The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
Rare planetary alignment decreases gravity, 1976
Prankster causes volcano to erupt, 1974
The worms inside your face
Jernegan's Gold Accumulator Scam, 1898
Cat that walked 3000 miles to find its owners, 1951
Lord Gordon-Gordon, robber of the robber barons, 1871
The Lovely Feejee Mermaid, 1842
Man flies by own lung power, 1934
Script of Casablanca rejected, 1982
The Crown Prince Regent of Thulia, 1954
PhotoBlocker Spray
image 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)
Categories: Law/Police/Crime, Technology
Posted by The Curator on Tue Dec 07, 2004
Comments (222)
i don't know what to believe here. Seems to be some interest groups involved. I think the marketing rep for photoblocker must be on here.

i guess i'll keep searching for the truth
Posted by jack  in  phoenix Arizona  on  Thu Apr 19, 2007  at  08:14 PM
Cranky,

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
Posted by Richard  on  Sat Apr 21, 2007  at  09:17 PM
by the way, GO DUCKS
Posted by Richard  on  Sat Apr 21, 2007  at  09:22 PM
Richard said:

"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.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sun Apr 22, 2007  at  04:12 AM
I'm mythed at the whole thing. probs better adding electrical tape or something to the plate and change it to something else


Jamie
Posted by Jamie  in  london  on  Sat Jun 16, 2007  at  03:23 PM
Hi, I just bought a can of photoblocker and I thought i post the result here. I tried googled other user's comment about the product and thats how I found this site.
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.
Posted by Jim  in  Canada  on  Wed Aug 08, 2007  at  02:41 AM
I can only hope you utilised the flash on the digital camera.

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?
Posted by Steve (smeggy)  in  Portmsouth England  on  Wed Aug 08, 2007  at  04:45 PM
From The Washington Post article:

----
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.
Posted by Mr. Pips  on  Mon Oct 15, 2007  at  03:57 PM
To me, the bottom line of what you quoted is this:

"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.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Mon Oct 15, 2007  at  04:45 PM
It does work just look and this was done with a digicam. look at my car and the boat trailer.





Works very good at night



Posted by angelmon  on  Mon Nov 12, 2007  at  10:15 PM
hrmmm pics didnt work can some one show me how to post up pics
Posted by angelmon  on  Mon Nov 12, 2007  at  10:17 PM






Posted by angelmon  on  Wed Nov 14, 2007  at  07:31 AM
finaly got them working lol

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
Posted by angelmon  on  Wed Nov 14, 2007  at  07:39 AM
Oh how many times:
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
Posted by Steve (smeggy)  in  Portmsouth England  on  Wed Nov 14, 2007  at  01:08 PM
Speed cameras are not with film are they; this is the 21 century who the hell uses film.

I see all the time people hook up a lap top in the red-light camera and download the images I don
Posted by angelmon  on  Wed Nov 14, 2007  at  10:19 PM
This is from howstuffworks.com

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
Posted by angelmon  on  Wed Nov 14, 2007  at  10:27 PM
It is true that equipment are being changed over to use digital technology (SPECS, Redspeed); however, the majority of unmanned fixed speed cameras in use are still of the wet film variety (Gatso, Truvelo).

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
Posted by Steve (smeggy)  in  Portmsouth England  on  Thu Nov 15, 2007  at  04:02 PM
ammm English please lol

i didn
Posted by angelmon  on  Sun Nov 18, 2007  at  07:37 PM
Sorry about that. I do go off on one sometimes.

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.
Posted by Steve (smeggy)  in  Portmsouth England  on  Mon Nov 19, 2007  at  02:25 PM
hrmmm ok i also have this video i don
Posted by angelmon  on  Tue Nov 20, 2007  at  07:00 AM
It has been already posted and commented upon.

If I may repeat myself:

I can even dismiss the photo (from the video) of the result of the "independent testing" on Phantomplate.com - why? Basic examination of the image shows it has been severely subjected to compression artifacting (you can easily see the 8x8 blocks where the average intensity has been used, yet I clearly see some detail on the plate!?!?!). I note the Denver Police Department didn
Posted by Steve (smeggy)  in  Portmsouth England  on  Tue Nov 20, 2007  at  02:06 PM
Just got a ticket while using the spray. It's a complete SCAM!! Do not buy this crap. I should've known better, but they seemed so convincing because they have outlawed it in Maryland.
Posted by Steve  in  Virginia  on  Mon Mar 10, 2008  at  12:18 PM
a friend bought this stuff and it works about as well as clear enamel...not very well at all...it may work about 1 out of 100 times if all the circumstances were in your favor...we had a laugh about him wasting 30 bucks on a spray can of scam, we then proceeded to buy some spam because we know thats a better product.
Posted by jason  in  chicago  on  Sat Jun 07, 2008  at  03:55 PM
Hey, maybe the photoblocker could be enhanced by placeing some washers on the top screws of your license place and making it at more of a down angle that is not really noticible to the eye
Posted by SuperD  in  DaytonaBeach  on  Sun Jun 08, 2008  at  07:50 PM
well i posted the first post 4 years ago,
im still selling the spray and covers and have been doing well,
now that summer is here i will be at a number of car shows and show and shins...
the covers work great and teh spray is working well,
i sell the photostoper spray and not teh photoblocker spray now,
teh only reson i changes is because teh Photostopper is made and shipped in Canada, i saved me thousands in S/H cost.
but i stil sell plenty.
Posted by Photoblocker Canada  in  Calgary Canada  on  Sun Jun 15, 2008  at  11:18 PM
Matt,

I think you are photoblocker, and mad at on track that they sell better products.

Their Photostopper works great, and it does not yellow on your plate like the other one does. It is cheaper tooo.

Ontrack is business the longest, before any other guys even existed!!! Their sprays have been around for way longer than anybody. They know what they are doing. I have a cover and spray, and no tickets for a very long time.

What Dorf says is true. Look here:

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=3712

The attorney general has leaned on Photoblocker really heavy, for doing bad stuff, like deceiving people and lying about their products. They got a huge fine of $25,000 for doing this.

On Track is the way to go boys. smile
Posted by Melanie  in  Scottsdale, AZ  on  Tue Jun 17, 2008  at  05:52 PM
I read this post to actually find out if anyone has REAL results... as in you purposely sped down a road known to have a camera and didn't get a ticket... Instead this thread has turned into the same old "it works, it doesn't work" argument... couple people posted some ambiguous answers but not real results!
Posted by notmeyou  on  Thu Jul 10, 2008  at  06:00 PM
@ notmeyou:
If you had actually read and digested the posts in this thread, you would have realised that deliberately triggering a camera and not getting a ticket is not proof that the sprays really work. This was the point of my contribution to this thread - to highlight and logically explain the flaws in the given arguments, not simply to spout "yes it does, no it doesn't". I'm also looking for real results, but I like to know that the claimed 'reality' is genuine! If you wish to simply take posts at face value, then Steve
Posted by Steve (smeggy)  in  Moved in London  on  Fri Jul 11, 2008  at  12:23 PM
Just received a violation notice in the mail today. Photo of my plate is so clear, not even a little fuzz. Photoblocker did not work for me. Waste of time and money!!!
Posted by Dave  in  New York  on  Mon Oct 06, 2008  at  03:19 PM
Dave from NY, If you followed the instruction on how to spray it, there is no way it wouldn't work....am a happy user of the product. I bought photoblocker spray because - the fact that the company promises to refund your money if you send them a violation photo along with your receipt of purchase gave me some confidence. I am assuming you bought it from photoblocker.com.......there are other cheap imitations out there, those don't work. Photoblocker works! Over three years using it, no ticket....u bet i had seen a camera flash! my 2 cents!
Posted by nidia  on  Fri Oct 10, 2008  at  09:46 AM
Comments: Page 6 of 8 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 > 
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.