The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support Forumsdixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Wonder which one that was?
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)RebelOne
(30,947 posts)As far as I can remember, they were first released in the early '50s.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)I don't think she went to more than three movies the 60 years they've been married.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The theaters were air conditioned.
That infrared camera made that poor young woman's blouse see-through!
The theaters were refuges from the heat, as for the third photo. Just looking at it, my takeaway is that they were mugging for the camera at bit, but you are correct about the affect of the camera/light on her attire.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)See through clothes got hip in the seventies--before that, NO ONE showed any undergarments, it just wasn't done!
That woman would be freaking if she could have seen that pic contemporaneously with the events depicted (for lots of reasons, I would imagine--her "visible brassiere" being just one of 'em!).
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)Still, I think it's just the flash, you can see a shadow behind the couple, so there must be a light source.
Should see-through cameras be illegal?
...
Using products readily available online, we took a 10-year-old Sony TRV-8 mini DV video camera and turned it into an infrared camera capable of seeing through certain fabrics.
Our camera has a night shot function which, when turned on, allows infrared light to be recorded. Next we bought a $20 infrared filter that removes visible light and screwed it on the end the camera lens.
Using the infrared filter, with the night vision turned on, the only thing our old mini DV camera recorded was infrared light. This allowed us to see through some envelopes, colored plastic and various synthetic blend fabrics. But you can't see through everything. It all depends on how the materials are made.
http://www.komonews.com/news/problemsolvers/94802064.html?tab=video&c=y
MADem
(135,425 posts)jakeXT
(10,575 posts)front of them when the light from the projector hits them
MADem
(135,425 posts)as it were.
There is no flash on the camera--that's part of the voyeuristic aspect of this photoessay, that most people didn't realize the photographer was taking pics of them.
http://www.agallery.com/pages/photographers/weegee.html