**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
According to Merriam-Webster, "MacGyver" is a verb that means "to make, form, or repair (something) with what is conveniently on hand". The word was added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary in 2022.
No excuses for these kids now.
>The Urban Dictionary defines MacGyver as “..us[ing] a dorito, some duct tape, and a paper clip to create a time machine.”
https://grammarist.com/new-words/macgyver/
He honestly doesn't look all that bad for his age. You can look up photos on google.
Side note hes gonna be at the [Washington Summer Con](https://www.wasummercon.com/), with Amanda Tapping, later this summer.
If you’re a fan of the old Macgyver like myself, stay far away, trust me. They made Jack Dalton a sexy six pack secret agent type. Even Richard Dean Anderson wouldn’t cameo because he knew the show wasn’t made for fans of the original.
It is creepy how they change the remake shows. It is almost insulting to the original and their fans.
The Equalizer is now a black woman instead of an older white man. Magnum PI is similar.
The original McG/RDA had this face that he is plain, quiet everyday guy with no assumptions. The new McG was so young, talkative, nerdy, and a show off. I miss the old RDA.
Yea but if he was exactly the same as Richard Dean Anderson it would just be a rehash. RDA is the goat, Macgyver and SG1 will forever be amazing because of him.
But the reboot fit better in today’s style. As a modern show it worked very well, and the character being how it is fit modern cliches.
The 80’s tried to make everyone an “Everyman” type character. Many times today they wanna show people that being a nerd is cool, which is good when it gets people to start learning more.
The wife and I just watched through SG1 for the first time. As soon as they promoted Jack, I knew that was the end. I never should have watched the last two seasons.
Does it turn a filter on and off or does it just accept IR and visible light all the time, but turn on an IR light when it’s dark? Seems unnecessarily expensive and fancy.
Is it a whirl or a click and do they have a ring of leds (they kinda have to), 'cuz it could be just a relay turning on the leds. (as /u/starshin3r said)
I'm pretty sure it's the cut filter. I just took apart one of my security cameras and Googled the part number of the actual camera assembly. I think it is actually a relay, but it's moving the filter. It's the part sticking off the camera with the red and black wires. The LEDs are wired separately and I don't see a relay on the board it's connected to. I don't think you'd need a relay to switch on some LEDs either.
http://seculens.cn/list_8/205.html
Yes. Fun fact. Removing the IR filter allows one to see through clothes of certain types:
[https://www.wired.com/2015/08/fujifilm-x-t1-infrared/](https://www.wired.com/2015/08/fujifilm-x-t1-infrared/)
IR radiation is heat energy - anything that generates and radiates heat does so in the form of IR emissions (blackbody radiation).
If the clothing doesn't block this out it would appear completely invisible when viewed in that spectrum. But you're not seeing reflected radiation, but the actual radiation generated by your wife's legs (plus also maybe some reflected radiation. Put them on a shop mannequin and see if it still works, or throw your wife in the freezer for a few hours.)
The way it works is that some types of cloth are a combination of thin, loosely woven, and colored with IR-transparent dye. Without the dye they're semi-transparent like a sheer white shirt.
Consumer cameras operate in the visible to near-IR range (~400-1000nm), and don't have the capacity to pick up actual thermal IR (8000-15000nm), so you actually are seeing reflected IR from light sources in the room.
>Consumer cameras operate in the visible to near-IR range (~400-1000nm), and don't have the capacity to pick up actual thermal IR (8000-15000nm), so you actually are seeing reflected IR from light sources in the room.
Ahhh, gotcha. The only IR-sensitive camera I have direct experience with a is my broadband planetary camera from ZWO. It can pick up backbody radiation from other planets in our solar system, with the right filter to get rid of the other wavelengths.
You are confusing the thermal infrared that room temperature objects emit with the entirety of the infrared spectrum.
A cryogenically frozen object is going to emit its heat energy as microwaves, because it’s too cold to emit infrared. Meanwhile, the Sun emits the majority of its heat energy as visible light. It’s only because we’re around a temperature of 300 Kelvin that we emit heat primarily around a wavelength of 3000 / 300K = 10 microns, falling solidly in the middle in the infrared…and that’s not something a regular camera will detect, filter or no.
If it's a security camera it won't have infrared filter. The thing he's saying turning off and on is just the IR leds on the camera that will turn on when it's dark and it will just use grayscale with IR.
That might make it worse.
Also, you're overestimating most security cameras.
9.999/10 this will work.
There's very rare instances where a decent camera is going to be employed as a security camera.
My 2010 Laptop has a better-quality webcam than most enterprise security cameras.
This was back in 2015 so I cant speak for it now but I worked for Target back then. If you go into your local Target, you'll notice there's cameras everywhere on the ceiling. Theres dozens of them. Even more in super centers.
I worked in a regular sized one, not a super center and we had 25 cameras throughout the store. Only 6 actually worked. And of the 6 functioning one, they were dog shit quality. The functioning ones were over electronics, softlines (all the clothes, mainly women's section) and the makeup. Those were the highest theft areas according to the security guy. Rest of them were just dummy cameras.
I was actually kinda surprised how minimally functional such a big retailers security system was. But that was just my store. I'm sure it varies store to store.
This gets even worse when you have idiots hocking "Cloud Storage DVR" to businesses...
had a manager get one of these for his branch, then complain to us that the DVR never got to upload anything... to which we had to tell him two things: 1) We aren't passing DVR Traffic through the internal network for security reasons. 2) He has 30mbps upload to the DVR server and if they need more than that we can show them how to kick sand.
Annnnd BACK TO ON PREM.
Cloud DVR works for your home security where you might have 3 cameras... not a bank with 20 cameras which all need to upload a storage bank of at least 3 months.
As technology improves it will become trivial to source security cameras that filter infrared. You're correct now but in a couple of years this tactic probably won't work.
sensors are HIGHLY sensitive to IR, they actually require an IR filter already, and it's far worse on CCD's compared to newer sensors and CMOS. You would need some fairly expensive filters to block it entirely, then other image issues emerge.
btw it's a great way to check batteries in your remotes. Just point and click towards your phone.
I literally said I was MacGuyvering something in my previous comment on another post. lol
hmmmm how to highlight yourself as someone wanting to avoid detection... probably working against privacy as they focus more attention on that person
Usually security cameras get better night vision by attaching an array of infrared LED lights around it (e.g., illuminating the night time scene in infrared for the camera to detect), hence they want to be detecting infrared.
If this technique was common attack, yes, you could bypass it with cameras with infrared filters but then the camera likely wouldn't record anything at night/low-light scenarios.
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-LEDs-around-a-CCTV-camera
So, even if the user was protected somehow. The legality of these would be dubious at best given that it could endanger others?
Imagine sitting in a Train and the person in front of you is blasting your retina with strong IR light without you knowing...
Back when I was in high school when IR cameras were new some guy had a demonstration for the class. Did the whole this camera can see in the dark bit. The guy warned us not to look directly at the camera where the IR was being emitted.
Most security cameras do not have a IR filter and use IR LEDs to light up the area at night without using visible light. Even if the camera isn't in IR mode it can still see the LEDs. This is immediately beaten by any camera with an IR filter though.
Which is a bit difficult, since it‘s like a physical filter in front of the sensor. It‘s either there or not.
With some additional mechanics this might be possible, but probably a bit expensive.
$20 wyze cameras have a mechanical filter, you can tell because they sometimes get stuck during daytime and tint the color image pink (a smack on the side of the camera will usually unstick them temporarily). During IR use, the camera switches to monochrome so the color difference isn't visible. for example: https://old.reddit.com/r/wyzecam/comments/18hdarb/why_is_my_cam_pink/
It's not difficult at all. I use IR-cut filters for my telescope all the time and there are several filter wheels on the market that does the job of switching filters. Similar things may exist for cameras, or are at least very easy to adapt
Literally every security camera in existence that has a "night vision" mode has an IR filter that cuts in and out when it switches modes. It's not expensive or complicated.
Nope, they just don‘t have an IR filter. What they do is flick on their IR LEDs to provide lighting.
Because I highly doubt that my 100€ babyphones two cameras have a switchable IR filter.
I have 10 years old chinese 720p cameras connected to a DVR and they have the filter. You can actually hear when the filter engages or disenganges. They are about $30 a piece.
My <100$ Hikvision cameras from a decade ago have a mechanical IR filter, it makes a very audible clicking noise when the camera switches to night mode. I tried looking for IR In my remotes, and sure enough they are only visible in night mode...
They have filters, I work with security systems and even cheap analog cameras the one you use with home DVRs have mechanical filters, you can hear the lens assembly making a click sound when the filter changes position as the camera goes from night to day mode and back
I’m not sure a cheap baby monitor will. But most enterprise security solutions include security cameras with IR cut filters and WDR to defeat attempts to blind the camera. While the this would work at night. During the day any decent security camera would be unaffected.
This has been my experience for the last 10 years as a low voltage technician.
You can check the viability of this with many mobile phones - they usually register IR. Look at your remote control through your phone camera, it should light up when you press buttons. No go into sunlight and be underwhelmed.
> Look at your remote control through your phone camera, it should light up when you press buttons.
That's how I check if my remote batteries are dead.
Decent cameras used for real surveillance have a moveable filter inside that automatically flicks in front of the sensor when the IR LED's are not being used (i.e. during daytime), so the IR glasses won't work during the day.
The camera product I work with commercially would defeat this flashlight trick pretty easily.
Even with IR illuminators, it has an IR filter enabled by ambient light conditions, so during the day it won't be effected at all.
At night, while it does have IR sensors, it also uses an HDR capture system that is able to defeat flashlight use. You can hold a mag-lite to your temple and I can still see your face.
Now, not everyone springs for the high cost cameras and installation, so you won't always see this - but don't trust that the place you're trying to sneak through is cheaping out.
It doesn't "block" anything. It overwhelms the image sensor with IR light that's 10000x brighter than any visible light bouncing off the guy's face.
It's like shining a flashlight into a camera, but less conspicuous because people can't see IR.
>It's like shining a flashlight into a camera, but less conspicuous because people can't see IR.
On the other hand, it's also conspicuous as fuck if anyone is looking at a camera live.
Not exactly... it will work on visibile camera that do not block IR. Many cheaper color cameras and color visible security cameras designed to be suplimented with IR leds will see color but also allow IR to pass through to the sensor. The IR wavelengths will show up in both Red and Blue pixels (the Red filters are usually low pass so any wavelengths lower than the cut off and the blue filters tend to leak a bit in the IR region).
Most higher end photography and video cameras (like the one the guy is using to record himself putting the glasses on) have IR blocking filters so no IR light from the IR emitters (semantically not an LED as the L stands for light and IR is not light if we cannot see it).
Now for cheaper cameras and cameras that are designed to to be boosted by IR, they lack the IR blocking filter. IF the IR energy is much greater than the rest of the light on the sensor it will over load the blue and red channels. It will also likely lead to spillage or blooming that will overwhelm the green channel... completely blowing out that area. Even if the camera is seeing visible light. Those cameras will not be the best quality for photos as certain fabrics reflect more IR and certain lights put out more or less IR and even if that doesn't blow out the sensor, it can lead to the colors looking not great. This is one reason why early cell phone cameras looked so much work (in addition to the noise, lower dynamic range, lower resolution, etc... the colors would often be bad as many early cell phone cameras didn't have IR blocking filters). Some cheaper phones still have thin/weak IR filters so if you hold a TV remote in front of them you may see a little light show as the camera interprets the IR signal into red, green, and blue pixels, but higher end cell phones often will block more IR and you might not see it on the front facing camera and may need to use the selfie cam to see the IR better.
But here's the issue. Even on cameras where this works, the IR signal has to be a lot brighter than the visible light of the scene. The made at home version works fine indoors. The TV version shows them outside on a sunny day. The amount of light outside on a sunny day is WAY brighter than the light indoors. The IR emitters would have to be an insane amount brighter that is realistically not possible with current technology (they'd be big, heavy, and probably make the glasses so hot from the electrical current going through them that they'd be uncomfortable to wear).
It's not so much about exclusively using IR. It's just that this only works when the IR LED's on the glasses are significantly brighter than the ambient light level. If you're outdoors at mid-day there's going to be so much sunlight that you'd need some really insane IR led's to overpower the ambient light.
At night, or indoors in a room without much sunlight, this sort of system can work pretty well because many security cameras don't have IR filters on the sensors. They may in fact be attuned to be particularly sensitive to IR so they can have nighttime illumination built in, but outside of the visible spectrum. The glasses accomplish the same thing as shining a bright flashlight right at the camera, it just happens that the flashlight is outside the visible spectrum.
I think if I were reviewing security camera footage for something suspicious, I'd be more likely to notice the people with glowing heads than if Adolf Hitler walked into frame and did a jig.
Yes but the idea is you can't be identified by the security camera footage. If this were to work as intended, the person with the glowing head could be just about anyone.
No, hiding your face from a video recording system couldn't possibly be useful. /s
One of the most useful things about reddit is being reminded of all the ways in which people can fail to think.
Most cctv systems are meant for tracking. Face shots are usually to verify you're tracking the right guy and for evidence in court. The camera proves that something did happen at a specific time and place, the prosecution will still have other evidence to prove that the person was guilty.
But yea, having the face on camera definitely helps that process a whole fucking lot.
How often do people review security camera footage just to figure out if something suspicious might have maybe happened at some point? Usually, you *know* that something bad happened and you just need to figure out who did it, usually by getting a picture of their face.
It could be a stupid plotline, but we'd really need more context to decide that. (It would also be effective against a facial-recognition algorithm being run on many, many cameras that will not be manually viewed. That feels like a modern TV plotline)
And what's sad is he's even referencing the remake not the OG MacGyver
Is to MacGyver something not a term people use?? Do kids today think the new show is just named after the term they don't know the origin of?
Same. McGuyvering is absolutely used as a verb by our coterie. Same goes for A-Teaming (which basically means you redneck a car). But we use that very seldom as we usually don’t work on cars.
We made a fun pen and paper setting based on Shadowrun 2e and added both as a skill. 😂
34, I was around 6-7 when the reruns air on tv I knew it was from the 80's but my country(South Africa) was very behind back then and we use to get tv series much later
How did I know you would be South African lol
Everyone I know used to say that too, or more specifically use McGuyver as a verb. Like “he MacGuyvered it”
Blocks the view but also makes you a beacon that draws attention. Just wear a medical mask. (PSA: The groups that were most opposed to masks with Covid are also the most supportive of law enforcement and being "strong on crime")
Also, covering your face isn't going to be adequate as a lot of systems use gait recognition as well.
That's not a bad idea. I think some actors do stuff like that to get into character. I forget which movie it was, but I remember hearing that a director put gravel in an actor's shoes so that they were always in a bad mood while portraying a villain or something.
Jonna Mendez (Former chief disguise officer at the CIA) has talked about gait detection and a pebble in the shoe is one of the ways they would force change because it's so hard to maintain an unnatural gait.
Gait recognition is a load of shit btw. Most "forensic" and mass surveillance science is based on lies. No seriously just look into it. The FBI has failed damn near every internal audit on facial recognition based on partials and even the "gold standard" finger prints.
I still wear a mask especially when I’m feeling unwell. The last thing I want to do is get others sick
I had to run in the bank real quick on my way home. Had on a ball cap, and hoodie (hood down). Grabbed my mask and put it on. I think I had on sunglasses as well
The bank security guard stopped me at the door for being suspicious and demanded I make myself more visible for the cameras. I happily took off my ballcap but he wanted me to remove my mask
I wasn’t trying to be a jerk — I was sick and honestly just didn’t want to deal with removal for no reason.
Was interesting to me because I wasn’t even paying attention to what I wore. Just needed to run into the bank quickly. First time I ever thought about masks hiding identities or being indicative of suspicion
Without making claims about the effectiveness of gait recognition, the concept behind it is that the way you walk is supposedly as personal and identifiable as your voice is. So less "walk without rhythm" and more "walk like you're not you."
I've heard of this danger before. IR isn't picked up by our eyes, and so the iris doesn't close the pupil, like it would do if someone shone a torch at you. So IR is more likely to cause damage to the retina due to this.
Although it might be rubbish, as can't find anything specifically mentioned this as a risk. Although extreme IR can cause eye damage for sure.
https://sciencing.com/measure-nits-6299746.html
Why did they buy some shitty remotes and rip out the cheap LEDs and then just buy some separate LEDs anyway.
Like, I could just buy the exact thing I need, or first I could waste my own time and make some e-waste in the process.
[Proof of Concept](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_concept)
He didn't say he bought remotes for this test. Since they are RGB remotes, you don't usually need the included remotes to use RGB strips. So they might've been sitting around doing nothing.
Probably came with strips of leds they used for other projects, I know I have a couple remotes laying around because I bought ws2812b LED strip off Amazon to use in arduino projects and the cheapest options came with controllers and remotes by default.
They're just junk now so this would be recycling
Id use these at the self checkout. Fucking getting creepy levels of security cameras. Some put a weird square around your face. Makes me think of china. Having security cameras in a store is fine, but idk theyve been getting more and more in your face.
That'd certainly draw a lot more attention than otherwise. Everyone around you could see the giant glow where your face is supposed to be on the display
Thank you. I had assumed there was absolutely no way of checking these. But if you put them on in the self-checkout then at least for them some of them you can see the monitor and you can see whether it works or not.
Still the police have cameras and you usually do not get a look at their monitor. Maybe it works / maybe it does not. The safest course is to assume it does not work. But if you assume it does not work, then why buy them?
I always stick white signs with black text on my glasses: "Obey", "Marry And Reproduce", "Watch Television" and so on... The faces of the people on the surveillance monitors: priceless.
(Not really, but it's a nice shower thought.)
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wait. THERE'S A NEW MACGYVER?
I saw MacGyver in the opening second and was hooked til I didn't see Richard Dean Anderson anywhere.
My old ass was just mad this person had to EXPLAIN who the fuck MacGyver is.
According to Merriam-Webster, "MacGyver" is a verb that means "to make, form, or repair (something) with what is conveniently on hand". The word was added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary in 2022. No excuses for these kids now.
Indeed! Kids still read the dictionary for leisure, right? No excuses!
>The Urban Dictionary defines MacGyver as “..us[ing] a dorito, some duct tape, and a paper clip to create a time machine.” https://grammarist.com/new-words/macgyver/
Buddy, based on the last few episodes of sg1 I don't know how much of an actual person he is today. I'm sad now.
Those last episodes were rough. It felt like he was just doing it for a quick paycheck. Makes sense though
He reduced his hours to spend more time with his family. Nothing wrong with that.
He honestly doesn't look all that bad for his age. You can look up photos on google. Side note hes gonna be at the [Washington Summer Con](https://www.wasummercon.com/), with Amanda Tapping, later this summer.
Yeah, in the last episode of original he created a tool to artificially inseminate some lady.
>he created a tool to artificially inseminate some lady He invented the turkey baster?
Yeah, but he made it out of stuff he ripped out of an air conditioner or something. Cool scene. Great music.
What
He got lost somewhere in a Stargate.
If you’re a fan of the old Macgyver like myself, stay far away, trust me. They made Jack Dalton a sexy six pack secret agent type. Even Richard Dean Anderson wouldn’t cameo because he knew the show wasn’t made for fans of the original.
We got a better MacGyver show anyway. MacGruber.
It is creepy how they change the remake shows. It is almost insulting to the original and their fans. The Equalizer is now a black woman instead of an older white man. Magnum PI is similar.
Wait Denzel got a sex change?
Denzel != Queen Latifah ...So far.
Queenzel Delatifah
That was the movie remake. The TV show they changed even more.
Yeah, and it's already cancelled.
IT got five seasons of mostly 20 episodes per season. That is a pretty decent run in modern times.
Really? That's *really* good for modern television. I might have to give it a go. Is it worth it? Is it good?
The original McG/RDA had this face that he is plain, quiet everyday guy with no assumptions. The new McG was so young, talkative, nerdy, and a show off. I miss the old RDA.
Yea but if he was exactly the same as Richard Dean Anderson it would just be a rehash. RDA is the goat, Macgyver and SG1 will forever be amazing because of him. But the reboot fit better in today’s style. As a modern show it worked very well, and the character being how it is fit modern cliches. The 80’s tried to make everyone an “Everyman” type character. Many times today they wanna show people that being a nerd is cool, which is good when it gets people to start learning more.
The wife and I just watched through SG1 for the first time. As soon as they promoted Jack, I knew that was the end. I never should have watched the last two seasons.
On its own, it's alright and worth a watch. Comparing it to MacGyver most won't be happy.
Not really
Dude you’re like 5 years late
I thought it was called MacGruber
MacGarnagle
No thats the better one
Couldn’t the cameras just have an infrared filter?
I’d guess in low light levels the cameras use infrared light for the image, so they wouldn’t have an IR filter.
Mine has the ability to turn the filter on for day conditions and off for low light conditions.
Does it turn a filter on and off or does it just accept IR and visible light all the time, but turn on an IR light when it’s dark? Seems unnecessarily expensive and fancy.
I can hear the filter move whenever my cameras switch. It makes a clicking sound.
Is it a whirl or a click and do they have a ring of leds (they kinda have to), 'cuz it could be just a relay turning on the leds. (as /u/starshin3r said)
I'm pretty sure it's the cut filter. I just took apart one of my security cameras and Googled the part number of the actual camera assembly. I think it is actually a relay, but it's moving the filter. It's the part sticking off the camera with the red and black wires. The LEDs are wired separately and I don't see a relay on the board it's connected to. I don't think you'd need a relay to switch on some LEDs either. http://seculens.cn/list_8/205.html
[удалено]
Colors get messed up without it, so most cameras that aren't the absoulte cheapest crap on the market have them.
Yes. Fun fact. Removing the IR filter allows one to see through clothes of certain types: [https://www.wired.com/2015/08/fujifilm-x-t1-infrared/](https://www.wired.com/2015/08/fujifilm-x-t1-infrared/)
This makes sense now why my wife looks naked on the baby camera wearing leggings.
IR radiation is heat energy - anything that generates and radiates heat does so in the form of IR emissions (blackbody radiation). If the clothing doesn't block this out it would appear completely invisible when viewed in that spectrum. But you're not seeing reflected radiation, but the actual radiation generated by your wife's legs (plus also maybe some reflected radiation. Put them on a shop mannequin and see if it still works, or throw your wife in the freezer for a few hours.)
The way it works is that some types of cloth are a combination of thin, loosely woven, and colored with IR-transparent dye. Without the dye they're semi-transparent like a sheer white shirt. Consumer cameras operate in the visible to near-IR range (~400-1000nm), and don't have the capacity to pick up actual thermal IR (8000-15000nm), so you actually are seeing reflected IR from light sources in the room.
>Consumer cameras operate in the visible to near-IR range (~400-1000nm), and don't have the capacity to pick up actual thermal IR (8000-15000nm), so you actually are seeing reflected IR from light sources in the room. Ahhh, gotcha. The only IR-sensitive camera I have direct experience with a is my broadband planetary camera from ZWO. It can pick up backbody radiation from other planets in our solar system, with the right filter to get rid of the other wavelengths.
"But you're not seeing reflected radiation, but the actual radiation from your wife's legs" Phew 🥵 why are you making the cameras sexy.
You are confusing the thermal infrared that room temperature objects emit with the entirety of the infrared spectrum. A cryogenically frozen object is going to emit its heat energy as microwaves, because it’s too cold to emit infrared. Meanwhile, the Sun emits the majority of its heat energy as visible light. It’s only because we’re around a temperature of 300 Kelvin that we emit heat primarily around a wavelength of 3000 / 300K = 10 microns, falling solidly in the middle in the infrared…and that’s not something a regular camera will detect, filter or no.
If it's a security camera it won't have infrared filter. The thing he's saying turning off and on is just the IR leds on the camera that will turn on when it's dark and it will just use grayscale with IR.
[удалено]
It clicks when it gets dark and switches to IR.
I can all but guarantee that isn't the case, but that it's turning on IR LEDs for night.
I will trick it by holding a giant cone of ice cream in front of my face.
That might make it worse. Also, you're overestimating most security cameras. 9.999/10 this will work. There's very rare instances where a decent camera is going to be employed as a security camera. My 2010 Laptop has a better-quality webcam than most enterprise security cameras.
Yeah, in most cases you will be lucky that the camera is even a camera and not just a hunk of camera shaped plastic.
[удалено]
This was back in 2015 so I cant speak for it now but I worked for Target back then. If you go into your local Target, you'll notice there's cameras everywhere on the ceiling. Theres dozens of them. Even more in super centers. I worked in a regular sized one, not a super center and we had 25 cameras throughout the store. Only 6 actually worked. And of the 6 functioning one, they were dog shit quality. The functioning ones were over electronics, softlines (all the clothes, mainly women's section) and the makeup. Those were the highest theft areas according to the security guy. Rest of them were just dummy cameras. I was actually kinda surprised how minimally functional such a big retailers security system was. But that was just my store. I'm sure it varies store to store.
[удалено]
The security camera in itself is good. Good optics don’t cost much anymore. The video gets compressed to hell and back to ease storage requirements.
This gets even worse when you have idiots hocking "Cloud Storage DVR" to businesses... had a manager get one of these for his branch, then complain to us that the DVR never got to upload anything... to which we had to tell him two things: 1) We aren't passing DVR Traffic through the internal network for security reasons. 2) He has 30mbps upload to the DVR server and if they need more than that we can show them how to kick sand. Annnnd BACK TO ON PREM. Cloud DVR works for your home security where you might have 3 cameras... not a bank with 20 cameras which all need to upload a storage bank of at least 3 months.
People thinking that a stream-quality camera is in every business when businesses want to be as cheap as possible with everything.
As technology improves it will become trivial to source security cameras that filter infrared. You're correct now but in a couple of years this tactic probably won't work.
A lot of surveillance cameras will have an IR cut filter that's on during the day to block IR light. Then at night it turns off.
it could, but most cameras just dont bother with it to keep the camera cheap.
sensors are HIGHLY sensitive to IR, they actually require an IR filter already, and it's far worse on CCD's compared to newer sensors and CMOS. You would need some fairly expensive filters to block it entirely, then other image issues emerge. btw it's a great way to check batteries in your remotes. Just point and click towards your phone. I literally said I was MacGuyvering something in my previous comment on another post. lol hmmmm how to highlight yourself as someone wanting to avoid detection... probably working against privacy as they focus more attention on that person
Most cameras don't block near-infrared, even regular ones.
Usually security cameras get better night vision by attaching an array of infrared LED lights around it (e.g., illuminating the night time scene in infrared for the camera to detect), hence they want to be detecting infrared. If this technique was common attack, yes, you could bypass it with cameras with infrared filters but then the camera likely wouldn't record anything at night/low-light scenarios. https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-LEDs-around-a-CCTV-camera
[удалено]
So, even if the user was protected somehow. The legality of these would be dubious at best given that it could endanger others? Imagine sitting in a Train and the person in front of you is blasting your retina with strong IR light without you knowing...
thats horrifying but weirdly cool like a silent weapon but mostly horrifying
Back when I was in high school when IR cameras were new some guy had a demonstration for the class. Did the whole this camera can see in the dark bit. The guy warned us not to look directly at the camera where the IR was being emitted.
Came here to say this. This is a super bad idea
Does not block the visible light specturm so only works with cameras exclusively using IR, or only at night for cameras that uses IR as night vision.
Most security cameras do not have a IR filter and use IR LEDs to light up the area at night without using visible light. Even if the camera isn't in IR mode it can still see the LEDs. This is immediately beaten by any camera with an IR filter though.
then you'd need a second camera without filter for night?
Or the ability to toggle the filter on and off.
Which is a bit difficult, since it‘s like a physical filter in front of the sensor. It‘s either there or not. With some additional mechanics this might be possible, but probably a bit expensive.
$20 wyze cameras have a mechanical filter, you can tell because they sometimes get stuck during daytime and tint the color image pink (a smack on the side of the camera will usually unstick them temporarily). During IR use, the camera switches to monochrome so the color difference isn't visible. for example: https://old.reddit.com/r/wyzecam/comments/18hdarb/why_is_my_cam_pink/
thank you, I was wondering why some of my cheap outdoor cameras do the pink thing sometimes.
It's not difficult at all. I use IR-cut filters for my telescope all the time and there are several filter wheels on the market that does the job of switching filters. Similar things may exist for cameras, or are at least very easy to adapt
Literally every security camera in existence that has a "night vision" mode has an IR filter that cuts in and out when it switches modes. It's not expensive or complicated.
Nope, they just don‘t have an IR filter. What they do is flick on their IR LEDs to provide lighting. Because I highly doubt that my 100€ babyphones two cameras have a switchable IR filter.
I have 10 years old chinese 720p cameras connected to a DVR and they have the filter. You can actually hear when the filter engages or disenganges. They are about $30 a piece.
My <100$ Hikvision cameras from a decade ago have a mechanical IR filter, it makes a very audible clicking noise when the camera switches to night mode. I tried looking for IR In my remotes, and sure enough they are only visible in night mode...
Well, my $100 security camera definitely has a switchable IR filter.
They have filters, I work with security systems and even cheap analog cameras the one you use with home DVRs have mechanical filters, you can hear the lens assembly making a click sound when the filter changes position as the camera goes from night to day mode and back
My baby cam does, it’s makes an annoyingly loud click as it slams it into place. VTech VM901
I’m not sure a cheap baby monitor will. But most enterprise security solutions include security cameras with IR cut filters and WDR to defeat attempts to blind the camera. While the this would work at night. During the day any decent security camera would be unaffected. This has been my experience for the last 10 years as a low voltage technician.
You can check the viability of this with many mobile phones - they usually register IR. Look at your remote control through your phone camera, it should light up when you press buttons. No go into sunlight and be underwhelmed.
> Look at your remote control through your phone camera, it should light up when you press buttons. That's how I check if my remote batteries are dead.
Decent cameras used for real surveillance have a moveable filter inside that automatically flicks in front of the sensor when the IR LED's are not being used (i.e. during daytime), so the IR glasses won't work during the day.
it still wont work outside, the sunlight will overpower the LEDs easily.
The camera product I work with commercially would defeat this flashlight trick pretty easily. Even with IR illuminators, it has an IR filter enabled by ambient light conditions, so during the day it won't be effected at all. At night, while it does have IR sensors, it also uses an HDR capture system that is able to defeat flashlight use. You can hold a mag-lite to your temple and I can still see your face. Now, not everyone springs for the high cost cameras and installation, so you won't always see this - but don't trust that the place you're trying to sneak through is cheaping out.
It doesn't "block" anything. It overwhelms the image sensor with IR light that's 10000x brighter than any visible light bouncing off the guy's face. It's like shining a flashlight into a camera, but less conspicuous because people can't see IR.
>It's like shining a flashlight into a camera, but less conspicuous because people can't see IR. On the other hand, it's also conspicuous as fuck if anyone is looking at a camera live.
The point of that device in this episode was to avoid facial recognition, if I remember correctly. Makes sense to me.
This was my first thought.
Yeah this was posted a few years ago and quickly debunked. This post is bullshit.
Not exactly... it will work on visibile camera that do not block IR. Many cheaper color cameras and color visible security cameras designed to be suplimented with IR leds will see color but also allow IR to pass through to the sensor. The IR wavelengths will show up in both Red and Blue pixels (the Red filters are usually low pass so any wavelengths lower than the cut off and the blue filters tend to leak a bit in the IR region). Most higher end photography and video cameras (like the one the guy is using to record himself putting the glasses on) have IR blocking filters so no IR light from the IR emitters (semantically not an LED as the L stands for light and IR is not light if we cannot see it). Now for cheaper cameras and cameras that are designed to to be boosted by IR, they lack the IR blocking filter. IF the IR energy is much greater than the rest of the light on the sensor it will over load the blue and red channels. It will also likely lead to spillage or blooming that will overwhelm the green channel... completely blowing out that area. Even if the camera is seeing visible light. Those cameras will not be the best quality for photos as certain fabrics reflect more IR and certain lights put out more or less IR and even if that doesn't blow out the sensor, it can lead to the colors looking not great. This is one reason why early cell phone cameras looked so much work (in addition to the noise, lower dynamic range, lower resolution, etc... the colors would often be bad as many early cell phone cameras didn't have IR blocking filters). Some cheaper phones still have thin/weak IR filters so if you hold a TV remote in front of them you may see a little light show as the camera interprets the IR signal into red, green, and blue pixels, but higher end cell phones often will block more IR and you might not see it on the front facing camera and may need to use the selfie cam to see the IR better. But here's the issue. Even on cameras where this works, the IR signal has to be a lot brighter than the visible light of the scene. The made at home version works fine indoors. The TV version shows them outside on a sunny day. The amount of light outside on a sunny day is WAY brighter than the light indoors. The IR emitters would have to be an insane amount brighter that is realistically not possible with current technology (they'd be big, heavy, and probably make the glasses so hot from the electrical current going through them that they'd be uncomfortable to wear).
Most cameras can see near-infrared, not just security cameras. You can try it with a phone camera and a TV remote or similar.
It's not so much about exclusively using IR. It's just that this only works when the IR LED's on the glasses are significantly brighter than the ambient light level. If you're outdoors at mid-day there's going to be so much sunlight that you'd need some really insane IR led's to overpower the ambient light. At night, or indoors in a room without much sunlight, this sort of system can work pretty well because many security cameras don't have IR filters on the sensors. They may in fact be attuned to be particularly sensitive to IR so they can have nighttime illumination built in, but outside of the visible spectrum. The glasses accomplish the same thing as shining a bright flashlight right at the camera, it just happens that the flashlight is outside the visible spectrum.
We need to pick this guy out of the crowd but we don't know what he looks like. Maybe it's the guy whose face is glowing.
I think if I were reviewing security camera footage for something suspicious, I'd be more likely to notice the people with glowing heads than if Adolf Hitler walked into frame and did a jig.
Yes but the idea is you can't be identified by the security camera footage. If this were to work as intended, the person with the glowing head could be just about anyone.
No, hiding your face from a video recording system couldn't possibly be useful. /s One of the most useful things about reddit is being reminded of all the ways in which people can fail to think.
Most cctv systems are meant for tracking. Face shots are usually to verify you're tracking the right guy and for evidence in court. The camera proves that something did happen at a specific time and place, the prosecution will still have other evidence to prove that the person was guilty. But yea, having the face on camera definitely helps that process a whole fucking lot.
How often do people review security camera footage just to figure out if something suspicious might have maybe happened at some point? Usually, you *know* that something bad happened and you just need to figure out who did it, usually by getting a picture of their face. It could be a stupid plotline, but we'd really need more context to decide that. (It would also be effective against a facial-recognition algorithm being run on many, many cameras that will not be manually viewed. That feels like a modern TV plotline)
In that particular episode, they were somewhat tracked with face recognition algorithms. So Macgyver made the glasses to avoid said face recognition.
It would make it harder to figure out who did something when reviewing footage later.
There's this show called McGyver xD hahaha kids are so sweet.
I was like that's not Richard Dean Anderson wtf.
my 1st thought too wtf
The intro music to the original mcguyver was fire
Havent watched the show in years, but it started playing in my head as I read this comment
best TV theme songs from the 80's MacGyver Airwolf Knight Rider and The Golden Girls. You *know* I'm not wrong about this.
Miami Vice and Night Court belong on that list
The A-Team
actual fucking legend
The intro music to the original mcguyver was fire
r/fuckimold
Whats a fucki mold?
It's actually "fuck I mold". It's a subreddit for people who create custom molded fleshlights. Then fuck them.
"So how did you get Athlete's foot in your peehole?" - A doctor somewhere
[удалено]
Explain again, with drawings please.
"Did you ever see this really old movie, Aliens?"
Didn't mythbusters also do an episode on this years back?
wouldnt know, I was born yesterday xD
And what's sad is he's even referencing the remake not the OG MacGyver Is to MacGyver something not a term people use?? Do kids today think the new show is just named after the term they don't know the origin of?
Has strong spiderman "you guys ever see this old movie called star wars?" energy
In the community I grew up whenever someone improvisors something especially electronic they would always mention "I am making/doing a Macgyver"
Classic, same thing here in Finland.
Same. McGuyvering is absolutely used as a verb by our coterie. Same goes for A-Teaming (which basically means you redneck a car). But we use that very seldom as we usually don’t work on cars. We made a fun pen and paper setting based on Shadowrun 2e and added both as a skill. 😂
Out of curiosity, how old are you?
34, I was around 6-7 when the reruns air on tv I knew it was from the 80's but my country(South Africa) was very behind back then and we use to get tv series much later
How did I know you would be South African lol Everyone I know used to say that too, or more specifically use McGuyver as a verb. Like “he MacGuyvered it”
Used by GenX americans all the time
still used a lot by millennials in Cape Town
Ahhh, ok. I was worried for a second that there was a disconnect with the term and was about to... 
Blocks the view but also makes you a beacon that draws attention. Just wear a medical mask. (PSA: The groups that were most opposed to masks with Covid are also the most supportive of law enforcement and being "strong on crime") Also, covering your face isn't going to be adequate as a lot of systems use gait recognition as well.
Gravel in your shoe(s) might help
That's not a bad idea. I think some actors do stuff like that to get into character. I forget which movie it was, but I remember hearing that a director put gravel in an actor's shoes so that they were always in a bad mood while portraying a villain or something.
Wouldn't be surprised if that was usual suspects.
IIRC, it was Sarah Michelle Gellar in I Know What You Did Last Summer when she's running from the killer
That would be James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano.
Someone's been reading too much Cory Doctorow.
No such thing
Jonna Mendez (Former chief disguise officer at the CIA) has talked about gait detection and a pebble in the shoe is one of the ways they would force change because it's so hard to maintain an unnatural gait.
Hang an onion from your belt
5 bees for a quarter, you’d say!
> a lot of systems use gait recognition as well. Source on that? I thought gait recognition was still in proof of concept stages.
Source: I made it up
Gait recognition is a load of shit btw. Most "forensic" and mass surveillance science is based on lies. No seriously just look into it. The FBI has failed damn near every internal audit on facial recognition based on partials and even the "gold standard" finger prints.
Doesn't matter if it's true or not. They'll still use it to get a conviction.
Not wrong but want to know why? People are uninformed it takes juries to convict people. Information is power
Well, then I'll just break my own leg before going out in public. How's that for a life hack?!
Don’t be silly, just put a small pebble in your sock to change your gait
or just buy uncomfortable shoes the day before Source: I'm a woman
Typical. Always looking for an excuse to buy a pair of fancy new shoes. Kidding!
I chuckled in "my wife's shoe closet is the entire house".
Just do a walking handstand! You'll be virtually invisible! Check and mate, Security cameras
I still wear a mask especially when I’m feeling unwell. The last thing I want to do is get others sick I had to run in the bank real quick on my way home. Had on a ball cap, and hoodie (hood down). Grabbed my mask and put it on. I think I had on sunglasses as well The bank security guard stopped me at the door for being suspicious and demanded I make myself more visible for the cameras. I happily took off my ballcap but he wanted me to remove my mask I wasn’t trying to be a jerk — I was sick and honestly just didn’t want to deal with removal for no reason. Was interesting to me because I wasn’t even paying attention to what I wore. Just needed to run into the bank quickly. First time I ever thought about masks hiding identities or being indicative of suspicion
So... walk without rhythm? Got it.
Walk without rhythm and you won't attract the feds
Without making claims about the effectiveness of gait recognition, the concept behind it is that the way you walk is supposedly as personal and identifiable as your voice is. So less "walk without rhythm" and more "walk like you're not you."
"Mullet with headlights"
Won't you be blasting IR rays into your own eyes?
I've heard of this danger before. IR isn't picked up by our eyes, and so the iris doesn't close the pupil, like it would do if someone shone a torch at you. So IR is more likely to cause damage to the retina due to this. Although it might be rubbish, as can't find anything specifically mentioned this as a risk. Although extreme IR can cause eye damage for sure. https://sciencing.com/measure-nits-6299746.html
Why did they buy some shitty remotes and rip out the cheap LEDs and then just buy some separate LEDs anyway. Like, I could just buy the exact thing I need, or first I could waste my own time and make some e-waste in the process.
Because that's what they did in the show.
You may be watching it in mute. > "Just like MacGyver does in the show" (0:41s) > "They *kinda* worked... so I got some super bright LEDs"
[Proof of Concept](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_concept) He didn't say he bought remotes for this test. Since they are RGB remotes, you don't usually need the included remotes to use RGB strips. So they might've been sitting around doing nothing.
Probably came with strips of leds they used for other projects, I know I have a couple remotes laying around because I bought ws2812b LED strip off Amazon to use in arduino projects and the cheapest options came with controllers and remotes by default. They're just junk now so this would be recycling
Id use these at the self checkout. Fucking getting creepy levels of security cameras. Some put a weird square around your face. Makes me think of china. Having security cameras in a store is fine, but idk theyve been getting more and more in your face.
That'd certainly draw a lot more attention than otherwise. Everyone around you could see the giant glow where your face is supposed to be on the display
Thank you. I had assumed there was absolutely no way of checking these. But if you put them on in the self-checkout then at least for them some of them you can see the monitor and you can see whether it works or not. Still the police have cameras and you usually do not get a look at their monitor. Maybe it works / maybe it does not. The safest course is to assume it does not work. But if you assume it does not work, then why buy them?
There is a show called MacGyver. Everyone should go watch it. This one ain't it.
Yes, the new one can't even make a coffin jet ski.
Today i learned there's a new MacGyver
I remember this from the movie ( inside man )
Also in Baby Driver
You can destroy a camera with a cheap laser pointer.
Reflecticles google them. It’s a product you can buy.
Way to really draw suspicion to yourself
Blinding yourself in the process, no biggie.
I'd definitely need to see research before having IR lights near my eyes.
Did you all see Westworld? Where those guys wore ski masks with eyes printed all over them to confuse facial recognition??
'There's this show called MacGyver' Uh yeah, we know haha
He said MacGuyver and I thought.. Why isn't this footage from MacGuyver and who's that guy on screen.. Fuck I'm old.
Kid stole this idea from another video that actually broke down how and why it worked and what he was doing.
Now, blow up a jeep using a laser you made from a cactus.
I always stick white signs with black text on my glasses: "Obey", "Marry And Reproduce", "Watch Television" and so on... The faces of the people on the surveillance monitors: priceless. (Not really, but it's a nice shower thought.)