Slashdot Mirror


Smart Camera Tells Tobacco From Marijuana

An anonymous reader writes "A new smart camera technology not only takes a picture but also assays chemical composition, allowing photographers to tell whether that hand-rolled cigarette contains tobacco or marijuana. Designed to speed industrial inspection systems — such as detecting whether food is spoiled — the new smart camera includes spectral filters that make images of corn fields appear differently from hemp. Spectral cameras have been available for decades, but this microchip version should be cheap enough for almost any application."

42 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Technology Stoners by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2, Informative

    At least in the short term. Once it catches on, there will be a way to circumvent it.

    --
    I got here through a series of tubes
  2. Wonderful by vinehair · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure we can all get behind this fantastic use of technology that will further the demonisation of a plant.

    1. Re:Wonderful by r1348 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, and how else are they supposed to keep us distracted from real problems?

    2. Re:Wonderful by Scarletdown · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would like to see this tech developed further to determine the quality of the weed. Then the results could be given in a classic Tommy Chong slacker voice like: "Oh wow! This is some good shit, man." "That's total crap." "Whoa! That will knock you on your ass. Far out, man!"

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    3. Re:Wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't think you understand how serious of a problem marijuana use is. Did you know that marijuana has been linked to such things as sitting around and getting high?

    4. Re:Wonderful by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      I suppose you missed this part, right there in the fucking summary:

      Designed to speed industrial inspection systems — such as detecting whether food is spoiled

      (emphasis mine)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:Wonderful by Mr2cents · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, my dog ate my stash, man.

      Back in the days when I was still smoking weed, I was rolling a joint and noticed my dog was looking at me in an investigative way. So I took a small bud of weed and let her smell it. She sniffed, and then she shook her snout against my hand making me drop it. Immediately she took it, and ran away a couple of metres. I tried to get it back, but she turned her body keeping me away from it while she ate it. During the rest of the evening, she kept lying in the sofa, upside down, paws up in the air. Eventually she got up and ate her bowl completely empty, then got back into the sofa. It's the funniest thing I ever saw her do. I don't know if it's normal or not. Do dogs like weed? Mine did for sure.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  3. wow by alienzed · · Score: 5, Funny

    so the camera can tell the difference between the color green and brown? Wow!

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
  4. tobacco or marijuana? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I couldn't find either of these words in TFA. Whoever wrote the summary needs to put down the bong for a while.

  5. Does it? by phobafiliac · · Score: 3, Informative

    Perhaps I missed it in the article, but it mentions nothing about marijuana or hand rolled cigarettes. It talks about real roses and silk roses. I suppose, in theory, it could do this, but I think it would tell what kinda of paper they used to roll the joint before it tells us whats inside the joint.

    --
    take what i say with a grain of salt, a dash of pepper, a pinch of oregano, and an itty bitty little drip of faygo
  6. Police will be ordering this soon by danbuter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can see city police departments calling in orders for this right away. Just think of all the tickets and arrests they'll get out of one of these things!

    1. Re:Police will be ordering this soon by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am more concerned about them increasing the number of helicopter patrols. Where I live now, the state sends out helicopters to look for cannabis plants, then indiscriminately arrests anyone who has a cannabis plant on their property. We recently had someone in my county arrested and convicted of cultivating marijuana because the patrol spotted feral hemp on his property.

      Tickets are one thing, but when you have a paramilitary force prepared to arrest or kill anyone over these plants, you are dealing with tyranny.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Police will be ordering this soon by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am more concerned about them increasing the number of helicopter patrols. Where I live now, the state sends out helicopters to look for cannabis plants, then indiscriminately arrests anyone who has a cannabis plant on their property.

      What's the ROI on that, you think?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Police will be ordering this soon by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ROI is excellent considering you can confiscate property and money with a low likelihood of it ever being returned. also, agents get to shoot your pets, which they never miss an opportunity to do no matter how small or harmless they are. it's tough enough to find a justified reason to shoot the gun that's been burning a hole in your holster even with the protection of your badge.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    4. Re:Police will be ordering this soon by ShooterNeo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doesn't work this way. When they find the plants on the property of the official with the government connections, they won't arrest anyone and the local prosecutor will quietly decline to file charges. Nor will they do any civil forfeitures.

      And when they find the exact same plants on the property of the hispanic/black guy's property, or that redneck fellow who has already had a few run ins with the law, that's when they slam on the cuffs and knock the suspect around a bit. And charge him with a crime, and take his property.

      It will never even occur to the government officials doing this that what they are doing is hippo-critical. After all, they "know" the black/hispanic/white trash guy must be guilty of something, even if not this particular thing. And they "know" that judge or police chief is innocent or a good guy that deserves a break, even if the pot garden looks deliberately cultivated.

    5. Re:Police will be ordering this soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's a fix for that?

      Seed balls. Just start walking around the neighborhood with a bag of these, tossing them into gardens, planters and median strips. Be especially sure to put them in the large planters you find in front of banks and other public buildings. Make sure you wear jeans, boots, hard hat and orange vest, so you look like a worker.

      Do this all over the place. Everywhere. Towns, cities, villages, technical parks; anywhere there is a planter or bare soil. Do it at night, and you can see entire media strips along the highway. Imagine 20 miles of flowers!

      If you really wanna cause trouble, make a modified fusen bakudan! Take a 2-liter bottle and tie it to a weather balloon. Put a timing switch on top of the bottle. Run a string from the switch, through the bottle, to a stopper. Fill the bottle with seeds. Set the timer for 30 minutes, then release at night. When the trigger releases, the seeds will fall out and scatter over a wide area. If you make adjustments to the mouth of the bottle, it can be made to release them over a longer period, decreasing concentration but increasing dispersal.

      If you saturate the product all over the place, everyone will now have plausible deniability.

    6. Re:Police will be ordering this soon by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      this is the norm, I live in NY, upstate and every october hte choppers fly over the fields, we hear about a bust or 2 and from why my police buddies tell me its about 5 million a year just for a tri county area just north of NYC for choppers looking for pot from sept - nov

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:Police will be ordering this soon by Ksevio · · Score: 2

      It will never even occur to the government officials doing this that what they are doing is hippo-critical.

      No one ever thinks about how the hippos will feel, they just criticize them.

  7. Re:Technology Stoners by similar_name · · Score: 4, Funny

    At least in the short term...

    Yeah, wait, what are we talking about?

  8. Tricorders next! by macraig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who would want a tricorder that couldn't do spectral analysis? We're almost there!

  9. About damn time by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 2

    That someone was finally able to tell the difference between a corn field and a hemp plantage just by looking at it.

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  10. Forgive the pedantry, but.... by mark-t · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hemp is *NOT* marijuana. They are related in that they are both cannabis, but they are not the same plant. You can't get high by smoking hemp (well, maybe you could... but Hemp's THC content is over an order of magnitude less than that found in marijuana, so you'd have to smoke at least ten times as much).

    1. Re:Forgive the pedantry, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cannabis sativa is Cannabis sativa. The fact that they have different THC levels does not make them different plants anymore than a the height of a Chihuahua makes it any less of a dog than a Great Dane.

    2. Re:Forgive the pedantry, but.... by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      Indeed there is only one species of cannabis. Well maybe two or three depending on who you ask - some people describe up to three species: sativa, indica, and ruderalis. But regardless of how you choose to classify cannabis plants - all varieties do produce at least some amount of THC and have varying usefulness as hemp fiber (which I think has to do with how tall the woody/fibrous parts of the plant grow).

      Now, even if the law doesn't differentiate between different potencies of cannabis, law enforcement should still take it into account. Generally weed that grows wild is "dirt weed", of a very low potency, and of limited usefulness as a drug. Hell, even top quality seeds can bear very weak marijuana, if the plant hasn't been properly and meticulously tended to. One of my friends used to be a grower, and having seen him work at it and sampling each one of his successive crops, I see that growing quality cannabis does take a fair bit of time, effort, and skill.

      So, if someone's got a high-potency strain that's obviously been cultivated in some way (whether its irrigation, evidence of fertilizing, footpaths leading out to where the plants grow, growing in pots, growing indoors in any capacity...) then the lawmen can be sure that it was being intentionally cultivated. But if it's a wild strain of low-potency dirt weed growing in a ditch somewhere on a large property, I don't think that should prove that the property's owner was cultivating it "beyond a reasonable doubt." There's a reason it's called weed, it's fairly apt to popping up anywhere, and it would certainly be even more prevalent if we didn't have this 60+ years program of eradicating it.

      Even if we've foolishly committed ourselves to a so-called war on marijuana, the least we could do is to make sure that only people who are, in fact, cultivating it get punished. Not innocent landowners who get caught in the crossfire.

  11. For a "technology" website by tbird81 · · Score: 2

    There's always about 80% of commenters here whining about how new technology is going to ruin our lives.

    1. Re:For a "technology" website by Stormwatch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. Irrational laws do.

    2. Re:For a "technology" website by geekoid · · Score: 2

      No, a public that doesn't get involved does.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:For a "technology" website by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Slashdot hasn't been a technology website for a long time. It's a site for libertarians and anarchists to complain about how the evil gubmint is out to get them (while Apple and Android fanbois chatter in the background). Now, in fairness, the government does overreach in a lot of cases -- the war on drugs being chiefest among them. But it's a mistake to ascribe those actions to evil motives rather than the far more likely ones of pandering, desperation, and good ole fashioned incompetence. The sad thing is, they attract other paranoid people, who mod them up, thus validating and reinforcing their paranoia. It's unhealthy for them, and some seem so angry all the time that I don't doubt that they'd eventually be driven to harm someone. As an example:

      "Sincerity" is an alien concept to such as he. He's a vile, contemptible, parasitic piece of verminous scum who exploits fear and ignorance in order to gain power. He is a creature without any personal worth, a loathsome leech who feeds off the misery and pain of others, and grows fat and happy on their suffering.

      The above was modded +5 Insightful, and is describing a state legislator who proposed a 1% tax on violent video games. People like this are not healthy, and the people who mod them up are making them worse.

    4. Re:For a "technology" website by dryeo · · Score: 2

      The public's educated all right. Hearst put years into educating the public, even invented a new word as people would never of believed the stories if it starred hemp.
      Today a surprising number of people believe that marijuana is very bad and worth locking people up over all due to the way they've been educated. The press has a lot of power especially when working in hand with the government.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  12. Well, shit by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

    There goes my business of selling oregano by the ounce in sandwich baggies...

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Well, shit by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Yeah..paper bags are just great for the environment~

      do people know know what goes into makes and recycling paper? Nastier then plastic.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  13. Better Link by pavon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is another article, which is both more informative, and doesn't have an annoying constantly scrolling twitter feed to distract you while you try to read.

  14. Re:Hyperspectral Imaging by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Informative

    From TFA:

    The system-on-chip (SoC) solution can accurately distinguish between objects that appear virtually identical using traditional red-green-blue imaging chips.

    The sentence immediately preceding that one, claims the product senses outside the visual spectrum ("hyper-spectral") and that it can perform remote spectral analysis, but somehow it uses just a good ol' RGB sensor.

    Yes, it says that it can differentiate things that a traditional RGB sensor cannot. That means it's NOT a "good ol' RGB sensor".

    Color cameras are just black and white ones with a set of filters over the pixels. Traditional color cameras use red, green and blue filters in a Bayer pattern. You can make a "hyperspectral" camera by using narrower filters of specific wavelengths to detect light at those wavelengths. For example, if you know that corn and someone else differ at a certain wavelength, use a filter at that wavelength.

    You can also make a hyperspectral line imager by using a slit instead of a round aperture and putting a grating or prism behind it. That turns the slit image into a two-D "image" where the slit is broken down by color. One dimension is along the line, the second is by color. Move the camera so the slit covers the desired imaging area and record the spectrum at each "pixel" in the resulting image. Google for "CAP" and "Archer".

  15. smoke at least ten times as much by owenferguson · · Score: 2

    I, sir, accept your challenge.

  16. Summary example not in article by markdavis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What are they talking about? The article says absolutely nothing about differentiating hand-rolled cigarettes, nothing about tobacco, and nothing about marijuana.

  17. Re:Technology Stoners by nashv · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Such as for example, spectral camouflage. Any method that depends on identifying spectra of compounds in a complex mixture depends on spectral deconvolution. Spectral deconvolution is easy to fool, but adding a compound that provides a "difference spectrum" , compensating for the differences in tobacco versus marijuana smoke.

    --
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
  18. Re:Technology Stoners by luther349 · · Score: 2

    lets not forget the strong smell that anyone can smell a good distance away.

  19. Some facts by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful


    The Burden of Tobacco Use

    Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking. Despite these risks, approximately 46.6 million U.S. adults smoke cigarettes. Smokeless tobacco, cigars, and pipes also have deadly consequences, including lung, larynx, esophageal, and oral cancers.
    http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/osh.htm

    I tried to find the article they had on deaths caused by marijuana, but they don't have one. Lucky we've got this new fancy new camera to make sure the American people are smoking the right stuff.

  20. Re:rubycodez by questhe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, but can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

    --
    You don't understand: I am not locked up in here with you, you are locked up in here with ME!
  21. Re:Technology Stoners by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Funny

    A device that lets you tell if someone has snuck tobacco into your spliff, without having to taste the smoke.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  22. Re:Technology Stoners by Pax681 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not sure about the countryside, but this has been done in cities for a while. It's pretty common for people who are growing cannabis to do put halogen lights up in their attic so that the plants can get bright light for a long period. Because this is above the layer of normal house insulation, their roofs show up as warmer than the surroundings.

    halogen? bad choice tbh, There are really only two choices of lamp types for indoor growers, high intensity discharge lamps (HID lamps) and florescent lamps. Other lamps such as standard household bulbs or halogen are just not up to the job of growing cannabis. They convert most of the power they consume into heat not light or produce a light spectrum that won`t support good plant growth. .
    there are even a new breed of colour balanced LED's which are becoming better by the year. i have a friend who use them in the vegetative stage then moves the plants to the other half of his growing room to use HID's in the flowering stage to great effect.
    Halogens, as mentioned above and not efficient and produce a MASSIVE hear signature leading to what you state above.
    growers with a brain use more efficient and balanced lighting which provide results which give not just a cheaper electricity bill but a far groovier stone!

  23. Timothy, What The Fuck? by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't usually complain about the editors; they do a good enough job that the site is still useful by its community and conversation. But in this case I'm making an exception.

    Timothy, did you even click through to the article AT ALL? I did, and it doesn't mention marijuana, cigarettes, or anything similar. The article just says that the camera does chemical composition, and it's not entirely clear that it could even do what's suggested in your summary.

    Can we have a "No Original Research" rule like Wikipedia, please? It's great that you have your theories, editors, and they're completely welcome, but POST THEM AS COMMENTS. The summary spot is supposed to be a summary of the the fine article(s), and not much more; especially not your "educated guesses" presented as fact.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs