Given current technology, could TV display screens double as video camera sensors?With current technology, what would be the best way to store energy for future generations?How could an interested billionaire deploy sensors to as much of the deep ocean as possible?Could humans alter the moon's orbit significantly with current technology?Given advanced technology, could Native Americans defeat aliens?With current technology, genetically modified virus able to end mankindCould the moon be destroyed with current technology?Could active sensors be used to learn more about a spacecraft's systems?Could aliens with a WW2 technology level steal and use technology from current day humanity?With current or near-future technology, how plausible is an aircraft-based civilization?Could we build a massive “Ark” type space station with current technology?
What happened to the HDEV ISS Experiment? Is it over?
Can an Arcane Focus be embedded in one's body?
To what extent are we obligated to continue to procreate beyond having two kids?
Why doesn't 'd /= d' throw a division by zero exception when d == 0?
Where does learning new skills fit into Agile?
How many birds in the bush?
If the Shillelagh cantrip is applied to a club with non-standard damage dice, what is the resulting damage dice?
Rent contract say that pets are not allowed. Possible repercussions if bringing the pet anyway?
Can I get a PhD for developing an educational software?
How were medieval castles built in swamps or marshes without draining them?
How is linear momentum conserved in case of a freely falling body?
Why does Windows store Wi-Fi passwords in a reversible format?
When, exactly, does the Rogue Scout get to use their Skirmisher ability?
Why is the UK so keen to remove the "backstop" when their leadership seems to think that no border will be needed in Northern Ireland?
Papers on arXiv solving the same problem at the same time
Why can't you reverse the order of the input redirection operator for while loops?
How can I download a file from a host I can only SSH to through another host?
What is the difference between "Grippe" and "Männergrippe"?
Tex Quotes(UVa 272)
Limitations with dynamical systems vs. PDEs?
How do we tell which part of kinetic energy gives rise to temperature?
Cooking Scrambled Eggs
Why can't I access the 'name' of an object when looping through the scene's objects?
Why did my folder names end up like this, and how can I fix this using a script?
Given current technology, could TV display screens double as video camera sensors?
With current technology, what would be the best way to store energy for future generations?How could an interested billionaire deploy sensors to as much of the deep ocean as possible?Could humans alter the moon's orbit significantly with current technology?Given advanced technology, could Native Americans defeat aliens?With current technology, genetically modified virus able to end mankindCould the moon be destroyed with current technology?Could active sensors be used to learn more about a spacecraft's systems?Could aliens with a WW2 technology level steal and use technology from current day humanity?With current or near-future technology, how plausible is an aircraft-based civilization?Could we build a massive “Ark” type space station with current technology?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
This was inspired by this YouTube video titled "Why all solar panels are secretly LEDs (and all LEDs are secretly solar panels)" and the fact that speakers and microphones are similarly related.
So thinking about a contemporary-technology dystopian surveillance society where LED TVs are built so that the behavior of
- the display can be switched between display mode and camera mode, and
- the speakers can be switched between speaker mode and microphone mode
The smart TVs would do this switching rapidly from the OS running on the TVs while the television is "in use".
In camera mode the TV screen would function as a (infra red?) camera sensor and record what it sees in the room while the speakers record the audio. All the data would be sent somewhere for further processing.
To what degree would this be feasible given current technology, and considering also aspects such as that the flat TV screen would lack a lens and possible aperture control?
reality-check technology
asked 9 hours ago
user100487user100487
2492 silver badges7 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This was inspired by this YouTube video titled "Why all solar panels are secretly LEDs (and all LEDs are secretly solar panels)" and the fact that speakers and microphones are similarly related.
So thinking about a contemporary-technology dystopian surveillance society where LED TVs are built so that the behavior of
- the display can be switched between display mode and camera mode, and
- the speakers can be switched between speaker mode and microphone mode
The smart TVs would do this switching rapidly from the OS running on the TVs while the television is "in use".
In camera mode the TV screen would function as a (infra red?) camera sensor and record what it sees in the room while the speakers record the audio. All the data would be sent somewhere for further processing.
To what degree would this be feasible given current technology, and considering also aspects such as that the flat TV screen would lack a lens and possible aperture control?
reality-check technology
asked 9 hours ago
user100487user100487
2492 silver badges7 bronze badges
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Optics doesn't work this way. Before being concerned with a sensor, you must first arrange to create an image. (What the sensor does is convert an image into a chemical or electrical signal.) In order to create an image you need one or more pinholes or lenses. Without one/many pinholes or lenses all you can sense is the general level of illumination. And while it is indeed true that electrical machines are reversible, a speaker makes a terrible microphone, and a microphone makes a terrible speaker.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This was inspired by this YouTube video titled "Why all solar panels are secretly LEDs (and all LEDs are secretly solar panels)" and the fact that speakers and microphones are similarly related.
So thinking about a contemporary-technology dystopian surveillance society where LED TVs are built so that the behavior of
- the display can be switched between display mode and camera mode, and
- the speakers can be switched between speaker mode and microphone mode
The smart TVs would do this switching rapidly from the OS running on the TVs while the television is "in use".
In camera mode the TV screen would function as a (infra red?) camera sensor and record what it sees in the room while the speakers record the audio. All the data would be sent somewhere for further processing.
To what degree would this be feasible given current technology, and considering also aspects such as that the flat TV screen would lack a lens and possible aperture control?
reality-check technology
asked 9 hours ago
user100487user100487
2492 silver badges7 bronze badges
$endgroup$
This was inspired by this YouTube video titled "Why all solar panels are secretly LEDs (and all LEDs are secretly solar panels)" and the fact that speakers and microphones are similarly related.
So thinking about a contemporary-technology dystopian surveillance society where LED TVs are built so that the behavior of
- the display can be switched between display mode and camera mode, and
- the speakers can be switched between speaker mode and microphone mode
The smart TVs would do this switching rapidly from the OS running on the TVs while the television is "in use".
In camera mode the TV screen would function as a (infra red?) camera sensor and record what it sees in the room while the speakers record the audio. All the data would be sent somewhere for further processing.
To what degree would this be feasible given current technology, and considering also aspects such as that the flat TV screen would lack a lens and possible aperture control?
reality-check technology
reality-check technology
asked 9 hours ago
user100487user100487
2492 silver badges7 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
user100487user100487
2492 silver badges7 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
user100487user100487
2492 silver badges7 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
user100487user100487
2492 silver badges7 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
user100487user100487
2492 silver badges7 bronze badges
2492 silver badges7 bronze badges
2
$begingroup$
Optics doesn't work this way. Before being concerned with a sensor, you must first arrange to create an image. (What the sensor does is convert an image into a chemical or electrical signal.) In order to create an image you need one or more pinholes or lenses. Without one/many pinholes or lenses all you can sense is the general level of illumination. And while it is indeed true that electrical machines are reversible, a speaker makes a terrible microphone, and a microphone makes a terrible speaker.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Optics doesn't work this way. Before being concerned with a sensor, you must first arrange to create an image. (What the sensor does is convert an image into a chemical or electrical signal.) In order to create an image you need one or more pinholes or lenses. Without one/many pinholes or lenses all you can sense is the general level of illumination. And while it is indeed true that electrical machines are reversible, a speaker makes a terrible microphone, and a microphone makes a terrible speaker.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Optics doesn't work this way. Before being concerned with a sensor, you must first arrange to create an image. (What the sensor does is convert an image into a chemical or electrical signal.) In order to create an image you need one or more pinholes or lenses. Without one/many pinholes or lenses all you can sense is the general level of illumination. And while it is indeed true that electrical machines are reversible, a speaker makes a terrible microphone, and a microphone makes a terrible speaker.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Optics doesn't work this way. Before being concerned with a sensor, you must first arrange to create an image. (What the sensor does is convert an image into a chemical or electrical signal.) In order to create an image you need one or more pinholes or lenses. Without one/many pinholes or lenses all you can sense is the general level of illumination. And while it is indeed true that electrical machines are reversible, a speaker makes a terrible microphone, and a microphone makes a terrible speaker.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No
Screens these days are sheets of LED lights so that might work as a solar panel but not as a camera. At best you might measure ambient light levels perhaps but no camera.
That said TV these days are coming out with built in cameras and microphones and will get worse as time goes by. Things like Google Assistant and Alexa will come built into a lot of household devices.
answered 9 hours ago
ThorneThorne
23.9k4 gold badges36 silver badges74 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
As the Answer said, you do not need this, because TVs can have cameras and microphones (and other sensors) equipped and can have a connection to the internet. Additionally, even in western democraties in our real world, people are buying devices that can spy on them. They literally pay for that! So it would be no problem for your evil opressian dictatorship to plaster the streets, houses and homes with microphones, cameras and other sensors. Any smartphone can be used to spy on the wearer. You think much to much in terms of 1984, but thats more that 30 years ago - today even more is possible
$endgroup$
– Julian Egner
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Already now, software can hack your phone and turn it into a bug you carry around with you. Better than any TV spying system.
$endgroup$
– Thorne
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JulianEgner Actually it's in terms of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four (1949), where telescreens were two-way TV's. The novel was published seventy years ago. Amusingly large-scale surveillance has expanded & flourished once we passed the witching year of 1984.
$endgroup$
– a4android
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Even IF - Why would you want to take a photo with zero (or near few mm) field of vision and a lot of blur?
Because TV screen would (could) act like a photosensitive paper (or if you are old enough camera film). There would be no lens to focus, no apertures to set the amount of light, no pinholes that would allow you to point to certain area.
Screen would take light from everywhere that is not behind the TV. And what would be behind the TV would (could) still have ambient light. So a photo taken with such screen would be very bright (white) on border going to greyish in the middle.
Just put a normal camera in the TV. Speakers can work as microphones anyway.
answered 4 hours ago
SZCZERZO KŁYSZCZERZO KŁY
18.3k2 gold badges26 silver badges58 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f153803%2fgiven-current-technology-could-tv-display-screens-double-as-video-camera-sensor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No
Screens these days are sheets of LED lights so that might work as a solar panel but not as a camera. At best you might measure ambient light levels perhaps but no camera.
That said TV these days are coming out with built in cameras and microphones and will get worse as time goes by. Things like Google Assistant and Alexa will come built into a lot of household devices.
answered 9 hours ago
ThorneThorne
23.9k4 gold badges36 silver badges74 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
As the Answer said, you do not need this, because TVs can have cameras and microphones (and other sensors) equipped and can have a connection to the internet. Additionally, even in western democraties in our real world, people are buying devices that can spy on them. They literally pay for that! So it would be no problem for your evil opressian dictatorship to plaster the streets, houses and homes with microphones, cameras and other sensors. Any smartphone can be used to spy on the wearer. You think much to much in terms of 1984, but thats more that 30 years ago - today even more is possible
$endgroup$
– Julian Egner
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Already now, software can hack your phone and turn it into a bug you carry around with you. Better than any TV spying system.
$endgroup$
– Thorne
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JulianEgner Actually it's in terms of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four (1949), where telescreens were two-way TV's. The novel was published seventy years ago. Amusingly large-scale surveillance has expanded & flourished once we passed the witching year of 1984.
$endgroup$
– a4android
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No
Screens these days are sheets of LED lights so that might work as a solar panel but not as a camera. At best you might measure ambient light levels perhaps but no camera.
That said TV these days are coming out with built in cameras and microphones and will get worse as time goes by. Things like Google Assistant and Alexa will come built into a lot of household devices.
answered 9 hours ago
ThorneThorne
23.9k4 gold badges36 silver badges74 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
As the Answer said, you do not need this, because TVs can have cameras and microphones (and other sensors) equipped and can have a connection to the internet. Additionally, even in western democraties in our real world, people are buying devices that can spy on them. They literally pay for that! So it would be no problem for your evil opressian dictatorship to plaster the streets, houses and homes with microphones, cameras and other sensors. Any smartphone can be used to spy on the wearer. You think much to much in terms of 1984, but thats more that 30 years ago - today even more is possible
$endgroup$
– Julian Egner
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Already now, software can hack your phone and turn it into a bug you carry around with you. Better than any TV spying system.
$endgroup$
– Thorne
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JulianEgner Actually it's in terms of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four (1949), where telescreens were two-way TV's. The novel was published seventy years ago. Amusingly large-scale surveillance has expanded & flourished once we passed the witching year of 1984.
$endgroup$
– a4android
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No
Screens these days are sheets of LED lights so that might work as a solar panel but not as a camera. At best you might measure ambient light levels perhaps but no camera.
That said TV these days are coming out with built in cameras and microphones and will get worse as time goes by. Things like Google Assistant and Alexa will come built into a lot of household devices.
answered 9 hours ago
ThorneThorne
23.9k4 gold badges36 silver badges74 bronze badges
$endgroup$
No
Screens these days are sheets of LED lights so that might work as a solar panel but not as a camera. At best you might measure ambient light levels perhaps but no camera.
That said TV these days are coming out with built in cameras and microphones and will get worse as time goes by. Things like Google Assistant and Alexa will come built into a lot of household devices.
answered 9 hours ago
ThorneThorne
23.9k4 gold badges36 silver badges74 bronze badges
answered 9 hours ago
ThorneThorne
23.9k4 gold badges36 silver badges74 bronze badges
answered 9 hours ago
ThorneThorne
23.9k4 gold badges36 silver badges74 bronze badges
answered 9 hours ago
ThorneThorne
23.9k4 gold badges36 silver badges74 bronze badges
23.9k4 gold badges36 silver badges74 bronze badges
$begingroup$
As the Answer said, you do not need this, because TVs can have cameras and microphones (and other sensors) equipped and can have a connection to the internet. Additionally, even in western democraties in our real world, people are buying devices that can spy on them. They literally pay for that! So it would be no problem for your evil opressian dictatorship to plaster the streets, houses and homes with microphones, cameras and other sensors. Any smartphone can be used to spy on the wearer. You think much to much in terms of 1984, but thats more that 30 years ago - today even more is possible
$endgroup$
– Julian Egner
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Already now, software can hack your phone and turn it into a bug you carry around with you. Better than any TV spying system.
$endgroup$
– Thorne
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JulianEgner Actually it's in terms of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four (1949), where telescreens were two-way TV's. The novel was published seventy years ago. Amusingly large-scale surveillance has expanded & flourished once we passed the witching year of 1984.
$endgroup$
– a4android
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As the Answer said, you do not need this, because TVs can have cameras and microphones (and other sensors) equipped and can have a connection to the internet. Additionally, even in western democraties in our real world, people are buying devices that can spy on them. They literally pay for that! So it would be no problem for your evil opressian dictatorship to plaster the streets, houses and homes with microphones, cameras and other sensors. Any smartphone can be used to spy on the wearer. You think much to much in terms of 1984, but thats more that 30 years ago - today even more is possible
$endgroup$
– Julian Egner
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Already now, software can hack your phone and turn it into a bug you carry around with you. Better than any TV spying system.
$endgroup$
– Thorne
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JulianEgner Actually it's in terms of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four (1949), where telescreens were two-way TV's. The novel was published seventy years ago. Amusingly large-scale surveillance has expanded & flourished once we passed the witching year of 1984.
$endgroup$
– a4android
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
As the Answer said, you do not need this, because TVs can have cameras and microphones (and other sensors) equipped and can have a connection to the internet. Additionally, even in western democraties in our real world, people are buying devices that can spy on them. They literally pay for that! So it would be no problem for your evil opressian dictatorship to plaster the streets, houses and homes with microphones, cameras and other sensors. Any smartphone can be used to spy on the wearer. You think much to much in terms of 1984, but thats more that 30 years ago - today even more is possible
$endgroup$
– Julian Egner
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
As the Answer said, you do not need this, because TVs can have cameras and microphones (and other sensors) equipped and can have a connection to the internet. Additionally, even in western democraties in our real world, people are buying devices that can spy on them. They literally pay for that! So it would be no problem for your evil opressian dictatorship to plaster the streets, houses and homes with microphones, cameras and other sensors. Any smartphone can be used to spy on the wearer. You think much to much in terms of 1984, but thats more that 30 years ago - today even more is possible
$endgroup$
– Julian Egner
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Already now, software can hack your phone and turn it into a bug you carry around with you. Better than any TV spying system.
$endgroup$
– Thorne
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Already now, software can hack your phone and turn it into a bug you carry around with you. Better than any TV spying system.
$endgroup$
– Thorne
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JulianEgner Actually it's in terms of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four (1949), where telescreens were two-way TV's. The novel was published seventy years ago. Amusingly large-scale surveillance has expanded & flourished once we passed the witching year of 1984.
$endgroup$
– a4android
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@JulianEgner Actually it's in terms of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four (1949), where telescreens were two-way TV's. The novel was published seventy years ago. Amusingly large-scale surveillance has expanded & flourished once we passed the witching year of 1984.
$endgroup$
– a4android
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Even IF - Why would you want to take a photo with zero (or near few mm) field of vision and a lot of blur?
Because TV screen would (could) act like a photosensitive paper (or if you are old enough camera film). There would be no lens to focus, no apertures to set the amount of light, no pinholes that would allow you to point to certain area.
Screen would take light from everywhere that is not behind the TV. And what would be behind the TV would (could) still have ambient light. So a photo taken with such screen would be very bright (white) on border going to greyish in the middle.
Just put a normal camera in the TV. Speakers can work as microphones anyway.
answered 4 hours ago
SZCZERZO KŁYSZCZERZO KŁY
18.3k2 gold badges26 silver badges58 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Even IF - Why would you want to take a photo with zero (or near few mm) field of vision and a lot of blur?
Because TV screen would (could) act like a photosensitive paper (or if you are old enough camera film). There would be no lens to focus, no apertures to set the amount of light, no pinholes that would allow you to point to certain area.
Screen would take light from everywhere that is not behind the TV. And what would be behind the TV would (could) still have ambient light. So a photo taken with such screen would be very bright (white) on border going to greyish in the middle.
Just put a normal camera in the TV. Speakers can work as microphones anyway.
answered 4 hours ago
SZCZERZO KŁYSZCZERZO KŁY
18.3k2 gold badges26 silver badges58 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Even IF - Why would you want to take a photo with zero (or near few mm) field of vision and a lot of blur?
Because TV screen would (could) act like a photosensitive paper (or if you are old enough camera film). There would be no lens to focus, no apertures to set the amount of light, no pinholes that would allow you to point to certain area.
Screen would take light from everywhere that is not behind the TV. And what would be behind the TV would (could) still have ambient light. So a photo taken with such screen would be very bright (white) on border going to greyish in the middle.
Just put a normal camera in the TV. Speakers can work as microphones anyway.
answered 4 hours ago
SZCZERZO KŁYSZCZERZO KŁY
18.3k2 gold badges26 silver badges58 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Even IF - Why would you want to take a photo with zero (or near few mm) field of vision and a lot of blur?
Because TV screen would (could) act like a photosensitive paper (or if you are old enough camera film). There would be no lens to focus, no apertures to set the amount of light, no pinholes that would allow you to point to certain area.
Screen would take light from everywhere that is not behind the TV. And what would be behind the TV would (could) still have ambient light. So a photo taken with such screen would be very bright (white) on border going to greyish in the middle.
Just put a normal camera in the TV. Speakers can work as microphones anyway.
answered 4 hours ago
SZCZERZO KŁYSZCZERZO KŁY
18.3k2 gold badges26 silver badges58 bronze badges
answered 4 hours ago
SZCZERZO KŁYSZCZERZO KŁY
18.3k2 gold badges26 silver badges58 bronze badges
answered 4 hours ago
SZCZERZO KŁYSZCZERZO KŁY
18.3k2 gold badges26 silver badges58 bronze badges
answered 4 hours ago
SZCZERZO KŁYSZCZERZO KŁY
18.3k2 gold badges26 silver badges58 bronze badges
18.3k2 gold badges26 silver badges58 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f153803%2fgiven-current-technology-could-tv-display-screens-double-as-video-camera-sensor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
Optics doesn't work this way. Before being concerned with a sensor, you must first arrange to create an image. (What the sensor does is convert an image into a chemical or electrical signal.) In order to create an image you need one or more pinholes or lenses. Without one/many pinholes or lenses all you can sense is the general level of illumination. And while it is indeed true that electrical machines are reversible, a speaker makes a terrible microphone, and a microphone makes a terrible speaker.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago