her curtains open and has the lights on, only a few pixels will
include the window - assuming the camera is 200 feet away and is one
of the common little cameras. (Of course, if the guy is a pervert and
is using a telescopic lens with a high res camera, call the police!)

Back to the original question, most of the newer cameras have an IR
filter to keep daytime IR light from fuzzing up the picture. If the
camera has nighttime IR illumination, then that filter is turned off
at night so your IR scheme would work at night.

 

Why IR ? Why not just regular floodlights ? If the neighbor complainns tell the cops he is so paranoid to have cameras, you too want to help stop crime. So you are HELPING the neighvbor in hia quest to be secure.

Tha tneighbor is s fucking ninny. You know how hard it is to get nayone busted for anytihng unless they are a taerget ? Of course this varies by area. WWe have a suburb around here where the neighbors call the law if you have a jetski in your driveway. Ironically the name of that city is "Independence".

Anyway, with "proper" lighting you can obscure it pretty good because caeras only have so much contrast ratio. then the iris has to close up. Infrared might or might not work. Since it is an outdoor camera it is probably IR sensitive for lowlight operation. Howevr there is plenty of justification for floodlights, putting up IR beacons when you personally have a camera to pick it up might be construed as interfering with the asshole's ability/attempts to be secure. Surely the asshole duidn't tell the cops the intent of his camera was to spy on your friend, the cops would have not sided with him if he said that.

the BIG proble is if this asshole has connections downtown. THAT is a big problem because this entire government runs on the budddy system. In some localities it is alot worse.

If noting else, mount a floodlight right by the daughter's bedroom wind pointin pretty much at the camera but not exactly. It doesn't have to be exact.. As long as a high intensity light source is visible to that camera, its iris will have to close up.

 

when you personally DO NOT have a camera...

Of course...

 

[Dave Platt]

In article <f5t1jahh63ul8morqta64tng2b3so3osvi@4ax.com>,
Pat <pat@nospam.us> wrote:

Back to the original question, most of the newer cameras have an IR
filter to keep daytime IR light from fuzzing up the picture. If the
camera has nighttime IR illumination, then that filter is turned off
at night so your IR scheme would work at night.

If that's the case, then I suspect that a bunch of high-output narrow-
dispersion IR LEDs, aimed in the direction of the camera, and driven
with periodic high-current pulses, might be the way to go. Think "IR
flash". You can get significantly higher peak intensity from LEDs by
pulsing them - their peak-current capacity is higher than their
continuous-current capacity.

Camera sensors tend to have some "memory", and so if "blinded" by a
bright flash they'll take a fraction of a second (or more) to recover,
just as human eyes do.

Strobing a bank of IR LEDs several times a second might "give 'em
fits".

If you really want to get cute, build a sizable panel of IR LEDs in a
rectangular layout with individual drivers (e.g. one transistor per
LED, or row-and-column drivers), hook it up to a PC or single-board
computer through a suitable interface, and write some software which
"strobes" a message across it.

"STOP SPYING ON US!"

It'd be invisible to the eye, but visible to the camera.

 

[Michael Black]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, Dave Platt wrote:

In article <f5t1jahh63ul8morqta64tng2b3so3osvi@4ax.com>,
Pat <pat@nospam.us> wrote:

Back to the original question, most of the newer cameras have an IR
filter to keep daytime IR light from fuzzing up the picture. If the
camera has nighttime IR illumination, then that filter is turned off
at night so your IR scheme would work at night.

If that's the case, then I suspect that a bunch of high-output narrow-
dispersion IR LEDs, aimed in the direction of the camera, and driven
with periodic high-current pulses, might be the way to go. Think "IR
flash". You can get significantly higher peak intensity from LEDs by
pulsing them - their peak-current capacity is higher than their
continuous-current capacity.

Camera sensors tend to have some "memory", and so if "blinded" by a
bright flash they'll take a fraction of a second (or more) to recover,
just as human eyes do.

Strobing a bank of IR LEDs several times a second might "give 'em
fits".

If you really want to get cute, build a sizable panel of IR LEDs in a
rectangular layout with individual drivers (e.g. one transistor per
LED, or row-and-column drivers), hook it up to a PC or single-board
computer through a suitable interface, and write some software which
"strobes" a message across it.

"STOP SPYING ON US!"

It'd be invisible to the eye, but visible to the camera.




Maybe it's just a paranoid interpretation of it all.

I had to read the original post a few times to follow who was doing what.

In the end, are we sure the guy with the camera is spying on the backyard,
or is he outright spying on the bathroom?

Michael

 

[Gareth Magennis]

"Michael Black" wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1504171552140.20316@darkstar.example.org...

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, Dave Platt wrote:

In article <f5t1jahh63ul8morqta64tng2b3so3osvi@4ax.com>,
Pat <pat@nospam.us> wrote:

Back to the original question, most of the newer cameras have an IR
filter to keep daytime IR light from fuzzing up the picture. If the
camera has nighttime IR illumination, then that filter is turned off
at night so your IR scheme would work at night.

If that's the case, then I suspect that a bunch of high-output narrow-
dispersion IR LEDs, aimed in the direction of the camera, and driven
with periodic high-current pulses, might be the way to go. Think "IR
flash". You can get significantly higher peak intensity from LEDs by
pulsing them - their peak-current capacity is higher than their
continuous-current capacity.

Camera sensors tend to have some "memory", and so if "blinded" by a
bright flash they'll take a fraction of a second (or more) to recover,
just as human eyes do.

Strobing a bank of IR LEDs several times a second might "give 'em
fits".

If you really want to get cute, build a sizable panel of IR LEDs in a
rectangular layout with individual drivers (e.g. one transistor per
LED, or row-and-column drivers), hook it up to a PC or single-board
computer through a suitable interface, and write some software which
"strobes" a message across it.

"STOP SPYING ON US!"

It'd be invisible to the eye, but visible to the camera.




Maybe it's just a paranoid interpretation of it all.

I had to read the original post a few times to follow who was doing what.

In the end, are we sure the guy with the camera is spying on the backyard,
or is he outright spying on the bathroom?

Michael




I think to reach any conclusion at all on this matter, you would need to
hear from the other party to find out why they are doing what they are
doing.

IMHO it is very dangerous to come to any conclusion at all based upon one
aggrieved parties's testament.
Why would you do that?



Gareth.

 

[micky]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:03:59 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
<sound.service@btconnect.com> wrote:

"Michael Black" wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1504171552140.20316@darkstar.example.org...

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, Dave Platt wrote:

In article <f5t1jahh63ul8morqta64tng2b3so3osvi@4ax.com>,
Pat <pat@nospam.us> wrote:

Back to the original question, most of the newer cameras have an IR
filter to keep daytime IR light from fuzzing up the picture. If the
camera has nighttime IR illumination, then that filter is turned off
at night so your IR scheme would work at night.

If that's the case, then I suspect that a bunch of high-output narrow-
dispersion IR LEDs, aimed in the direction of the camera, and driven
with periodic high-current pulses, might be the way to go. Think "IR
flash". You can get significantly higher peak intensity from LEDs by
pulsing them - their peak-current capacity is higher than their
continuous-current capacity.

Camera sensors tend to have some "memory", and so if "blinded" by a
bright flash they'll take a fraction of a second (or more) to recover,
just as human eyes do.

Strobing a bank of IR LEDs several times a second might "give 'em
fits".

If you really want to get cute, build a sizable panel of IR LEDs in a
rectangular layout with individual drivers (e.g. one transistor per
LED, or row-and-column drivers), hook it up to a PC or single-board
computer through a suitable interface, and write some software which
"strobes" a message across it.

"STOP SPYING ON US!"

It'd be invisible to the eye, but visible to the camera.




Maybe it's just a paranoid interpretation of it all.

I had to read the original post a few times to follow who was doing what.

In the end, are we sure the guy with the camera is spying on the backyard,
or is he outright spying on the bathroom?

Michael




I think to reach any conclusion at all on this matter, you would need to
hear from the other party to find out why they are doing what they are
doing.

IMHO it is very dangerous to come to any conclusion at all based upon one
aggrieved parties's testament.
Why would you do that?

Because it's all we have and we need something to talk about on a Friday
evening.

Gareth.

 

[micky]

I too read this post several times and I don't understand it.

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 20:21:55 -0700 (PDT), captainvideo462009@gmail.com
wrote:

>A friend of mine has a neighbor who has stuck a small video camera in his bedroom window to spy on the friend's yard.

Does something unusual ever happen there?

> The problem is in clear view of the camera is the friend's 14 year old daughter's bedroom window.

This isn't really a sentence, yet I think it's the crucial point you're
making here. The camera seems to be taking pictures of BOTH the
backyad and her window???

Even if there were no camera, is she going to check constantly to see if
someone is looking out the neighbor's window? Let her pull down the
shade when she wants privacy. If she doesn't want privacy when she
should want it, that's for her parents to correct.

>The neighbor claims that the friend is running an illegal business out of his home and the camera is there to try to catch him at it.

Out of his home or in the back yard?

Does it involve the girl? Or her room?

> My friend hasn't tried to get the state police involved yet but the local town cops won't do anything about it.

Is the neighbor breaking some law? What law?

Maybe it's a civil matter and your friend should sue, but I'm not sure
what the cause of action would be. What do you two think?

Invasion of privacy? I don't think so. I'm not a lawyer but I think
it's the girl's responsibility to pull down a shade, if she is even the
target. They sell curtains and roll-down shades many places.

Anyway I had an idea. I keep a small B&W TV camera in the shop connected to a monitor which I use to check IR remote transmitters. When I hold a suspect remote a few feet from the camera and operate it the camera is essentially "blinded" by the otherwise invisible infrared pulse train. Can something like this be done cost effectively but naturally on a much larger scale to blind Bozo's camera? My friend got pissed off one night and sat there with a laser pointer directed at this camera for a couple of hours. Although it didn't resolve the problem, it did bring the cops down to advise my friend that he couldn't do that without violating the neighbors privacy! Makes you question the definition of "freedom". The distance looks to be about 200 feet. Thanks, Lenny.

200 feet is pretty far. A fixed lens that can watch both the back
yard and the girl's window is probably not going to show much detail of
the girl. A telephoto lens might, but it's not likely it would show
the back yard also.

Please explain the problem.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per captainvideo462009@gmail.com:
>A friend of mine has a neighbor who has stuck a small video camera in his bedroom window to spy on the friend's yard. The problem is in clear view of the camera is the friend's 14 year old daughter's bedroom window. The neighbor claims that the friend is running an illegal business out of his home and the camera is there to try to catch him at it.

I run my cams at 1280x720 with 6mm lenses. During the day, there
*might* be enough detail in the frame to embarrass somebody if they were
out in the open and within 50 feet of the cam.

Indoors, behind a window, I would opine that the chances of - for
instance - facial-recognition-level detail are vanishingly small.

At night, just forget the whole thing.... totally unrealistic unless
there is a 9,000-lumen floodlight illuminating the subject and the
subject is less than 25 feet away.

OTOH, as you kick up the lens' mm, detail gets better. OTOOH, the field
of view shrinks...
--
Pete Cresswell

 

" think to reach any conclusion at all on this matter, you would need to
hear from the other party to find out why they are doing what they are
doing. "

Read through. They are trying to catch him in an illegal business. At least that's what they are satying, and this is not from the person doing it.

Therefore the only logical conclusion is the Lenny's friend IS running an "illegal" business. But the fact is there is no such thing as an illegal business. What is he selling nickel bags ?

Know what you do with neighbors like this ? When it is ten below zero outside, get out your garden hose and do them the favor of washing down their driveway. Al the way to their doors. Every one of them .

The water has no serial number.

If they got the cops to come over Lenny's friend doing the LASER thing, they got connects. That makes it dirty territory. All rules are null and void.

I would get very fmailiar with all city codes n shit, and formulate my revenge from there. It is were winter and really vcold, the garden hose is EXCELLENT, but it is getting warm.

Perhaps some sort of solar reflector ?

Hey Lenny, BAKE THE MOTHERFUCKERS ! HAHAHAHAHA.

They done fucked with the wrong people.

 

>"And the real truth would be somewhere between the two."

The camera is the evdence of the guy being an asshole. but other than that you're right. However Lenny is not asking for help in spying on somene, he is asking for help to prevent someone from spying.

We don't want to get to the point where there are ore cameras than people.

I owuld just go to somewhere other than my propperty and shoot the fucking cmaera, but these days I dunno if I could hit it with my eyesight. when you know how to shoot you know how to shoot. I am fine in regular daylight, but not too bright. But to do this in the middle of the night, I would probably miss. Well I guess I could use a rifle.

 

[Bob F]

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

If noting else, mount a floodlight right by the daughter's bedroom
wind pointin pretty much at the camera but not exactly. It doesn't
have to be exact. As long as a high intensity light source is visible
to that camera, its iris will have to close up.

My thought exactly!

 

[Gareth Magennis]

wrote in message
news:26e20f1f-0452-48c1-ab80-26ab0f146e7b@googlegroups.com...

" think to reach any conclusion at all on this matter, you would need to
hear from the other party to find out why they are doing what they are
doing. "

Read through. They are trying to catch him in an illegal business. At least
that's what they are satying, and this is not from the person doing it.

Therefore the only logical conclusion is the Lenny's friend IS running an
"illegal" business. But the fact is there is no such thing as an illegal
business. What is he selling nickel bags ?





Yeahbut, if you heard the story from the other guy, it would probably be the
polar opposite of the one we have heard here.
And the real truth would be somewhere between the two.

That's how things normally work. IME.



Gareth.

 

[Gareth Magennis]

wrote in message
news:0b41184e-7d56-42f2-978c-93d85a3cf9c1@googlegroups.com...

>"And the real truth would be somewhere between the two."

The camera is the evdence of the guy being an asshole. but other than that
you're right. However Lenny is not asking for help in spying on somene, he
is asking for help to prevent someone from spying.




I disagree.

The camera might be the only way the other guy is going to be able to prove
that X,Y,Z is happening, when it should not be, and is making his life a
living hell.
This happens.
In the UK, when anti-social behaviour happens between neighbours, the
victims are encouraged to gather as much evidence as they can to produce to
the appropriate authorities, who can then act accordingly. This includes
and often requires recording such incidents with cameras.
This does not necessarily mean "spying" to me.

That is one giant conclusion jump there based upon a totally skewed and
almost non existent set of data.





Gareth.

 

[mickgeyver]

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 11:21:58 PM UTC-4, captainvi...@gmail.com wrote:

A friend of mine has a neighbor who has stuck a small video camera in his bedroom window to spy on the friend's yard. The problem is in clear view of the camera is the friend's 14 year old daughter's bedroom window. The neighbor claims that the friend is running an illegal business out of his home and the camera is there to try to catch him at it. My friend hasn't tried to get the state police involved yet but the local town cops won't do anything about it.

Anyway I had an idea. I keep a small B&W TV camera in the shop connected to a monitor which I use to check IR remote transmitters. When I hold a suspect remote a few feet from the camera and operate it the camera is essentially "blinded" by the otherwise invisible infrared pulse train. Can something like this be done cost effectively but naturally on a much larger scale to blind Bozo's camera? My friend got pissed off one night and sat there with a laser pointer directed at this camera for a couple of hours. Although it didn't resolve the problem, it did bring the cops down to advise my friend that he couldn't do that without violating the neighbors privacy! Makes you question the definition of "freedom". The distance looks to be about 200 feet. Thanks, Lenny.

Use the bright IR LED lighting BUT do it from inside the house.

What you do inside is expected to be private. That includes being
able to parade around inside your own house in the nude with the
shades up. Your neighbors cannot complain about it as it would
violate your reasonable expectation of privacy within your own
home. When you go outside it becomes a different issue.

With that said, a large bright LED array inside the window
should not cause you an actionable problem by the law. The onus
should then fall on the neighbor with the camera to prove you
are intentionally interfering with his activity. Simply state
in technical terms it is an 'experiment' being conducted to see
what kind of wildlife/extraterrestrial beings it attracts
(or something like that).

 

Thing is, XYZ is none of his business and I would blow the motherfuckers head off.

 

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 17:34:38 -0700 (PDT), mickgeyver
<alan.yeager.2013@gmail.com> wrote:

What you do inside is expected to be private. That includes being=20
able to parade around inside your own house in the nude with the
shades up. Your neighbors cannot complain about it as it would
violate your reasonable expectation of privacy within your own
home. When you go outside it becomes a different issue.

I'm afraid you've misused that phrase. "Reasonable expectation of
privacy" is a standard used to decide if the goverment has violated the
rights (under the Fourth Amendment to the Constition or a similar clause
in a law or state constitution) of someone asserting the right to
privacy. The opposite of how you are using the term.

It has nothing to do with whether one is permitted to display himself
naked so that others can see. I don't know the details of that issue,
but try having sex in front of a picture window with no shades that is
near to and faces the street with pedestrians walking by and you'll find
out that you don't have the unlimited right you think you do.

As to whether you have a 4th Amendment or other right then, when you
don't have curtains or leave the curtains open, you waive your right of
privacy.