
BMW Burns Logo onto Cinema-Goers’ Eyes - aresant
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/12/flash-ad-bmw-burns-logo-onto-cinema-goers-eyes/
======
jonhendry
I bet you could do something similar with a high-intensity digital projector
behind the screen.

Which could be interesting for, say, horror movies. Put together a frame with
a high-contrast image, white on a black background. Maybe a mouthful of fangs,
or Freddie Kruger's knives. Time it right, just before a moment where the
skittish audience members will close or cover their eyes, and they'll instead
see something nasty inside their eyelids.

~~~
PostOnce
Someone would sue you, and as a result you would get the best press ever. Sued
for being too scary, heh.

------
clinton
I suspect that this would be classed as subliminal advertising here In
Australia, which is banned by the television code of practice:

"1.8.4 use or involve any technique which attempts to convey information to
the viewer by transmitting messages below or near the threshold of normal
awareness."

An interesting subliminal advertising case cropped up a few years back:
<http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2082405.htm>

~~~
SimonPStevens
If it was just done without a mention you are probably right, but in this case
the voice from the advert instructs the users to close their eyes so draws
their attention to the image so it's not subliminal.

I could be wrong though. It's probably a bit of a grey area.

~~~
huhtenberg
What if someone secretly stuffs an object up one's butt and then instructs the
person to pull it out at the end of the commercial? Probably a bit of a gray
area too by the same reasoning.

(edit) For those not getting the joke - it meant to illustrate that the
subsequent disclosure of something done without prior consent does not make it
any more acceptable. Be it an image planted in one's head or something
physical.

~~~
richbradshaw
I hate that sort of advert.

------
celias
For some reason it reminds me of this dialog from an episode of Futurama

Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?

Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines,
and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts,
and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.

------
yread
I hope this "innovation" get squashed by regulation.

~~~
tomjen3
Agreed, this is not what you sign up for when you go to the movies. They
should focus on improving the experience of their customers, instead of
finding new ways to screw them over.

Oh and reduce the cost of popcorn - seriously it is a joke.

~~~
electromagnetic
[http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/hartmann.popcorn.h...](http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/hartmann.popcorn.html)

For the past 80 years concession prices have been used to keep ticket prices
artificially low, to increase the number of film goers, which helps the
theaters stay busy, creates the "experience" (I've yet to be in a crowded
theater and someone actually hold up a conversation, or answer a cell phone),
and most of all allows greater profits to go to the film companies and allows
bigger better quality films to be produced.

It's not a joke, it's a sound business strategy. Just like how Coca-Cola and
Pepsi have two-dozen drink products each even though 78% of Coca-Cola's gallon
sales come from actual "Coca-Cola".

This is similar to how I walk into the grocery store and see beef packaged at
$1/lb even though I have a relative in the meat packing industry, that
actually packages the meat for my local store and he says they (the meat
packers) can't sell it for less than $1.50/lb without making a loss.

~~~
eavc
Do you have a source for this?

"Just like how Coca-Cola and Pepsi have two-dozen drink products each even
though 78% of Coca-Cola's gallon sales come from actual "Coca-Cola"."

I'm just curious because I'd be shocked if 78% of Coca-Cola's sales by volume
were from actual Coca-Cola. They don't have dozens of drinks, they have
hundreds.

~~~
azim
I was curious too, so I looked it up.

Wikipedia also quotes the 78% number, citing Coca-Cola Co's 2005 SEC filing
[1]. However, a cursory read of their SEC filing reveals this: "In 2005,
concentrates and syrups for beverages bearing the trademark "Coca-Cola" or
including the trademark "Coke" ("Coca-Cola Trademark Beverages") accounted for
approximately 55 percent of the Company's total gallon sales." [2] It's
possible the 78% number the Wikipedia article is drawing from is based on a
newer SEC report which isn't cited correctly.

Edit: I Looked up their 10-k from Feb 2010 and found this: "Trademark Coca-
Cola Beverages accounted for approximately 51 percent, 51 percent and 53
percent of our worldwide unit case volume for 2009, 2008 and 2007,
respectively." [3] So it looks like Wikipedia may have incorrect information!

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coca-Cola_Company#Revenue>

[2]
[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/21344/000104746906002...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/21344/000104746906002588/a2167326z10-k.htm)

[3] [http://ir.thecoca-
colacompany.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=94566&...](http://ir.thecoca-
colacompany.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=94566&p=irol-
SECText&TEXT=aHR0cDovL2lyLmludC53ZXN0bGF3YnVzaW5lc3MuY29tL2RvY3VtZW50L3YxLzAwMDEwNDc0NjktMTAtMDAxNDc2L3htbC9zdWJkb2N1bWVudC8xL3BhZ2UvNw%3d%3d)

~~~
electromagnetic
I stand corrected, it sounds like the ~55% figure is "Coca-Cola" products as
in Original, Diet, Diet Caffeine Free, Zero, Diet with lemon, etc. I wonder if
the 78% figure is from Coca-Cola 'company' drinks, like Sprite, Fanta, etc and
the remaining 22% is subsidiary sales like Vitamin Water (Energy Brands
subsidiary), etc.

------
burgerbrain
These people seem to be fans of the novelty of the idea, not of BMW. Burning
after-images into peoples retinas isn't some back door to their loyalty,
anymore than flashing single frames of "DRINK COKE" make people thirst for
cola.

~~~
zalew
actually, the 'drink coke' is an urban legend
<http://www.snopes.com/business/hidden/popcorn.asp>

which obviously doesn't mean that there's no such thing as subliminal stimuli,
just this example technique is not true. here's a better one
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg> and most of his tricks include
sending signals to one's lower thresold level, no flashing anything between
frames.

~~~
burgerbrain
That 'drink coke' is an urban legend is my point.

There are instances in the real world where this has been attempted (The
Republican tv ad campaign a few years ago that flashed the word "RATS" when
talking about the Democrats for instance), but there is little to no actual
credible evidence to show this works. It's all little more than marketers
wetdreams.

------
qntm
That's not the BMW logo. That's just "BMW".

------
sliverstorm
Now that's what I call bio-hacking.

------
Groxx
I realize they're going for the dramatic finish and all, but they could've
just turned out the lights... then people would've seen "BMW" _everywhere they
looked_. Like BMW was following them, surrounding them, and _omg they're gonna
EAT ME_.

OK, maybe not such a great idea. Could be good for circus clowns, though.

~~~
ekanes
True, but the effect popped more because your eyes were physically closed and
your brain knew it.

------
profquail
So, presumably "bright enough to burn the image on your retina" is lower than
the threshold for permanent eye damage? If it's not a lot lower, it's scary to
think that the movie-goers had no idea it was going to happen and a
miscalibration of the mechanism could've caused lifelong eye problems.

~~~
jonhendry
"burning" is a bit of an exaggeration, I think. It's just overstimulating your
retina cells, so they sort of take a rest. It doesn't take much energy -
glance at a 40-watt unfrosted bulb, then close your eyes, and you'll see an
afterimage.

~~~
mansr
From the video it appears they are using 2 (or more) Pro-7b 1200 units, each
delivering 1200 Joules of energy per flash. That's enough to light a 40-watt
bulb for a full minute, and the lighting efficiency is considerably higher.

BTW, the Pro-7b is a rather small battery-powered flash unit. The bigger
mains-powered ones pack twice the energy (and have much shorter cycle times).

~~~
hardy263
Your 40-watt bulb has to be fairly close in proximity in order for the light
to make things more visible. And since movie screens are so big, you have to
be fairly far away in order to see the whole picture.

The energy output from light follows the inverse-square law, so double the
distance is 4 times less bright, and quadruple the distance is 16 times less
bright.

So although the energy output is higher, it's probably not as bad as you think
it is.

~~~
mansr
I never meant to imply it was bad. Looking directly at a flash bulb like that
from typical movie-viewing distance is perfectly harmless. I would not want to
look at one up close, however.

------
maverhick
Very interesting. Wonder if these techniques could be used in some form during
presentations. Would be nice to have people have a sublime experience, even if
it was for the briefest bit.

~~~
c1sc0
I'm not sure you can replicate this online, it seems to rely on a flash far
brighter than any display tech can deliver right now.

~~~
eru
You could probably do something similar, if you stared into darkness long
enough. Than your eyes get adjusted, and a not-so-bright light might suffice.

------
doron
Isn't this a one trick pony, how many ads are you suppose to close your eyes
for in the end?

------
olalonde
Do people really close their eyes because they were told so in an
_advertisement_?

~~~
brk
Based on TFA and the supporting video, yes.

~~~
olalonde
Do people really believe everything they are told in an advertisement? (the
video itself is clearly an advertisement for the advertising technique)

------
ctrager
Pardon me for being a provincial Midwesterner, but is it common that an
playing for a German audience would be in English? Especially one that relies
on the viewers following verbal instructions?

~~~
ry0ohki
It's pretty common to hear english on TV in Germany and Scandinavia, probably
part of the reason they end up being more fluent in English then say France,
where you very rarely hear English.

~~~
eru
It's more common in Scandinavia, though. In Germany we use dubbing instead of
subtitles.

------
sonnymai
Maybe this is a good reason to buy one of those anti-glare LCD glasses in the
other HN thread.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2010367>

~~~
burgerbrain
Wouldn't work. By the time the signals were processed by the digital camera,
the photons would have long since slammed into your retina. You would have to
literally beat the speed of light, because even just an instance of the light
getting through would accomplish the task.

Even placing the sensor several feet in front of your face wouldn't help, the
fasted that you'd be able to send your signal from the sensor to the glasses
is exactly as long as it'd take the flash to reach you, but you'll still have
the lag of the electronics.

------
lamby
> "During the ad, and its usual guff about living your dreams by wasting
> fossil fuels, [..]"

What a bunch of hypocrites.

~~~
middus
Why's that? Can you elaborate?

~~~
cullenking
Most likely they are going to eat a pizza delivered to their doorstep within
the next week. Most likely they have cars in their driveway. Maybe they even
have one of them new fangled hybrids that get the same mileage as compact cars
from the 70's got without batteries.

------
kingkawn
Max Headroom?

