The makers of PhotoBlocker spray claim that their product will make your license plate invisible to photo radar, red light cameras, and infrared and laster cameras. Special crystals in the spray will reflect back the flash (or light source) used by these cameras, making your license look like a bright blur. Would this actually work? Would it be legal if it did? They say that the spray is invisible to the naked eye, which means that it won't be of much use if a cop pulls you over. Personally, I've always thought someone should make a stealth car, made out of the same material as the stealth airplanes. That would be cool. (via Red Ferret)
Comments
now we r getting rude...you said,"The rest of your post is garbage! " because you don't like it? grow up! First of all, I found out most of the info. on Photoblocker after I started posting comments here. When I bought the product, I read a few newspaper articles on their website and I was convinced it works. I mean, why would all those newspapers and Tv stations agree the product work? You said "...strongly suggests you have an interest in it" Now you mention it, I should ask the company if they have plan to become public...I'll be the first to buy shares.
I have praise for Photoblocker only because (I don't know how many more companies sell similar products)the other one I know -Safeplate, which is manufactured in the U.K - does not work and was fined by the trading standard for selling a product which doesn't do what it says on the tin. it was on newspaper.
Regarding states banning Photoblocker, you said "....is more practical banning anything marketed as such." Hey, that's what you say...BUT what I wrote was not my opinion....it was what the legislator admitted..that it was costing them in revenue. Read earlier posts to see the newspaper articles.
It doesn't cost all that much and ignoring personal intent (everybody's got a reason to want the spray), I really want to get the stuff if it works just once!
If there are dummy speed cameras or cameras that have been turned off... then me, my family and our friends must be incredibly unlucky.
Ok, so there are for and against here. I just want to fight back - I'm sick and tired of constantly worrying about my speed, passing through 3 different speed limits within half a mile in some places. This is where I have mostly been caught, doing 14km over a 40km limit or 11km over a 60km limit.
It strikes me as being over the top. If I'm not able to see a speed limit change then sure that's my problem. I have issues with a 40km zone. To me that's a slow zone for obvious safety reasons and it should be sign-posted clearly, not almost hidden where a new comer to the area won't see it coming in at 60km.
There are a lot of us who do not go around ignoring the laws, we try to keep in line but geez the cameras take the cake.
So my rant is all about the so-called effectiveness of speed cameras. I do hate detest and whine at rules and regulations that try to supposedly "protect" the people when the playing field is not level. The guy in a Nissan who sped past me in a 60km zone last week probably has this spray or maybe he's lucky enough the cameras are turned off where ever he goes. His kind does this every bloody Friday night on a strip of road here in the City.
To tell the truth, I want to believe that this spray is going to work sometimes. It's not expensive and it's not illegal as long as my plates are visible to the human eye.
Cranky and Steve, I appreciate your opinion and logic.
Nidia I also appreciate your input too.
My eyes are open now and I'm just going to buy it, what the heck, I spend more on a night out.
Hell yes!
I completely and utterly agree with you. This is one device for which claims of their effectiveness have been proven to be total bull. It also negatively impacts on long-term driver attitude and skill set.
Safespeed.org.uk is leading the UK fight against speed cameras and their usage (is often quite in the UK media in related TV programs and articles). Have a look around in there and say hi to me on their forums (I use the same nick).
"My eyes are open now and I'm just going to buy it, what the heck, I spend more on a night out."
There is no harm in it - apart from the fact it
"There is no harm in it - apart from the fact it
YOU SIR ARE A MORAN. THAT STORY WAS ON A PRODUCT CALLED Photo stopper NOT PhotoBlocker. A totally different product and I might say a cheap imitation. How dare you post such total rubbish and misinform all of us. Who are you? probably a cop, politician or a camera vendor? Whoever you are the truth is out there and people will find it. The guy in the Oregon story you are referring to is an idiot who got in trouble for selling fake Photoblockers called Photo stopper. I should know because I got burrend when I both the fake stuff. Luckily when I contacted the makers of Photoblocker they were kind enough to give me a can of their "real" stuff. All they wanted in return was to track down the counterfeiters.
For all you skeptics out there check out YouTube. The proof is out there. You decide...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_bwH53kBdA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKUT3Ls8bZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq7DIPalznk
I use it and i know, the gut pussing Ontrack ....i have seen your posts on the net, same wording and all.
If you want to by a COVER then go to ontrack....but you WILL get pulled over by cops!!!!!!!!
if you want to be stelth then get the spray!!!!
I got mine in CANADA at http:\\www.photoblockercanada.com
The reason i seen all your posts is i was doing more homework on the stuff....i GOOGLED photoblocker wiht the word scam and hoaxs guess what nothing!
When photoblocker saves you ONE ticket it payed for itself.
Ontrack sells the knock off Photostoper. and photo fog.
I dont thinking speeding is right butI HATE BIG BROTHER.
YOU are right Mat.. Ontrack is just jelous of PhantomPlate. Sorry ass losers and cheats...Thanks for selling me the fake photoblocker you call photo stopper. What needs to be done is stop you.
thanks for making it clear for us...all the time when Smeggy goes on about KPTV showing a photoblocker seller who admitted that photoblocker didn't work,(but wouldn't send me the link) I was wondering what it could have been! I knew it couldn't have been Photoblocker..because if it worked for me (and luck usually ain't on my side), I saw no reason why it wouldn't work for another.
Photo stopper ain't the only fake spray...there's also another one they sold in England > Safeplate. And try getting your money back after getting a ticket, and you would see what they are really about. The nice, polite, "you have made the right decision by protecting yourself with Safeplate" turns into " there is no gurantee it works everytime"...take that with a stinking attitude, and you have safeplate.
"YOU SIR ARE A MORAN."
Wow, is that anything like a morOn?
"I should know because I got burrend when I both the fake stuff."
Did you intend to use the simple word "burned?"
Yup, I'M the stupid one here.
If you have any doubt and unacceptable of receiving the ticket, you can contacting or asking to local traffic management unit for that.
"There are like covering license plate number by anything thing can be"
Of course, the sellers will tell you that it works because they want you to buy it.
How did you test Photoblocker?
Did you use police approved equipment in a representative setup and process the resultant negatives to achieve a full contrast positive and examine that? If not then whatever testing you have done is invalid.
"How did you test Photoblocker?
Did you use police approved equipment in a representative setup and process the resultant negatives to achieve a full contrast positive and examine that? If not then whatever testing you have done is invalid."
Silly Smeggy. Don't you know that Photoblocker is a faith-based product? It only works if you BELIEVE it does.
Now, there was one prob' with the way they applied it on the plate ! They just sprayed it straight on the plate at the track then took off. They didn't as they claim follow the instructions - you are meant to let the first coat dry, then reapply the second coat, and it has to be practically 'baked on' sitting in the sun, they suggest to leave it in the sun all day with as long as possible between coasts being the best way to apply it.
And, TopGear in the UK had already tested out the speed camera theory using an Aston Martin (I think ?) to beat the camera - they got up to 140 MPH and the flash camera never went off ! MB's 'only' got to 100 MPH...
So as is usual on MB's, they get close with their mythbusting but half their experiments are flawed, that's why they keep having to 'revisit' the stories later on. Jamie and Adam are not scientist's and it's just an emtertainment excercise.
I've seen quite a number of their experiments that have been done by other's over the years with completely opposite results obtained. What irks me most about MB's is the way they are so 'final' with their judgements. I visit their forum and they only revisit old stories because of the outcry of forum poster's.
Adam got the car up to 129mph if I recall, and the professional driver got it up to 140. It would only really be an option on the highway as anyplace else would probably be too unsafe or not long and straight enough. And I don't think I'd risk the extra hundreds that a ticket for 140 would add, as opposed to one for 80.
As for their track record, while they're not scientists they have been right far more often than they've been wrong. Most of the complaints have to do with them not taking the time to check out variations in a myth, or at least those tests not making it to air.
The photostopper spray works just as well as Photostopper,
that site http://www.photoblockercanada.com sells both types now, i asked why and they said the Photostopper spray is the original anti-flash made in Canada, they save allot of money on shipping costs... so they stock that also.
as for people saying is does not work these sights on youtube say they do too,
they also have the covers on CSI:miami....lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHloGrA3Sfw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_bwH53kBdA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye2O9HzYO-U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_bwH53kBdA
I have already commented on this. I repeat:
Richard
If you DO get a ticket, I'm sure the manufacturer would say that the stuff doesn't work if it's been on the plate(s) for three years.
If you DON'T get a ticket, one person's situation still hardly constitutes a real "test" of the product's efficacy.
Again, I'll let you know.
To do that scientifically, you would have to have many people in many different cars apply the stuff as recommended and drive past a calibrated and proven-to-operate traffic camera a number of times each. Then you would have to see if the camera caught some of them, and how many.
By the way, at least in Washington D.C. as of a few years back, some of the traffic cameras were dummies, there to intimidate people into not running red lights. They couldn't catch anyone doing anything.
You are trying to make the case that this spray can make your license plate "invisible" to a camera, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
Your personal experience, while interesting, does not constitute PROOF that the stuff works. As I said, to do that scientifically, you would have to have many cars using the stuff (and some NOT using it) under a variety of controlled conditions. Anything short of that is merely anecdotal.
i guess i'll keep searching for the truth
I don't give a flyin' fart fudge cycle what you think or believe about anything.
I said I would reveal what happens with my personal situation - and.. "if I do not receive a ticket in the mail I would personally recommend the product".
today 04/21/07 I received a ticket in the mail with all the qualifications for a valid citation. Therefore, I do not personally recommend purchasing this (Photo Blocker) product.
Sincerely, Richard
"Cranky,
I don't give a flyin' fart fudge cycle what you think or believe about anything."
You ARE a charmer, aren't you? So, how much did you pay for that Dale Carnegie course?
Hey, everyone, Richard got a ticket! Alert the media.
Jamie
I sprayed the plate about 8-10 layers, after each layer I waited for it dry and take a picture with my digital cam from different angles then applied another layer.
I keep doing that but every single picture shown the license plate clearly, so I kept applying the product. I used almost entire can of spray, it advertised that it supposedly enough for 4 plates but I used about 5/6 of the can and it still show the plate clearly on my digital camera from many different angles and distances from the plate so i gave up.
For the people that made it works, how did you do it ??
The product only give my plate a very shinny clear coat paint over the plate, it is quite thick too since i used almost the entire can but still does not work.
If you were fairly close (say 3 meters), off angle from perpendicular (say 10-20 degrees), you utilised the flash AND you can still make out the lettering, then I would say you bought a useless glossy lacquer.
Did you test it on a retro reflective plate (UK style) or a non-retro reflective plate?
----
Speed Measurement Laboratories -- consultants to police departments and radar and radar-detector makers worldwide -- has tested most products designed to defeat photo enforcement, including car waxes and stealth sprays that claim to make cars "invisible to radar," photo-flash devices designed to flash back at cameras and the high-gloss tag sprays.
"There's a lot of good people in the industry who are honest and a lot of charlatans. But it doesn't work, that's the bottom line," says Carl Fors, owner of the Fort Worth company.
The bounce-back-the-flash concept does work sometimes, he says, but only on positive images traffic cameras produce. "If we reverse the image, go to a negative image, we can read every letter on a license plate," he says.
Fors says the firms that make and operate radar camera systems and analyze the photos for municipalities routinely check negatives where license plates look unreadable. "Going to the negative image is no big deal," he says.
PhotoBlocker's Scott concedes that adjusting the images can "sometimes" reveal the tag numbers, but "these companies will just throw out anything that's questionable. They don't want to have to dispute it in court and it's not cost-effective for them."
---------
That right there is the preventative. You mess up the image just enough so that it doesn't make fiscal sense for a company auto-processing tens of thousands of these images daily to pursue things further. Basically, you just slip through the cracks.
Far as I'm concerned, a miss is as good as a mile, and no ticket is the point, however one arrives at it.
"There's a lot of good people in the industry who are honest and a lot of charlatans. But it doesn't work, that's the bottom line," says Carl Fors, owner of the Fort Worth company.
C:\photoblocker\DSC01326.JPG
C:\photoblocker\DSC01329.JPG
Works very good at night
C:\photoblocker\DSC01208.JPG
C:\photoblocker\DSC01211.JPG
as you can see it works and this is with a digicam flash, the speed camera flash is a lot more powerful
some of the pic you can see some of my letter but you cant make it out
Mate, those are good photos but cameras use FILM and you used a DIGITAL camera. Film is much harder to saturate than a digital imager, the latter having a limited dynamic range for all pixels. Also, because of the saturated nature of your digital photos, the jpeg compression algorithms WILL remove some of the detail; again that does not apply to film. Film would also record at a higher effective resolution than what you
I see all the time people hook up a lap top in the red-light camera and download the images I don
In a typical system, cameras are positioned at the corners of an intersection, on poles a few yards high. The cameras point inward, so they can photograph cars driving through the intersection. Generally, a red-light system has cameras at all four corners of an intersection, to photograph cars going in different directions and get pictures from different angles. Some systems use film cameras, but most newer systems use digital cameras.
all of them in australia is digital they only started poping up 2-3 years ago
Besides, digital imagers can be made to do something special. Your average consumer digicam uses an 8-bit, slightly non-linear, fixed gain ADC (across each photo), as well as a cheap CCD imager, the pixel wells of which can
i didn
Film and specially setup digital cameras can capture a very wide range of light intensities, especially compared to cheaper consumer digital cameras storing photos using the poorer JPEG format. Also, many plates are retro-reflective anyway (just like what your spray is supposed to be to be able to blind the camera) so enforcement cameras have to be setup to be able to photo plates with a PROPER retro-reflective backing without the risk of blooming or saturation. Therefore, the whiteout you see in your photos, impressive at they may appear to be, is not a reflection of what it would look like in a real enforcement photo.
In fact, closely examine the area immediately below the plate in your photos. There is a very strong white haze where it should be totally dark (apart from the first photo); that haze alone registers more than halfway up the displayed intensity scale. This is indicative of a poor camera optics system; it could well be this artefact alone that resulted with the lettering of the plate being almost indistinguishable.
Your photos have proven one critical thing to me:
Whether or not your plate is retro-reflective, the spray you used, while seemingly retro-reflective, is not retro-reflective enough to render the lettering indistinguishable from the background. In fact, the background would likely have been many times brighter than the characters, but your setup will have masked this so casting the FALSE ILLUSION that they are washed out.
In English: even though your test is invalid, it still proves your spray to be a total failure. Sorry.