Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Contact Lens
Posted by: Dv84good Jun 19 2006, 09:04 PM
Does someone know if you can record images with image linked lens? Like taking pictures of Mr. Johnson.
Posted by: Nim Jun 19 2006, 09:14 PM
I would assume 'no'. This is without having the opportunity to go look it up to make certain, but my understanding was that the AR-linked contacts were purely an output device. They're a monitor, not a camera. At best, they might have some capacity to track where you're looking at any given moment.
Posted by: Dr. Dodge Jun 19 2006, 09:23 PM
in wireless land you should probably be able to record what you see onto your commlink (assuming the image link is subscribed or whatever)
Posted by: Nim Jun 19 2006, 09:42 PM
| QUOTE (Dr. Dodge) |
| in wireless land you should probably be able to record what you see onto your commlink (assuming the image link is subscribed or whatever) |
If you have a recording device, you can definitely use the commlink for storage. In fact, the commlink itself INCLUDES a video camera, if I recall the description correctly. Without going and reading the description, though, I don't think the contacts themselves act as a camera.
Posted by: Dr. Dodge Jun 19 2006, 10:25 PM
| QUOTE (Nim) | ||
If you have a recording device, you can definitely use the commlink for storage. In fact, the commlink itself INCLUDES a video camera, if I recall the description correctly. Without going and reading the description, though, I don't think the contacts themselves act as a camera. |
ok i see what you mean. in the description it says input but doesnt mention output. it looks like you would need a "eye recording unit" or something similar.
Posted by: Nim Jun 19 2006, 10:32 PM
If there's not already one on the gear list, then a micro-video device ought to be a readily-available toy. Say, a tiny video camera disguised as a lapel pin or a button on your coat...it's part of your PAN, and uses your commlink for storage. In fact, you could easily use your AR contact lenses to keep an eye on what the camera is seeing...handy if it's pointing BEHIND you. The only virtue of the thing, though, is being covert. If you don't mind being obvious, you just pull out your commlink and use the camera that's built into THAT, and you get better resolution and better control over your shot.
Posted by: BobAlmighty Jun 19 2006, 10:40 PM
You could always have a sim-rig...then you'll never have to worry about recording devices. A bit obtrusive if it's external and you use trodes or something maybe, but if you're a implant junkie, it can all be internal and hidden.
Posted by: PH3NOmenon Jun 19 2006, 11:37 PM
| QUOTE (Nim) |
| In fact, you could easily use your AR contact lenses to keep an eye on what the camera is seeing...handy if it's pointing BEHIND you. |
kind of hijacking the thread here, but on that note...
is there anything keeping a runner from having a 360° field of vision at all times?
(i remember an "eye in the back of your head" cyberware thingy from sr3, but it included penalties for distraction when it was on...)
Posted by: ornot Jun 20 2006, 01:26 AM
I think having 360 vision would be very dissorienting. I'd certainly allow players to come up with some kind of ware, but there would be a penalty involved. An alternative might be to have some kind of ultrasound rig and project a little map in your AR showing nearby objects. Picture something like the motion detector in Aliens.
Posted by: Nim Jun 20 2006, 01:30 AM
Well, if you were using AR to do it, you wouldn't really have 360 vision. You'd have your normal field of vision, with some 'picture in picture' boxes that act like a rear-view mirror.
Personally, I'm not disoriented by the mirrors in my car, so I don't see much of a problem. I'd give some big penalties for ATTACKING using such a view (firing over your shoulder, say), but I don't see an issue with them using it for situational awareness.
Posted by: ornot Jun 20 2006, 01:39 AM
I was envisioning some kind of fishbowl lens view.
Mirrors would be far easier to work with, true.
You may have played Quake back in the day, when it was common practice to open the console and adjust your field of view to 270 degrees. It looked pretty weird, and I could never get the hang of it admittedly, but having the whole world looking like that would do my head in.
Posted by: Nim Jun 20 2006, 02:06 AM
| QUOTE (ornot) |
| I was envisioning some kind of fishbowl lens view. Mirrors would be far easier to work with, true. You may have played Quake back in the day, when it was common practice to open the console and adjust your field of view to 270 degrees. It looked pretty weird, and I could never get the hang of it admittedly, but having the whole world looking like that would do my head in. |
Heh.
I think the fishbowl effect would require an implant. The best you could do with AR goggles or contacts would be partial-transparency inserts within your normal field of view. AR adds to what you're seeing; it doesn't replace it all. Hmm. Though you COULD do that with a BIG set of goggles, that either used complex optics or put a blackout-LCD over your eyes and piped images to it from a collection of cameras.
Actually CHANGING your basic field of view would require some mucking about with the optic nerve or something, and the input would still have to come from somewhere.
Posted by: Nim Jun 20 2006, 02:17 AM
Oh, another thought.
It might not bother you as much as you think. There's a classic experiment (http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~nava/courses/psych_and_brain/pdfs/Stratton_1896.pdf) in which a researcher spent some time wearing glasses that turned his vision upside down. He found that the brain adapted remarkably quickly and turned everything upright again (though at least in the time that he spent, it never felt totally normal).
Posted by: Demon_Bob Jun 20 2006, 02:41 AM
| QUOTE (PH3NOmenon @ Jun 19 2006, 05:37 PM) | ||
kind of hijacking the thread here, but on that note... is there anything keeping a runner from having a 360° field of vision at all times? |
I have a Rigger who uses those little bug drones. He worked on there signal so that he could reduce or increase their signal strength on command.
He cranks to output signal down to something that will not carry much past his person and watches the drone camera output on AR.
Do not see why it couldn't be done with just a camera, com link, and image link.
Posted by: DrowVampyre Jun 20 2006, 10:51 AM
| QUOTE (ornot) |
| Picture something like the motion detector in Aliens. |
They've already kinda got that. Get an RFID sensor tag with a motion sensor as it's hardware, and have it output to your commlink (or, better yet, stick a skinlink on it and put it in your hand or something). Yes, you too can have a Soliton Radar for the low, low price of 100 nuyen!
Posted by: Crusher Bob Jun 20 2006, 10:56 AM
Buy a hat, stick a bunch of cyber eyes on the hat, facing in every direction. Add as many sensor bits as you want. Map the FOV of your hat to your FOV. Wear your hat a lot so you get used effects of such a FOV. Practice your ripple blinks.
Posted by: irinoxx Jun 21 2006, 09:49 AM
| QUOTE (Nim) |
| I would assume 'no'. This is without having the opportunity to go look it up to make certain, but my understanding was that the AR-linked contacts were purely an output device. They're a monitor, not a camera. At best, they might have some capacity to track where you're looking at any given moment. |
Any AR "display" device is also a camera. Anyway that's how real life augmented reality prototypes work.
1/ take picture
2/ figure out picture objects
3/ get database records concerning said objects
4/ overlay relevant data on picture's objects
5/ display augmented picture to user
So the answer is yes, any AR display device is a camera, and anyone can easily take pictures or record video from their point of view.
Side note:
On this topic the game is probably very accurate. Today, cameras are everywhere, in every cell phone. Anybody can record pictures or video. Shadowrun's AR lenses are the next logical step : same functionality, but easier to use.
IBM research right now has a team working on an ever-recording camera. No need to push the button, the thing is supposed to be always "on", and have enough storage for weeks of video. User just has to choose interesting segments to save to their album. By SR4's timeline, such devices should definitely be mainstream, and that's what AR and unlimited storage seem to suggest.
Make sure your players understand what the AR revolution implies before they engage in any criminal activity. SR4 is much more dangerous than SR3, and a datatrail is really something to care about.
Posted by: irinoxx Jun 21 2006, 10:13 AM
| QUOTE (Nim @ Jun 19 2006, 09:06 PM) |
| AR adds to what you're seeing; it doesn't replace it all. |
That's just how most people use AR every day. Adding translucent computer constructs to a real image.
Nothing however, except for hardware limitations of output device, prevents an AR user to have his comlink display solid CGI, totally replacing normal vision.
I expect SR4's fashion industry to be full of AR "photoshop filters" - see world as a black and white Bogart movie, see world as a flashy pink Barbie place.
I expect SR4's porn industry to sell such things, too.
When technology is available and there's a market for such things... Why would any vendor sell display devices that can't provide these kind of experiences?
Posted by: Nim Jun 21 2006, 01:22 PM
| QUOTE (irinoxx) |
| Any AR "display" device is also a camera. Anyway that's how real life augmented reality prototypes work. 1/ take picture 2/ figure out picture objects 3/ get database records concerning said objects 4/ overlay relevant data on picture's objects 5/ display augmented picture to user |
Contemporary AR setups INCLUDE a camera, yes. But:
* That's because they're identifying objects via visual recognition. SR AR recognizes most objects in the environment via RF communication, which is quite a bit more reliable. Video analysis is still useful, of course.
* Even if the AR /system/ includes a camera, that doesn't mean it's built into the contacts. Your PAN is a little network of a variety of devices, each providing their own capabilities. Display is a separate function from perception. They needn't be included in the same device.
Now that I've actually got my book handy, I see that there are separate entries for Vision Enhancers and Sensor Packages. If you want a pair of glasses that provide thermographic vision, an image link, AND act as a camera, just add the cost of the micro-camera onto the cost of the glasses, and you're all set. There's no reason they COULDN'T be built into the same device. It's just not required.
Posted by: Nim Jun 21 2006, 01:26 PM
| QUOTE (irinoxx) |
| That's just how most people use AR every day. Adding translucent computer constructs to a real image. Nothing however, except for hardware limitations of output device, prevents an AR user to have his comlink display solid CGI, totally replacing normal vision. |
That's true, of course. In fact, I went on to say so
I'm just having trouble imagining doing it via contacts. And doing it via glasses would be disorienting, because you'd see bits of your regular field of view around the outside. Goggles, though, sure.
Posted by: irinoxx Jun 21 2006, 02:04 PM
| QUOTE (Nim) |
| * Even if the AR /system/ includes a camera, that doesn't mean it's built into the contacts. Your PAN is a little network of a variety of devices, each providing their own capabilities. Display is a separate function from perception. They needn't be included in the same device. |
Oh you're very right about getting input streams other than pure image analysis. RF broadcasts, Matrix data feeds, etc.
But in the end, a composite picture has to be constructed for the user, and that picture has to make sense. It means that overlayed CGI must be put on the right place, relatively to the user's point of view. And that just implies getting processable video input from a POV as near as possible from the user's eyes.
The logical conclusion is that any AR pair of glasses, goggles or contact lenses has at least basic webcam functionality.
Unless of course overlayed CGI are displayed at fixed locations, like icons on a desktop computer. Then no need to track the user's point of view. But then it's just a head up display, not an augmented reality display.
Posted by: irinoxx Jun 21 2006, 02:11 PM
| QUOTE (Nim) |
| Now that I've actually got my book handy, I see that there are separate entries for Vision Enhancers and Sensor Packages. If you want a pair of glasses that provide thermographic vision, an image link, AND act as a camera, just add the cost of the micro-camera onto the cost of the glasses, and you're all set. |
Oh, ok then.
Maybe I'd rule this as the camera option being a good camera, instead of the crappy basic webcam gadgetry required for AR point of view tracking. But that's just me, I can't figure out how to do proper AR without video processing.
Posted by: ornot Jun 21 2006, 02:17 PM
s'funny... I'd never thought of the neccessity of image tracking for AR, but thinking about it, how else does the imaging device know where to put the crosshairs for your smartgun?
Best reason I've seen for disallowing contact lenses as vision enhancers. After all, where do you put the tech?
Posted by: irinoxx Jun 21 2006, 03:04 PM
| QUOTE (ornot) |
| Best reason I've seen for disallowing contact lenses as vision enhancers. After all, where do you put the tech? |
Easy enough. Today's megapixel CCD chips are smaller than a contact lens. It's simple enough to imagine such sensors on the iris part of the contact lens, even more considering the technological advances of the SR4 timeline.
An AR lens doesn't have to have computing power itself, as it's only useful as part of an AR system requiring a commlink. It's just a wireless networked video sensor, video display package. Easily fits into a contact lens, given SR4's technological advances.
The sensor's resolution alone should be able to enhance regular vision. If it's not enough, software can tap the commlink's processing power for image enhancement (like the ClearSight program does).
Anyway, the tech is here, no doubt about it.
The only trouble is to gracefully handle this in a gaming session.
Posted by: ornot Jun 21 2006, 03:11 PM
grrr.. Damn techies!
I often have this problem GMing SR. I have various players employed in various technical roles and they all know more about the capabilities of tech than me!
But then I pwn them when it comes to biotech knowledge. Go Team Biology!
Posted by: Dr. Dodge Jun 21 2006, 03:39 PM
| QUOTE (ornot) |
But then I pwn them when it comes to biotech knowledge. Go Team Biology! |
WOOOOOOOOOO...
oh wait it's kinda quiet in here.
Posted by: Nim Jun 21 2006, 03:57 PM
The biggest problem I have with the contacts is the power supply. But SR seems to have Magic Batteries anyway, so that's not an issue....
Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 21 2006, 05:30 PM
They'd work the same way a lot of stuff in SR seems to work: using the electric field from your body. It's not magic batteries, quite... just phenomenally low current draw
Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 21 2006, 06:19 PM
microsoft have a patent (or patent request) about using the body as a network. i think they even had a part about transmitting power around.
still, i fail to see how one is to power some of the more hungry devices that way.
hmm, one way could be to have a capitator/battery attached to it so that it changes from the power trasmitted, but eats from the battery while in use. this is mostly for devices that you only use now and again rather then continualy tho.
something tells me that the contacts will be using some kind of transparent e-ink display. that way it only needs energy whenever its changing what its displaying, and that energy can be transmitted along with the signal. basicly the same way that a passive RFID works.
still, SR is about sci-fi, and a lot of sci-fi is never explained that much...
Posted by: kigmatzomat Jun 21 2006, 09:21 PM
Contact lenses with virtually anything other than display link have to have a camera/sensor. Face it, where does the image from low-light come from? Thermograph?
And as far as smart-link, we've assumed there is a camera on the gun that provides a video feed and the eye/contact provides another and the computer figures out where on the eye's field of view the gun is pointing.
Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 21 2006, 10:59 PM
a low-light sensor dont have to be digitaly made. it can be that the surface of the lense is created with more light sensitive particles then the normal eye, and that these are connected to light generating particles or something so that you basicly amplify the available light
thermograph can be similar, only that now they react to the infra-red part of the em spectrum rather then visual light...
still, i will add that i reacted when i first read about contact lenses that was able to do all this stuff. glasses ok, but lenses. way beyond nanotech
still, its in the game. and if its in the game it will probably be used, just for the hell of it.
Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 21 2006, 11:59 PM
I'll be honest, I really do *not* like the amount of stuff you can put into contact lenses, especially when players layer them with glasses or something equally dumb.
Kind of amusing when someone puts thermographic vision inside of their sunglasses, though
Posted by: Xenith Jun 22 2006, 12:31 AM
Heres a thought... on a contact lens... wouldn't someone else be able to see the data being transmitted to your eye, if backwards and really small?
How about glasses, shades, and goggles for that matter? I know that those three can be mirrored oneways, but you might have ahard time on a contact lens without looking really freaky... and being singled out by security...
Now what would happen if people began using an image link combined with some sorta of specialized zoom application that reverses it so they could see what you see in your contact lens or glasses....
That, in and of itself, justifies having a cybereye... so very much...
Mwaha.... that awesome... 
What say you? 
Posted by: Jaid Jun 22 2006, 01:09 AM
two things:
1)
| QUOTE (BBB page 311) |
| The smartgun system connects a firearm or projectile weapon directly to a user’s smartlink (see p. 323). It incorporates a laser range finder and a small camera... |
2)
| QUOTE (BBB page 323) |
| The image link either displays visual information (text, pictures, movies) in the field of vision or projects it onto the user’s retina with a laser. |
so as a matter of fact, smartguns do have cameras, that's not just a houserule. and image links can project onto the retina of your eye, which means you don't necessarily have anything showing on the outside.
hope that helps.
Posted by: Xenith Jun 22 2006, 01:15 AM
Lasers in a contact lens? OK... thats where I draw the line... *thumbs down*
Posted by: Jaid Jun 22 2006, 04:09 AM
meh. if you can generate light in that small of an area, putting in some kind of microscopic system to focus it into a direct beam isn't that big of a deal, imo. i mean, the laser has to go, what, like, 3-4 cm? and we've already got these contacts broadcasting some ridiculous distance anyways...
unless you're talking about the smartgun laser... but in that case, you're mistaken. that's on the gun, not the eye =P remember there's two parts to a smartgun system... the gun itself has a device in it, and then the visual thing will have a receiver device attached to it. don'y get the smartgun system mixed up with the smartlink =D
Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 22 2006, 05:05 AM
hmm, i belive someone have allready managed to build a microchip laser irl...
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)