X-Ray Vision Camera

[Riot_Inc]

here's what some dipshits posted on a website...

"THE HISTORY...

The fictitious interest to see through clothing started with Superman's unearthly x-ray vision in the famous comic book series of the 50's.

The back page of the same old comic books regularly showed advertising for bizarre products such as Sea Monkeys and, yes, X-Ray Glasses.

Although the Sea Monkeys were not a cute family of human fish, as illustrated, they were at least real. The X-Ray Glasses, however, were nothing more than a little boy's fantasy and a total rip-off.

THE REALITY...

So, a few years have passed and technology has caught up with the imagination. In 1998 Sony inadvertently released their first x-ray camera.

The early series of Sony's NightShot cameras produced the ability to see everything during complete darkness of night. Fine. Works as it should. Well done Sony. However...

...when NightShot is used during daylight hours, the screen was whitened out from too much light, however, in this early model the brightness could be adjusted. Sneaky owners simply adjusted the exposure setting to reveal a clear and revolutionary image. Thin layers of clothing appeared transparent. You see, the camera can see what the naked eye can not!

After a few months of this camera being on the market, Sony recalled their cams worldwide. These unmodified cameras are now a collectors item.

From the time of product recall onward, all NightShot camcorders released by Sony were modified to disable exposure adjustment while the NightShot switch is activated, rendering the camera's x-ray abilities useless during the day. Since it is infrared light which gives the "x-ray" effect, daylight is the best time to take advantage.

Anyway, this little internal modification can be reversed. Read on...

HOW TO...

From scratch, all you need is 2 items. A a Sony Camcorder with NightShot and an Infrared Pass Filter.

Filter: I bought my filter from a camera store in Sydney. They sold me a B+W 093 filter for under $60 Oz (under $30US). It was 38mm. Keep in mind, most Sony video cameras take 37mm size. My filter is 38mm, hence the cheap price. The 37mm filters can cost US$200 or more.

Modification: Once you screw the filter to the camera's lens, another adjustment is required. Remember I mentioned the product recall by Sony? Sony technicians installed a cut-out switch located inside the camera. This switch turns off the ability to adjust the exposure while NightShot is on.
To get around the modification, do one of the following procedures:

Method 1:
Adjust the NightShot switch so it rests half way between ON and OFF. This is pretty tricky to do, especially if you have big fingers.
This method activates NightShot without triggering the cut-out switch (blocks exposure adjustment).
This is now an x-ray camera.

Method 2:
Open the camera and remove the switch. This will remove the NightShot feature from your camera but the procedure is reversible. Please keep in mind, the moment you remove a screw from the camera, the warranty is officially void! A second-hand camera with an expired warranty would be the most economic purchase.
Located behind the NightShot switch is the cut-out switch. Having a technical background, I was confident enough to open my camera but getting access to this switch involved removing panels and is extremely difficult. Leave it to professional electronic technicians.
Once inside the camera, I removed the cut-out switch's mounting screw. The switch was able to be flipped downward to a better, less disruptive, position where it would not trigger or break. I put the screw back in the hole so this procedure could be reversed. Put it all back together.
Now, when the NightShot mode is activated and a filter is attached to the lens, you have an x-ray camera!
-------------------------------------------------------
From Jerry
The Sony NightShot is simply a high-gain camera with an infrared filter. Take any decent video camera with a high gain setting, strap a deep red (a 91 Red will do) or infrared filter on it and it will capture "X-Ray" scenes. Infrared is on the red or long wave end of the spectrum. It's heat. The heat radiation is hard to focus and that's why the images are blurred. Helicopter FLIR (forward looking infrared) cameras capture heat images and operate on the same principle as all low light cameras. FYI, several companies make high quality infrared cameras for architectural heat loss studies, finding overloaded electrical circuits, pot growing operations and the like. These hummers take superb "through-clothing" shots and great "butt prints" of places where people have sat and left the heat image of their ass. Professionals who use these big-buck IR cameras have a ball doing this. Whatever turns your crank, huh?
I did some experiments and found that the best "X-ray" filter is a pure infrared Wratten No. 87 gel. It can be cut to fit any video camera. Runs
about $25 and is available at most good camera supply stores. Since this filter passes infrared only, the camera must be capable of very high-gain
operation (0 Lux) such as that found in good "night vision" capable cameras "
----------------------------------------------------------
What are your thoughts on this, besides the fact that it's illegal looking through people's clothes?
(i have one of those sony cameras.. pfft)

Speak up, people...

[CastoR]

Some URL's

http://www.3host.com/voyeur/mrx/
http://lastdog.net/pic.html

[Riot_Inc]

i wasn't looking for links, but for response on what people think about them or doing that or something else,... not links.

[Feslmogh]

I also have a Sony with Night-vision (tr-416).
I belive this is a hoax!

[zzyzzx]

I love this Sony camera.

[Feslmogh]

Even that I've looked at the posted links, I still think it's a hoax but I'm gonna do my own experiments...

[pacmania_2001]

Yeh, i have heard about this before. I have read about this in the newspaper as well when sony recalled them. There was a site that had video from the camera with and without the filter

[CastoR]

It works, i've tried it. you need an Ir filter for the cam.

here's a forum with info about x-ray.

http://bb.voyeurweb.com/messages/6/6.html

[Riot_Inc]

That's some wierd shit,...

It couldn't be a hoax, they even showed it on the spanish channel on the news...they showed some video clips too, and goddamn, it looks real to me.
(i was on the comp. and my mom was sleeping watching the news and she missed it, hehe... i wonder why it caught my attention..)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Riot_Inc on 2001-08-15 07:39:51 ]</font>

[themichael]

Any CCD equipped camera will take these pictures. No hoax, just something to pass the time. After getting bored with that try looking at clouds, blue sky, plants, rainbows, buildings, people in camo. Much more interesting and sharable.

The infared is between visible red and "heat" infared. The cameras become even more sensitive with the removal of the "hot mirror" in front of the CCD and adding a #87 filter (Wratten [least $$], polyester,glass [most $$]).

Mike

[jeffbenson]

[Riot_Inc]
There is so much porn on the internet and the world that it would be difficult to imagine it all. So what's the big deal about seeing through clothes anyway as opposed to people who taking them off voluntarily for all to see? I think it may all come down to the thrill of doing something that's morally wrong. It's easy to get pictures of naked people. The thrill is seeing them without their consent or awareness (for some people anyways). Kind of like peeking down a woman's low-cut shirt. The question is...what happens when a picture of you with no clothes shows up on the internet for all to see? Are you going to be furious or are you going to accept the fact that it's getting real easy to do this and you knew it was only a matter of time before it happened to you? Another point...what if you had a young daughter and pedophiles were posting her on the internet? What if you had a girlfriend/boyfriend and pictures of them started showing up? How about your mom, and then all your friends get a glance at her naked online? I've seen reports about the camera also. It's actually not illegal to do this. It's just immoral. I'm not directing this towards you Riot_Inc, I'm just commenting on your question. And, believe me, I'm not a religious freak or righteous in any way, but I think it may be getting to the point where it's going too far. I mean, are we going to get to the point with technology where the only reason to wear clothes is to protect us from the elements and not to cover up things that we only want certain people to see?

I don't think this will be legal for long. Especially when the issue of pedophilia comes up.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jeffbenson on 2001-08-16 15:52:09 ]</font>

[danmanx]

This has to be one of the greatest things I have ever seen. Sony, thank you.

Soon they'll start making lead-based clothing...hahahaha

[Riot_Inc]

Where did you find the infomation on this? that it was legal? I really don't care for it's use in this topic too much(moral or immoral)...When i heard the report on the news about this, they said, " ..So don't even bother on calling or emailing about where to get this camera, it's ILLEGAL."

I agree with you on some aspects, since you do bring valid points (esp. about pedophilia *vomits*). But then again, i'm all for technology (but not when it's about little naked boys and girls).. There's too many little details about technology and how it's used, so i'm not gonna bother to go into that, it would take a huge amount of time to explain what i think about it..


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Riot_Inc on 2001-08-17 09:38:31 ]</font>

[jeffbenson]

Building and distributing the camera is illegal, but the action of using it isn't. So, if you already have the camera, it's not illegal to use it to see through clothes. It's a really big grey area right now. No one can figure out a way to enforce laws against voyeurism. Upskirting isn't illegal either.

I agree with you about the technology aspect. I guess it's just like having a gun. They aren't bad until someone shoots somebody (unless a pedophile gets shot then it's a good thing).

[Riot_Inc]

so what you're saying is: if i were to get a filter and put it on the camera, that would be illegal? But if my camera doesn't need a filter, it's legal to see through people's clothes?

[Riot_Inc]

a little bump won't hurt,.. i'd like more opinions from people, please(?)...

[klay51]

whoa dude this freaky.. I thought this was a joke but once i clicked on the links i know its real. So can it only see thru REALLY thin stuff like spandex or can it do other things also? I'm not a prevert im just wondering what this technology can do.

[Riot_Inc]

baldrick and adam, what do you guys think??
i guess it is possible... i'd like to do my own tests, cuz i still feel somewhat suspicious about this..
_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Riot_Inc on 2001-08-19 14:13:29 ]</font>

[SupaV]

I don't think people are that stupid!
Scenario: Hot Summer day, girls walking with no bras on and t-shirts. Some guy come and starts filming them with a Night-Vision camera.

RRRRRRRRight! ''What the hell are you doing?'' The Girls ask you.

What Are are your options???

You tell me

[Riot_Inc]

Good Job, i was waiting for someone to say that, SupaV.

But then again, from what i've seen, they hide their cameras, thus avoiding a little conflict with someone.

[themichael]

Actually a #87 filter looks like a lens cap to most people.
It's black and you can't see the camera lens. I haven't tried video but I do take IR pictures with a digital camera.
Won't go back to IR film except for lots of money.

Also most people don't pay attention to what goes on around them. That's how upskirt/downblouse fans are able to get
their pictures. Just to prove my point I took pictures of people I knew that knew I was going to take pictures of them
The camera was in plain veiw at all times, after filling the memory card they beleived me.

Besides they have no reasonable expectation of privacy
in public. I know this because I used to tape drug deals happening in my old apartment. Their lawyer yelled trespass and invasion of privacy. They were in plain veiw on the front porch.

[Riot_Inc]

It's invasion of privacy if you look at them while they're in a place where privacy is expected, like the bathroom for instance.

[themichael]

There are actually laws on the books in most states making
it a crime to tape/peep/photograph people in changing rooms
,bathrooms, or other such places.

public = in plain veiw without trespass

[jeffbenson]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-08-17 19:45:54, Riot_Inc wrote:
so what you're saying is: if i were to get a filter and put it on the camera, that would be illegal? But if my camera doesn't need a filter, it's legal to see through people's clothes?
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

That's probably one of the grey areas. You see, there is a legitimate purpose for that filter that people benefit from outside of seeing through clothing. With that, I'm not sure a law could be put in place pertaining to someone's actions with the camera.

[jeffbenson]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-08-19 12:07:21, klay51 wrote:
whoa dude this freaky.. I thought this was a joke but once i clicked on the links i know its real. So can it only see thru REALLY thin stuff like spandex or can it do other things also? I'm not a prevert im just wondering what this technology can do.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

It has to do with colors not fabric. The filter blocks out some colors on the spectrum while intensifying others. Filters like this (not exactly like this but with the same concepts) are how we are able to look at the sun through telescopes. We can see different types of activity on the sun using different filters.

[jeffbenson]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-08-20 00:14:29, Riot_Inc wrote:
Good Job, i was waiting for someone to say that, SupaV.

But then again, from what i've seen, they hide their cameras, thus avoiding a little conflict with someone.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

The thrill isn't taking pictures of people who know they are being photographed. There are magazines dedicated to that (Playboy, Penthouse, ETC...). The thrill is taking pictures of people without their awareness. These are people who may not necessarily want to be photographed nude. It's a fetish, and if you think about it, it's not much different from pedophilia (conceptually anyway). I would dare anyone in this discussion to tell me that there is nothing morally wrong with this.

[themichael]

The fabric has a lot to do with it.

The X-ray stuff works because most synthetic fabrics PASS
near IR very easily. Human skin REFLECT most near IR. Water passes near IR very well.

It all depends on how the material handles IR: Reflect,
pass, absorb, or change the reflected wavelength.

Law enforcement can use this to see in to tinted car windows
, behind most sunglasses, and through most makeup.


As a side note: Outlawing the equipment won't stop it. All the women I know were discreetly told how to stop these
people from "preying" on them. This x-ray technique is old
and the Sony story is over a year old, but the average joe
forgot about it a week after it broke.

[jeffbenson]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-08-20 08:12:24, themichael wrote:
The fabric has a lot to do with it.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

I stand corrected. Thanks.

There is a humorous side to this whole thing. Way, way back there were advertisments for x-ray glasses that actually advertised that they could see through clothing (and still are I think). I'm sure everyone remembers these ads in the back of comic books. I can't believe that we, as a society, were actually shocked when this became a reality. How come nobody thought it was perverted to advertise a device to kids as something they could use to look at women naked? This has been a fantasy for many people (men) since childhood. With advancing technology and certainly not a decrease in the area of sex, we should have seen this coming a long time ago.

[jeffbenson]

I haven't heard anything about men being x-ray'd. I'm not gay, I'm just wondering if there are any women out there who would find filming a man beneath his clothes a thrilling experience.

Any women wish to give your opinions on this?


PS: Just so I'm politically correct, I've nothing against homosexuality...I just want to get some opinions from women as well as men.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jeffbenson on 2001-08-20 08:47:40 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jeffbenson on 2001-08-20 08:48:48 ]</font>

[Riot_Inc]

moralsmoralsmorals... yeah, i would say there's something wrong with it,...morally.


Love the clothes, i don't really get much of a thrill out it, but i am kind of curious.
I'd much rather look at the sun during an eclipse ....maybe. hehe