Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: ArcLight <arclight@**************.COM>
Subject: new eyeware
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 01:57:04 +0100
Hi everybody!

This morning, while falling asleep in class,
I thought about this piece of equipment:

So you all know those handicams, and when
they first hit the shops, many of you had
problems getting a good image. Why? It was
somewhat difficult to keep the camera straight
whilst moving around. So industry came up
with image stabilisation; what if you build
this into cybereyes?

Stats could be -0,1 essence, cost about 5000...
but what could be the effect?
And more important: would it work?

Any ideas?

ArcLight
ICQ 14322211
NO ONE IS SAFE FROM A MICROWAVE
Message no. 2
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: new eyeware
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:07:17 -0500
At 01:57 AM 1/21/99 +0100, ArcLight wrote:
>
>So you all know those handicams, and when
>they first hit the shops, many of you had
>problems getting a good image. Why? It was
>somewhat difficult to keep the camera straight
>whilst moving around. So industry came up
>with image stabilisation; what if you build
>this into cybereyes?

It would probably be redundant. Unlike a hand-held camera, your eyes don't
tend to have that problem unless you're *really* getting shaken up. Your
vision naturally fixes on specific points of focus and your eyes will
automatically track to keep that view stable. Even when you're looking
around, you're really shifting your eyes from focal point to focal point,
even though you're probably not consciously aware of it.

We have nothing on Momma Nature.


--
Starjammer - starjammer@**********.com - Marietta, GA

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death
that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it
to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn
the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be
nothing. Only I will remain."
-- Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert, Dune
Message no. 3
From: Iridios <iridios@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: new eyeware
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:16:43 -0500
ArcLight wrote:

> So you all know those handicams, and when
> they first hit the shops, many of you had
> problems getting a good image. Why? It was
> somewhat difficult to keep the camera straight
> whilst moving around. So industry came up
> with image stabilisation; what if you build
> this into cybereyes?
>
> Stats could be -0,1 essence, cost about 5000...
> but what could be the effect?
> And more important: would it work?

I don't see any problem with image stabilization for cybereyes, it
would be mostly a firmware option with minimal extra "parts" to the
cyber. As for game effect, I think it would be used to reduce the
modifier for firing while moving. Maybe there are different levels of
stabilization each reducing the modifier by it's rating?

--
"Why do they sterilize needles for lethal injections?"
-Steven Wright

Iridios
iridios@*********.com
ICQ UIN:6629224
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9489

-------Begin Geek Code Block------
GS d-(++) s+: a- C++ U?@>++ P L E?
W++ N o-- K- w(---) O? M-- V? PS+@
PE Y+ !PGP>++ t++@ 5+ X++@ R++@ tv
b+ DI++ !D G e+@>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
-------End Geek Code Block--------
Message no. 4
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: new eyeware
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:24:57 +1000
> I don't see any problem with image stabilization for cybereyes, it
> would be mostly a firmware option with minimal extra "parts" to the
> cyber. As for game effect, I think it would be used to reduce the
> modifier for firing while moving. Maybe there are different levels of
> stabilization each reducing the modifier by it's rating?

Umm... 2 points.

1) Your eyes are already pretty stable. Focus on a point, and move your head
around. Your focus doesn't shift. Having extra stabilisers wouldn't help
much.

2) The modifier for moving _isn't_ because you keep losing track of the
target. It's because of the extra work involved in aiming. The angle to the
target keeps shifting, often in slighly unexpected ways (because your body
bounces a bit when you walk, and even more so when you run), you're trying
to do two things at once, etc, etc.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 5
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: new eyeware
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:34:58 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 01:57 AM 1/21/99 +0100, ArcLight wrote:
>This morning, while falling asleep in class,
>I thought about this piece of equipment:
>
>So you all know those handicams, and when
>they first hit the shops, many of you had
>problems getting a good image. Why? It was
>somewhat difficult to keep the camera straight
>whilst moving around. So industry came up
>with image stabilisation; what if you build
>this into cybereyes?

Yes, and I would imagine that it's actually already built into any
magnification system or cybercamera (Still Image, or those implant
Trideo Cameras). It would need to be.

>Stats could be -0,1 essence, cost about 5000...
>but what could be the effect?

It's hard to say if there'd be any meaningful/useful effect, as the
human brain is already quite good at filtering out the efects of
movement on the image the brain sees. The simple act of walking raises
and lowers the eye level with each step but we don't even notice it.
In fact, the biological eyeballs themselves are constantly making
small movements, darting this way, and that. This is because the
retina is somewhat prone to "burn-in" (just like old computer & video
game monitors). Project the same image on the exact same spot on the
retina for too long, and the chemicals that the retinal cells use to
detect different colors get used up faster than they can be
replenished.

To minimize the effect, the eye muscles are continually making small
changes in the direction that the eyes are looking, changes just big
enough to keep the same image from being projected on the exact same
retinal cells for too long. This can be consciously overridden, at
least in part. Try staring at something red for at least 30-45
seconds. Then imediately look at something white. You'll get a green
afterimage of whatever you were staring at, though the after image
will most likely be a little fuzzy around the edges (this is because
it is very dificult to keep the gaze entirely motionless).

The brain is already set up to interpert out the effects of motion of
the images coming down the optic nerve, so I don't see how image
stabilization would help any. In fact, cybereyes would probably have
to add slight constant motion to the images they transmit to the
brain, mimicing the effect of the biological eyes' reflexive motion.
The brain is wired to expect the image to vary slightly from moment to
moment, and if that variation wasn't there, I'd imagine that side
effects like headaches would result.

>And more important: would it work?

This is an interesting question, seeing as how you hadn't said what
the image stabilization would be doing in the first place. :)
The only real benifit I could see for this cyberware would be for
snipers. Reflexive eye jiggle is one of the many small problems that
can throw those extreme-range shots off, in the same category of
problems like breathing and heartbeat. A while back on the list,
people came up with a bunch of esoteric cyberware in an attempt to
create an uber-sniper, implants like a non-percussive bypass pump for
the heart, blood oxygenators w/diaphram arestors, and other stuff that
would probably only be useful for snipers and other statue
impersonators. I'd put this in that category, with an effect of maybe
another -1 to the T#.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQCVAwUBNqaSIKPbvUVI86rNAQEjpAP/bPUR3w8JFFFD3Rr4M4joW56aJZ/Y3nst
TH9TABps8jN/1joGafLOkYo9qEVM0rxMe2pUfUA2QI8n4V8L95KQ8gu6yVSe8Au4
xVTKITZ6np1Y478VcUiP4kUqfC2IQ+DB5Aw51bR7WjQ3ziDiD8RzuGoi/QA1vqMH
6WSD0kdIzvI=
(Jt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 6
From: Steadfast <laughingman@*******.DE>
Subject: Re: new eyeware
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:25:45 +0100
And so it came to happen that Iridios wrote in reply to ArcLight:

<snip original post>
> I don't see any problem with image stabilization for cybereyes, it
> would be mostly a firmware option with minimal extra "parts" to the
> cyber. As for game effect, I think it would be used to reduce the
> modifier for firing while moving. Maybe there are different levels of
> stabilization each reducing the modifier by it's rating?

Problem here is that even if your sight is steady (g) your hands tend to
swing around wildly as you run. From that on and from the whole
bodymomentum comes the problem in sniping the enemy while running. So
unless you would have a Gyromount for your arm the weapon would swing
according to your body movements regardless of wether or not you have
your target in perfect sight. But than a Gyromount hinders movement a
bit as it tends to try to stabilize the position of the object it is
attached to even if it does not want this. And during movement you just
want that, you do not want to stand still and fully stabilized.

--
Mwhaahaahaar!!!
"Grossen bum*" man,
real "GROSSEN BUMBUM**" I got dere in my pocket!

*German translation of Savalette Guardian.
**German translation for Savalette Guardian, shouted.
---> Steadfast
Selfproclaimed Protector of
German BABY's
Message no. 7
From: Steadfast <laughingman@*******.DE>
Subject: Re: new eyeware
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:25:49 +0100
And so it came to happen that ArcLight wrote:

> Hi everybody!

Yo, Hoi back to you brother.

> This morning, while falling asleep in class,
> I thought about this piece of equipment:

Yes, that is what school/university is for. Thats the right spirit!
;o)

> So you all know those handicams, and when
> they first hit the shops, many of you had
> problems getting a good image. Why? It was
> somewhat difficult to keep the camera straight
> whilst moving around. So industry came up
> with image stabilisation; what if you build
> this into cybereyes?
>
> Stats could be -0,1 essence, cost about 5000...
> but what could be the effect?
> And more important: would it work?
>
> Any ideas?

Yep, leave teh eyes, 'specialy the camera-enhanced as they are. They are
build already into our head and that position was meant from mother
nature to be in that place. optimal stabilisation with good overview of
the surounding while shortly located near the brain where the data will
be processed. So why should a cybered eye be stabilised other than by
the muscles that stabilised the original eye? And if youve got a camera
build in then you bet that hose have the zoom and lock function
implemented. But this is just a wild gues from my side here.
Anyway, if you think it needs to be done (hm, seems to me so, otherwise
you would not have posted ;o))then here some ideas.
You can get boni on perception rolls for tracking individuals while they
are running/driving Say a -1 in general.
You can get boni on the roll made for getting videofootage on an
observation, maybe a plus 2.
BTW, is this not mentioned somewhere in Shadowbeat for cybercameras?
Anyone?
You can get mali for trying to walk/run/drive while having the eyes
locked firmly on one position. Say a +3. This can be learned to control,
the skill would be Cybercamera operations, each succes against a base
targetnumber of 4 (plus terrain and mood mali from the GM) reduces the
mali by one. The attribute would be inteligence with Quickness as
complementary if you would allow.
Hope it gave some ideas.

--
Mwhaahaahaar!!!
"Grossen bum*" man,
real "GROSSEN BUMBUM**" I got dere in my pocket!

*German translation of Savalette Guardian.
**German translation for Savalette Guardian, shouted.
---> Steadfast
Selfproclaimed Protector of
German BABY's
Message no. 8
From: Micheal Feeney <Starrngr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: new eyeware
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:03:18 EST
In a message dated 99-01-20 20:08:22 EST, you write:

> It would probably be redundant. Unlike a hand-held camera, your eyes don't
> tend to have that problem unless you're *really* getting shaken up. Your
> vision naturally fixes on specific points of focus and your eyes will
> automatically track to keep that view stable. Even when you're looking
> around, you're really shifting your eyes from focal point to focal point,
> even though you're probably not consciously aware of it.
>

I have to agree with this, for the most part. I can think of one case where
image stablization would be of a help, and that would be when you build image
magnification intoyour cyber eyes. I would imagine it would be part of the
electronic manigification package, and works to give you a stable image while
zoomed in on something.

--
Starrngr -- Now with an UPDATED webpage:
Ranger HQ
<A HREF="http://hometown.aol.com/starrngr/index.htm">;
HTTP://hometown.aol.com/starrngr/index.htm</A>;

"You wear a Hawaiian shirt and bring your music on a RUN? No wonder they call
you Howling Mad..." -- Rabid the Pysad.
Message no. 9
From: ArcLight <arclight@**************.COM>
Subject: AW: new eyeware
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 14:05:56 +0100
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Shadowrun Discussion [mailto:SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET]Im
> Auftrag von Steadfast
> Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 21. Januar 1999 0526
> An: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Betreff: Re: new eyeware
>

> > This morning, while falling asleep in class,
> > I thought about this piece of equipment:
>
> Yes, that is what school/university is for. Thats the right spirit!
> ;o)

Actually, it is not because of having classes,
but because of the time (0900!!)

> > So you all know those handicams, and when
> > they first hit the shops, many of you had
> > problems getting a good image. Why? It was
> > somewhat difficult to keep the camera straight
> > whilst moving around. So industry came up
> > with image stabilisation; what if you build
> > this into cybereyes?
> >
> > Stats could be -0,1 essence, cost about 5000...
> > but what could be the effect?
> > And more important: would it work?
> >
> > Any ideas?

<snip>

This is meant as an response to all those who replied
to my post.
First of all: Thanx!
I was already almost sure this would be nonsense,
but thought I coud have missed something on this.
I agree that it would be almost useless as for
improving natural eyes, and it would be kinda stupid
if this would not be included in standard cybereyes.
I am thinking of the sniper-option Paul Gettle
mentioned, but think it would be simpler to just get
them cyberreplacements.
So, again, thanx to all of you. I'll skip this.

ArcLight
ICQ 14322211
NO ONE IS SAFE FROM A MICROWAVE

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about new eyeware, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!