From:	Jeremy Roberson <ROBERSON@***.EDU>
Subject:	The Final Confrontation
Date:	Sun, 9 May 1993 21:01:07 -0700

Alright! A full-swing debate about something just in time for Finals!
Electronic v Optical Magnification

Electronic magnification costs a lot more, takes half as much Essence, and I
believe magnifies things more than is possible with pure optics. Electronic
uses computer processing, while Optical relies on good only lenscrafting to
get the effect. For an example of the difference, pull out any camcorder with
"digital zoom" x80. The image is relatively grainy but it's stills there;
the opticals don't get past 12 or 20x magnification.

OK, so that's what they're for. Now for the Astral Bit.

I am not a mage. But I believe that it does say electronic vision whether
camera, eye, or other will not allow a spell to be targeted; the light rays
are not coming directly to your sensory inputs. However, you can cast through
an optical periscope, series of mirrors, or any other method that bends light.
The key difference is if the light is hitting the caster, or if he's simply
seeing a translation of digital data.

The Combat Mage. Lowlight does not neccesarily have to involve a processor.
The image is not broken down into data, it just pulls in as much light as
possible and amplifies it, like a series of magnifying glasses (that last bit's
not a literal interpretaion, just an example). Thermographics work similarly;
they may not be natural but they're still sending the same message to the mage's
mind; they're just looking at a different spectrum. In either case the result is
the same: the image is not a picture, but an enhanced version of the actual
image.

Plus the fact that I'm sure it says electromagnification will not work with
spellcasting.

TTFN
J Roberson