This name sounds like somethig out of an early 1930s science fiction story :)
John_Caius
2:08 pm on Jun 14, 2004 (gmt 0)
...but you've got to be standing in exactly the right place for it to work - two steps to the right and he'll be obvious. That's the fundamental flaw with the plan - you've got to be standing in the same line as the camera that's capturing the image beyond him.
hannamyluv
3:07 pm on Jun 14, 2004 (gmt 0)
you've got to be standing in the same line as the camera that's capturing the image beyond him
Not if there is a camera on his front. With as small as they can make camera's now, you could easily have one on the front to project the image to the back and vice versa.
Now, how much does this cost. I would love to use it to make my cubical walls seem invisible.
John_Caius
4:56 pm on Jun 14, 2004 (gmt 0)
No, that's what I mean. If the camera on his front is pointing at the bus then the image you see on his back is the bus. If you're ten metres to the right then he's still got a bus on his back but from your point of view he's not standing in front of a bus. You'd need the image on him to change as you move.
hannamyluv
7:35 pm on Jun 14, 2004 (gmt 0)
Even that can be gotten around with light reflection. Kind of like those stickers that seem to move when you do. The same concept could be applied here with enoght cameras in use.
whoisgregg
8:37 pm on Jun 14, 2004 (gmt 0)
you've got to be standing in the same line as the camera that's capturing the image beyond him
Nope, each bead is projecting a three-dimensional image. Here's the actual site with movies of the "optical camouflage" in use. Be sure to see the third from the bottom movie of the man standing in the street. At one point near the end, he makes a quarter turn to the left and right and the image on the garment still shows what is behind him. (Although the first turn does have some distortion... not perfect, but hey pretty darn impressive!)