REGISTER | LOGIN
Home    Bloggers    Blogs    Article Archives    Messages    About Us   
Tw  |  Fb  |  In  |  Rss
Steve Taranovich

LiDAR damage to camera at CES?

Steve Taranovich
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
David Ashton
David Ashton
1/23/2019 3:10:16 PM
User Rank
Artist
Clarification please
Steve, you said early on "A man using his new $1,198 Sony camera found that his photographs were damaged...".  Just the photographs, or was there permanent damage to the camera?

Later on you say, "The image below shows numerous laser-caused spots on an HP Photosmart 945, a 5-megapixel camera". unhappily the image does not seem to be there, could you post it?

This seems to me to be a bit of a "D'OH!" issue - you don't look at lasers, and you shouldn't point your camera at them, and you do point this out: "Avoid beams which are coming straight into your lens".

Another caveat. "Typically Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) users are not at risk while the shutter is closed or mirror is down, so you are only at risk for the fraction of a second that you are taking the photo. "  But if you are on telephoto zoom and point your camera at a laser, that light is delivered directly, optically, to your eye, so be very careful!  This won't happen if you're looking at a viewfinder on lesser cameras, even if the laser damages the sensor.

50%
50%
steve.taranovich
steve.taranovich
1/23/2019 3:28:46 PM
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Clarification please
Hi David,

Thanks for you comments/questions---let me clarify:

 "A man using his new $1,198 Sony camera found that his photographs were damaged...". ---the camera CCD component was allegedly permanently damaged. 

"The image below shows numerous laser-caused spots on an HP Photosmart 945, a 5-megapixel camera"----Sorry about that---I am adding the image to the above artilce now from this article http://www.laserpointersafety.com/ilda-camera-info.html 

Good point aboutBut if you are on telephoto zoom and point your camera at a laser, that light is delivered directly, optically, to your eye, so be very careful!  This won't happen if you're looking at a viewfinder on lesser cameras, even if the laser damages the sensor.

And thanks for catching the discrepancies and areas that needed clarification

50%
50%
David Ashton
David Ashton
1/23/2019 3:49:23 PM
User Rank
Artist
Re: Clarification please
Thanks Steve - even losing a couple of pixels detracts greatly from the image, it would be very annoying...

50%
50%
steve.taranovich
steve.taranovich
1/23/2019 6:28:44 PM
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Clarification please
You are right David---if you have a camera like that you certainly want perfection

50%
50%
Rama Murthy
Rama Murthy
1/23/2019 11:55:34 PM
User Rank
Newbie
School Physics learning inertia?
Steve, Nice blog and very appropriate references. It looks like the school physics learning of light, heat and electricity being separate chapters still haunts us despite the later EM wave knowledge. RF engineers have documented enough about the sensitive front end protections of all outdoor measurements with spectrum analysers and all RF receivers in the presence of (pulsed) radar transmitters or high power Rf transmitters.Pulsed lasers are like radar transmitter equivalents and will have to be treated with respect when camera imaging sensors are around. RF engineers also have popularised the dB notation but do we get to know the amount of attenuation of an equivalent optical filter with "broad enough optical band" attenuation? Can we buy say an optical smoke grey filter with a specified attenuation to solve this problem and this(https://www.nbcnews.com/news/africa/pentagon-accuses-chinese-blinding-djibouti-based-u-s-pilots-lasers-n871096 )?

           Due to the recent proliferation of lasers and cameras especially in the last 25 years, we are seeing an increasing "Laser and Camera EMI" or should we say "OI"(optical Interference)? May be when self driving vehicles arrive on road, apart from digital cameras , even a low cost mobile phone camera will perhaps have a front end protection as a standsrd feature? But are the eyes of a spectacle wearing rider in such a car (waiting at a signal) still safe with the multiple lidar rays entering into his eyes? 

50%
50%
steve.taranovich
steve.taranovich
1/24/2019 3:13:23 PM
User Rank
Blogger
Re: School Physics learning inertia?
Hi Rama,

Excellent observations.

Regarding eye damage/safety with LASERs---see US Dept. of Labor OSHA safety standards https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_iii/otm_iii_6.html 

50%
50%
Andy_I
Andy_I
1/31/2019 5:15:40 PM
User Rank
Artist
Um ... birds?
Steve, are you sure your photo doesn't just show a whole lot of birds?  :-)

I know it doesn't -- especially interesting is that nice arc towards the left.  But it could be a good excuse.

50%
50%
steve.taranovich
steve.taranovich
1/31/2019 5:27:52 PM
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Um ... birds?
Hi Andy---LiDAR damage to CCDs is not a topic 'for the birds'----Haha, pun intended :) 

Although the damage does look like birds, the damage was verified on subsequent photos taken by the photographer

50%
50%
Andy_I
Andy_I
1/31/2019 5:42:08 PM
User Rank
Artist
Eyes versus cameras
I'm not an expert on any of this.  But I know that I fear lasers of almost any power level, and have for half a century.  It's not an irrational fear.  Lasers are fine if you know where they are pointed.  Laser shows may freak me out, because the audience is in range and because there is a LOT more peak power in those than in a simple laser pointer to use on a whiteboard.

My understanding is that most tissue damage to the human body, happens because of heating (I'm an RF guy), so there is a time component to it, and very brief exposure (say, microseconds) tends to be safer.  What matters is the total energy absorbed -- the area under the curve -- rather than the peak power level.  Human bodies being what they are, heating over a period of time tends to spread out somewhat.

This is in contrast to a camera's pixel, which is a tiny speck that maybe could be wiped out in an instant, at an energy level (area under the curve) that is too small to heat up and damage living tissue.

re: DSLRs -- Any camera with an electronic viewfinder has the sensor always susceptible to damage.  Any camera with an optical viewfinder has your eye susceptible to damage.

Interesting questions about using filters to reduce the damage potential.  Of course that only works if the laser source is the same color or wavelength range that the filter is tuned to.

50%
50%
steve.taranovich
steve.taranovich
2/1/2019 1:51:25 PM
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Eyes versus cameras
All good points Andy---I expect to see more legislation on this as well as manufacturers of Lasers being responsible to help ensure safety even more. Lasers are relatively new, especially in LiDAR. And there will always be idiots out there using laser pointers improperly and not for what they were intended. It's like hackers on the internet---they can do lots of damage and technology keeps trying to curb their hurtful actions, but it's a never-ending battle.

50%
50%
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
More Blogs from Steve Taranovich
Copper alloy for fasteners with better thermal conductivity and lower electrical resistance than Stainless Steel
Let’s go back a few years and see the top ten tech blogs that Planet Analog readers liked best
I was not aware of was the technique of doping semiconductors using radiation defects that are produced by irradiation with protons and alpha particles.
Metastability can cause a spacecraft electronic failure. It may render a very expensive spacecraft/satellite unusable and if the spacecraft is manned, there could be lives in danger
flash poll
educational resources
 
follow Planet Analog on Twitter
Planet Analog Twitter Feed
like us on facebook
our partners
Planet Analog
About Us     Contact Us     Help     Register     Twitter     Facebook     RSS