TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Drivers Try an Anti-Photo Finish

Re: Drivers Try an Anti-Photo Finish

abbygale (bbypretty@yahoo.com)
13 Jan 2005 08:24:38 -0800

John R. Covert wrote:

> In reply to an article stating "the firms that make and operate
> radar camera systems and analyze the photos for municipalities
> routinely check negatives where license plates look unreadable"

> Linc Madison wrote:

>> What UTTER and COMPLETE nonsense! If the positive image is illegible,
>> the negative image will be EXACTLY as illegible.

> This is only true if you are assuming EXACTLY the same technology for
> the negative and positive image. But this is not usually the case.

> The shadow definition (the number of different levels of light and
> dark or shades of gray) as well as the number of different colors
> representable is usually significantly greater on negative film than
> on positive print paper. The resolution is usually higher as well.
> The printing process which creates the positive image does not retain
> all of the information that is in the negative.

> So it's not nonsense at all. You might enjoy the movie "Blow Up!"

> /john

I hate Photo Cop, red light camera, speed camera, photo radar, traffic
light camera or whatever they are called ... I just hate them!!!

Are you sure this PhotoBlocker spray works? They claim that it was
tested by the media on their website www.phantomplate.com On the
videos it shows the police saying that it really works by making your
license plate invisible to traffic cameras. Can anybody tell me if
this is true?

www.photoblocker.com Please let me know what you think.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Rick Merrill: "Re: Digital Video Programmer WANTED"
Go to Previous message: J.P. Wing: "Re: Executone PBX and a Problem"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page