# Could this work? Anti-photographer laser shield **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 22, 2009, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-work-anti-photographer-laser-shield/511049 "2009-09-22T04:15:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-work-anti-photographer-laser-shield/511049/41 "2009-09-23T09:57:34Z")
> [@Oukile](#): > > No paparazzi shoots from one mile, this is way too far ! If you want to shoot someone with, say, a 400mm lens, then 200-300 feet is about the maximum realistic range. That’s what I was going to say - a mile is crazy. You can get a decent shot from further than 300 feet though, with a good lens and a good sensor (and a lot of pap shots in the press are so grainy/pixellated that they have clearly been blown up from a small portion of a full frame, so may have been taken from quite a bit further than that.) ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-work-anti-photographer-laser-shield/511049/42 "2009-09-23T11:26:10Z")
Well so are we talking a kilometer or a half a kilometer or what? Paparazzi, presumably, go for any shot they can get. I did find something saying that they didn’t care about the quality of the photo, just what is in it, so I would imagine that they’ll be right on the edge of whatever is feasible. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-work-anti-photographer-laser-shield/511049/43 "2009-09-23T12:00:12Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Well so are we talking a kilometer or a half a kilometer or what? Paparazzi, presumably, go for any shot they can get. I did find something saying that they didn’t care about the quality of the photo, just what is in it, so I would imagine that they’ll be right on the edge of whatever is feasible. I don’t know how far away [this](http://fisherwy.blogspot.com/2008/01/roman-abramovich-biting-girlfriend.html) was taken from but if it was from anything like a kilometer it’s bloody good work. I imagine it’s the sort of thing he is trying to stop. 😃 The man does love gadgets though. Did anyone else notice the new yacht will have a miniture submarine to aboard to escape from pirates? Personally I think he watched too many Bond moviies when he was a child. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-work-anti-photographer-laser-shield/511049/44 "2009-09-23T15:52:14Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > Personally I think he watched too many Bond moviies when he was a child. I could see how that would give him a complex. The Russians are _always_ the bad guys. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-work-anti-photographer-laser-shield/511049/45 "2009-09-23T16:31:35Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > The man does love gadgets though. Did anyone else notice the new yacht will have a miniture submarine to aboard to escape from pirates? Personally I think he watched too many Bond moviies when he was a child. Personally, I hope he has seen all the Austin Powers movies and thinks they are documentaries 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-work-anti-photographer-laser-shield/511049/46 "2009-09-23T17:39:07Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > Interesting article [here](http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/celebrity_photographer_laser_shield__is_it_legal_news_289553.html?aff=rss) about a Russian billionaire who had this thing installed on his yacht to protect against paparazzi. > > They say it hasn’t been tested yet though. So first of all, is such a device feasible? And secondly, would it be likely to damage the camera lens/sensor as the article suggests it may? I think you’re misunderstanding how the technology works. “High Tech Laser” is the nick name of this guy’s goon. If “High Tech Laser” detects a photographer trying to take a picture of this yacht, “High Tech Laser” will make sure that “the picture doesn’t turn out”. ---
**Author:** ![THespos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@THespos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/THespos)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-work-anti-photographer-laser-shield/511049/47 "2009-09-23T20:35:05Z")
> [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](#): > > You all are forgetting the boat part here. You know those things that bob up and down on large bodies of water, rocking with each random wave that comes in? How the heck are you going to get any kind of accuracy from that platform? Not to mention that if the system looks for the lens glare of an optical system (as has been hypothesized), how could it distinguish between the glint off a telephoto lens and the moon or sun reflecting off of the water? ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-work-anti-photographer-laser-shield/511049/48 "2009-09-23T21:15:31Z")
> [@THespos](#): > > Not to mention that if the system looks for the lens glare of an optical system (as has been hypothesized), how could it distinguish between the glint off a telephoto lens and the moon or sun reflecting off of the water? Just going on theory here. First, the system is going to look for glints created by the system , itself, by emitting a strong IR beam or pulsed laser or what not. Its not going to look for glints created by the sun or moon. Second, glints created by optics systems are possibly different than glints off the water even if they are still created by light emitted by the system. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-work-anti-photographer-laser-shield/511049/49 "2009-09-23T21:35:08Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Well so are we talking a kilometer or a half a kilometer or what? Paparazzi, presumably, go for any shot they can get. I did find something saying that they didn’t care about the quality of the photo, just what is in it, so I would imagine that they’ll be right on the edge of whatever is feasible. Without getting too scientific about it, as I was strolling through the neighborhood, I tried to imagine what would be publishable. The longest lens I’ve shot with is a 500mm. I’m trying to imagine a 600mm lens, with a 2x teleconvertor, on a 1.6x sensor. I really don’t think you could go much farther than a quarter of a kilometer (250m) and get a publishable image. Even there, I’m thinking I’m being optimistic. Half a kilometer would be a _very_ generous upper bound. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-work-anti-photographer-laser-shield/511049.md?page=2)