Fake – no filter is 100% effective and even the slightest leakage would lead to overexposure over time.

The glass does not look polarized at all… My best guess is that it is a great hoax to see and hope it is real :-)

could this be anymore obviously fake.
But if it is real (but it isn’t)
then i still would not buy it
srsly… a glass camera. WTF
if i drop my cheap digital camera and a bit of plastic comes off… eh so what
if i drop this camera…. it’s gona take me a long time to pick up all the little glass peices.
and what if I scratch it… won’t that change the picture.

@eldorel

they are not dutch, but german.

and its not true.. Its bull$ Made clear at 3:20

Another thing is that the frame is polarized to prevent accidental exposure, but you can supposedly hold it in full sun without exposure. Then, why is the camera box polarized?

I could imagine a film that could only be exposed by laser in a specific light frequency after a long exposure period ( even that left in the sun long enough would begin to expose), but that isn’t what he’s claiming.

I say fake.

Fake. Good production effort on the video, but still quite fake.

The film only exposes from a specific angle of light? That would make film alignment with the pinhole EXTREMELY difficult.

Bullshit.

For example, if you go to 3:10 you see this guy talking about “Directionally Desensitized” film. However, this guy, Michael Weyl, is well known in the the photographic community in Germany: He runs an internet shop for analogue photo supplies. The bottle with the super secret breakthrough chemistry he holds in the movie (marked “M..T..”) can be ordered here:

http://www.spuersinn-shop.de/index.php?page=product&info=366

It’s part of the “MixTour” film development kit (you can mix your own developer with that).

I’m no expert, but I’ll happily agree that this is fake. Steve is right. No polarized filter is 100% effective. In addition, I have a hard time believing that the chemical emulsion on the film could be perfectly effective at filtering environmental light out of the image.

In addition, to get a “terapixel” image, his “9 x 12 cm” film would need to display items measuring less than 1.04E-7 meters across. Conventional optical microscopy can only resolve objects down to about 1E-6 meters. Note that this also assumes that the lens is perfect: every ray of light goes exactly where it is supposed to go, without diffraction.

I suggest that everyone apply to be field testers. The proof is in the pudding (or not, as I suspect is the case.)

Popular Science covered a gigapixel camera once. The film was from a spy satellite and was measured in feet.

Anyone have calculations about the size of a pixel for a one terapixel camera?

On top of this, is it possible to amplify such a broad range of wavelengths? I’m no physics guy, so I could be off-base.

And I would be surprised if a photographer would routinely handle his film in daylight, given that it would “wear away” the exposure. And all it would take is one flash in some good sun light and BAM film ruined. (Sun light is effectively one direction, remember.)

“Bullet proof”? Really? No way.

What I don’t get is why they describe the resolution in pixels. Since this is not a digital device there are no pixels.

this is lame
this is not a hack

–> go start realorfakeaday.com

are you posting anything anyone sends you at this point?

blatantly fake for many reasons. here are a few:

since when is analog film resolution rated in pixels?

if you lay two pieces of polarized glass on top of one another you cant see through it (the transparency is dependent on how the polarization of the glass lines up) — it wouldn’t be clear at all angles if arranged in a box. that thing is plastic.

that “film” he is using is just regular film that has been exposed to light. that’s what color film turns if you don’t process it and leave it in the light. you can even see the notches cut into the side used to identify what type of film you are loading in the darkroom — you feel the notch pattern with your finger.

and there’s the fact that… ahh forget it…

What fool moves a camera AFTER opening the exposure shutter? The guy does not even know how to use a camera!

Fake.

First clue: at 2:31 they are holding a light meter in the camera, but I’m pretty sure this kind of light meter has the sensor at the top, not on the front.

Next, they don’t show any pictures made by the camera in the video (let alone prove convincingly that they are actually made with the camera).

Next, they are talking about desensitizing the photo chemicals. This makes no sense to me; didn’t early cameras need to have their shutter open much longer because the film was a lot less sensitive than today? It should be very easy to produce low-sensitivity film, you just make it not as good as you normally would.

Finally, the whole point of manufacturers making the film more sensitive (besides making it possible to use short shutter times) is higher resolution. Making the film less sensitive would only DECREASE resolution, not increase it, and definitely not increase it by a claimed factor of 1000 (gigapixel->terapixel) or more.

Furthermore, theorizing: Let’s say you want to make a transparent camera with a pinhole for a lens. What would it take? You would have to block the light from reaching the film. Yes, polarization filters (basically transparent films with microscopic straight lines of light blocking material) come to mind. Any high school student should know that if you use two polarization filters at a 90 degree angle it blocks the light from going through. I can’t see how you would improve on that.

So they put polarization filters on the walls of the camera I guess. But then what? The light still comes from all directions so even if you put another polarization filter right on the film, it’s never going to align with all (any?) the polarization filters on the camera walls. And it wouldn’t keep the film from being exposed when it’s outside the camera because the light isn’t blocked unless there are two filters: one on the camera walls and one on the film.

The only way I can think of that this might work is to construct some filter that consists of microscopic light pipes that let light through from a certain direction and block it from all other directions, like a bundle of glass fiber cables. But then you would have to align each of the light pipes to point to the lens/pinhole. In a camera that’s the size of the one shown in the video, the angles of the light pipes would vary wildly and it would be impossible to make such a thing at a scale so small that you can’t see it in the video.

I would think you’d get better results by using the light pipes themselves as tiny little pinhole cameras: just put some photo paper behind a bundle of glass fiber. No need for a lens or pinhole in front of it. You would still need a shutter, though, and it would have to be as big as the paper, so it would not be very practical…

Clearly that’s not what they did.

Busted.

Fake!

What is the fascination with creating these elaborate fake videos? What are they hoping to accomplish with it all? Just harvesting email addresses?

If the camera body were indeed of polarized material, why can we see clearly see through multiple layers of the material, regardless of the angle to the video camera recording the scene? That’s not consistent with a polarized material.

Why would ambient light from random angles “amplify” light entering the lens? Does it suddenly change direction? Nope, it would simply cross any light entering the lens.

@Matt: Though unorthodox, he is converting the relative light exposure concentration vs. surface area of developed exposure. Its a relative conversion, though still inaccurate. He also mentions “D-mk.II” as a light rating, but I’ve never heard of that measurement before. Could be real, but I find it oddly coincidental that Canon makes a line of cameras called the “D Mark 2″.

1. If the housing is so special for polarizing light to “amplify” the light, you’d want to keep it immaculately clean. Video at 5:24 shows more fingerprints on it than the touchscreen of my phone.

2. I agree to hearing the film chemist clearly speaking German when they say he is Polish.

3. How can you begin to say “directionally desensitized” for a film that will only expose given a specific light angle? Polarizing doesn’t bend light, it filters light so only waves “vibrating” on a certain axis can pass. There’s no way to amplify light this way, only SUBTRACT that which isn’t oriented the correct way. Its like putting a comment card in a sealed suggestion box: you have to line the paper up with the hole for it to fit through or it won’t go in.

4. On a further note, you can’t take the same light you already have and make it more intense without focusing it; this is why lenses were invented. Ignoring that a polarizing filter would actually FILTER OUT useful light, its not going to change the angle of refraction to more greatly expose the film.

5. He didn’t say anything about the pin-hole being polarized or including this special glass, just the box. So, essentially its just a trace amount of light that’s still getting through to form the image anyway.

6. If ambient light coming from the sides of the box are expected to amplify the total image, it would be light that was reflected off of other surfaces; this would mean that, even if it were possible with the given structure, the image would be exposing itself to other images over the pinhole’s intended image.

7. Pics or GTFO. Didn’t see a single example of a photo taken by the camera in-question.

8. “…in broad daylight with no effect whatsoever…” Seriously? You mean you developed a “directionally sensitive” film that WON’T react to the daylight that also happens to include every possible angle of light? Does it just ignore those supposed angles that are correct until the magic glass is in front of it?

Sorry, but IMHO: Myth busted!

I say 100% real. That is an invisible camera…that also produces invisible pictures, and will make the inventor invisible billions.

Hehe it’s not a fake it’s only an ART :)

Bob is dead on, haha.

Mrshko is the most correct though. by simply watching these videos you’re giving the hoaxers money. It’s a shame that hoaxes are so easy nowadays and so easily distributed. loads of people will see it and, through the magic of the internet, give the creator of the hoax real life money within a few days if done with a little thought.

even the intelligent discussion here on disproving them is perpetuating why hoaxes are a reasonable advertising model and worse, a veritable ‘get-rich-quick’ scheme.

I’ll check the “Plausible” box.

What if it’s like this:
1) Made of plastic that blocks Infrared light.
2) Uses film sensitive to IR.
3) Uses a pinhole lens which will pass IR light.

Now, the scene showing the film in sunlight would be just wrong, but loading film into a holder in the dark, placing it into the camera and then removing the shield, exposing for a long time, putting the shield back on, removing the film pack and developing in an area with not much IR light seems plausible.

And look at these IR images. They look similar to the ones on the site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nikau-IR.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SD10_IR_Bending_Tree.jpg

Now, all the buzzword bingo, that’s another matter.

I say Plausible.

@macw
it uses a common method used by many inventors called “lying”
this is also a common method used by politicians of amplifying political standing XP

hashah so fake.

A slow film would create blurry images. If the camera amplifies the light it would have to have a shutter.

F.A.K.E.

hey common, photons dont collide, so theres no chance he can use ambient light to amplify what so ever….

Here’s a thought: analog film doesn’t use pixels. The image is made by microscopic crystals. The only way to increase resolution is to use larger film; there is no way to make the crystals any smaller. And if my memory is correct, the pixels in the highest resolution camera are nearing the same size as the analog crystals.

It’s plausible.

If the film is infrared-sensitive film.
And the plastic is opaque in IR.
And it’s using a pinhole lens which will (of course) pass IR.

You’d get images similar to the ones posted on the website.

The scenes showing the film being exposed to sunlight seem not right, but the camera seems plausible.

Absolute bull :3

not even pushing the edge of convincing….

Fake.

- If you would manage to make such a directional film, it will still be exposed in sunlight because sunlight is omnidirectional (so also the required direction)

- the camera looks like its made from polycarb. If it were polarised you would see it

-the edges of the camera need to be covered if you were to align all the incoming light correctly

I like how he took a plexiglass box and made the hackaday staff doubt whether or not it’s really an invisible camera.

He performed his video really well though.
(i like how light amplification can result in a lower ISO)

This item will work for Kodak Infrared film. I know I built one years ago for an exhibition. All that is required is:

4 pieced Dichroic-IR rejection glass (Pilkinton K)
1 0.5mm pin hole in small brass shim
1 120 Format sheet film holder
1 Pack Kodak Infra-red film B/W or AEROCHROME III Infrared Film 1443 for false color (Ex Stock as now discontinued)

Lots of time and a very still subject as exposures are LONG.

Come on… What’s next? Cold fusion? This is not what I come to read at hackaday

Bulls put this on the ground.

Should be good for a TSA grant if only to look between garment fibers using light from gravity waves.

Just knowing this is being developed would make me feel safer. And no doubt, once bulls are told of this breakthrough they too would feel safer and lay down more of this technology.

fake but Nice try. good video tho, thats the real art at work here. Truth Hacking.

Absolutely no reason for the case to be transparent…and they never showed off the results.

Great marketing.

Now if only they worked for Canon or Nikon – that would make a lot more sense.

Too bad this is all wasted on these morons though.

Oh, and if you believe for even an instant that this is plausible, please do go back to your B. Arts classes ;)

if it were real, i would be expecting Terabyte Nano-SDüc anytime now. But it’s obviously not real. can my eye see in Terapixels? wouldn’t one Terapixel take up at least 1 terabyte of disk space? The main reason i say it’s fake is: they’re still using film like 21 months before Armageddon, claiming that the film captures images in ‘terapixels’, while film is analog and pixels be digital. if you could store ‘terapixels’ in that size, optically, then we would have Multi-terabyte optical disks, right now.

Totally fake! Totally BS! It may sounds more real when film cameras no longer exist and kids only uses digital camera..

Field tester wanted? Nice way to collect e-mail address for spammer! (For people that are too dumb…)

FAAAAAKEEEE!!!
Anyone that knows a litle bit of Physics can tell you that this is a hoax.
I’m sick and tired of this self proclaimed pseudo scientist making outrageous claims using some things that really exists (as polarized light) and making up such idiotic contraptions.
The ambient light is scattered, yes, that is a fact, but that doesn’t stop it to pass trough polarized filters or films, in fact it is so scattered that eventualy some porcentage of it WILL pass right tru the filter.
Anyway, I won’t even dignify this thing with an elaborated rant, I will only say that it might be bullet proof but it’s not BULSHIT proof.
TOTAL AND COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!

Come on HaD, every “Real or Fake” post you’ve hosted has been decidedly FAKE. Sure it generates a lot of reply posts, but if your staff REALLY can’t tell, then they’re not worthy of washing Osgeld’s socks.

the shutter eyes were better. although the idea is plausible, the proposed implication is not.

Haha!

Love it!

What’s really funny are the many ‘serious’ comments about ‘why’ it cannot be real…

Did nobody notice than April 1st in exactly one week after the registration process is open?

From the website:

“come back on March 25 2011 … You will then find an online field test application form … The application window will be open for one week”

The BBC did a brilliant spoof in 2010 when they talked about reactivating a horse gene that had been inactive for many thousands of years… all very scientific and plausible, no details given until the moment they brought out a unicorn.

Brilliant.

Yeah, I’m with Rob in Belfast. After reading all of the comments — did anyone notice one single thing in the video that was actually plausible? No? I didn’t think so. Even the details are all completely and obviously wrong, starting with the perfectly clear “polarized” glass and going from there.

This is not a hoax. It’s a joke.

Hackaday, if you treat me like I’m brainless I will stop coming to this site. This is so obviously stupidly BS I don’t even think it’s amusing.

Not cool.

I feel insulted by so much ignorance and stupidity. Fake, and a lame one too.
Why the f is this featured on hackaday? Do you guys want to insult us?!

FAKE
this device is supposed to amplify light
-> that means cloning photons (in frequency and phase)
-> this is possible and very common (laser) but always requires energy (E = hv is the energy of a photon)
-> so, where is the cable,battery,nuclear power station, etc… ?

@Jac Goudsmit
Afraid you’ve got it the wrong way round:
high-sensitivity film like Fuji Neopan 1600 is granier than low-sensitivity film like a Ektar 100.

Wow, really? Who falls for this crap? Do you guys wear foil hats too??

fuck real or fake!