Camera Neutralizer vs Cybereyes and Natural Eyes Options

[HappyDaze]

The Camera Neutralizer (Arsenal, page 59) should work against cybereyes since they are in effect micro-cameras (and would thus incorporae the increased threshold to target micro cams). However, can the lasers of this sytem be used against natural eyes? I can't think of any logical reason why they couldn't (just look for the 'red-eye' reflectivity of the retina), but I figured I'd see what others thought.

[Kerenshara]

The Camera Neutralizer (Arsenal, page 59) should work against cybereyes since they are in effect micro-cameras (and would thus incorporae the increased threshold to target micro cams). However, can the lasers of this sytem be used against natural eyes? I can't think of any logical reason why they couldn't (just look for the 'red-eye' reflectivity of the retina), but I figured I'd see what others thought.

Hmmm, generally I have to agree with you...

"Do not look into the laser"

and

"Pont this end away from face"

'nuff said.

Just bear in mind that you need to KEEP it on target to function, right? (Meta)humans tend to flinch when hit in the eye by bright light, colimated or not.

[HappyDaze]

The system is set-up to deal with multiple moving cameras (paparazzi and all that). Since it's unlikely to have dozens of emitters, I assumed its emitter rapidly pulsed at each tracked target in a repeating cycle (adding new targets to the cycle as they are identified). Even if it's tracking a dozen or more cameras, it should be able to hit the camera/natural eye several times a second (the actual degree depends upon the rating of the sytem), and this should be able to really screw up vision in the short-term. Since the system doesn't mention long-term damage to cameras, I'd prefer to ignore that aspect for both cameras and natural eyes.

[Kerenshara]

The system is set-up to deal with multiple moving cameras (paparazzi and all that). Since it's unlikely to have dozens of emitters, I assumed its emitter rapidly pulsed at each tracked target in a repeating cycle (adding new targets to the cycle as they are identified). Even if it's tracking a dozen or more cameras, it should be able to hit the camera/natural eye several times a second (the actual degree depends upon the rating of the sytem), and this should be able to really screw up vision in the short-term. Since the system doesn't mention long-term damage to cameras, I'd prefer to ignore that aspect for both cameras and natural eyes.

That being the case, I would imagine that the "tracking" system keys in on the "glint" of a camera lens. Most descriptions of cyber eyes indicate that unless intentionally chosen to be "obvious" then pass quite well under close but casual inspection. That should mean a visual tracking system can't key into the eye. I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is a bio-membrane across the cyber eye, because they are still vulnerable to atttacks which vector directly on the eye (tear gas and the like) unless you have the old 1^st Ed polular Optical Covers. Otherwise, it would be a wicked weapon in its own right.

[HappyDaze]

If the system doens't register cybereyes as cameras then it's almost useless since cybereyes are a very common application of camera tech and it would be hardly a chore to simply mask all camera lenses in the same manner. Also, since the human eye does have reflectivity, the system could be progammed to target the eyes easily enough.

As for tear gas and the like, even a cybereye is still surrounded by moist semi-permeable fleshy membranes and these are where the chemicals will do their damage - tear gas most certainly doens't affect the metal/plastic of the cybereye.

[Kerenshara]

If the system doens't register cybereyes as cameras then it's almost useless since cybereyes are a very common application of camera tech and it would be hardly a chore to simply mask all camera lenses in the same manner. Also, since the human eye does have reflectivity, the system could be progammed to target the eyes easily enough.

As for tear gas and the like, even a cybereye is still surrounded by moist semi-permeable fleshy membranes and these are where the chemicals will do their damage - tear gas most certainly doens't affect the metal/plastic of the cybereye.

That was my point though, about the membranes. If the cybereye, in order to "pass", is behind a moist membrane, it might not twig as a "lens". Do you get the distinction I'm trying to draw?

[toolbox]

That was my point though, about the membranes. If the cybereye, in order to "pass", is behind a moist membrane, it might not twig as a "lens". Do you get the distinction I'm trying to draw?

I think he's talking about the tissues around the eye rather than some hypothetical membrane across the surface re: chemical attacks - the tear ducts, insides of the eyelids, etc.

[HappyDaze]

Do you get the distinction I'm trying to draw?

No.

No offense, but it sounds like you're trying to create some techno-babble for why it won't work on eyes (natural or cyber). The point of this system is to stop cameras from capturing your image. If all it takes is the 'special lens system' of a cybereye to bypass the system, then the system is a total failure because everyone either uses cybereyes to bypass it or they learn to use unimplanted cameras with the same 'magitech' as found in the cybereyes. If the setting's assumption is that the system works on camera then it logically must work on cybereyes.

The only question I have is how it should interact with natural eyes. Realistically, it might find them harder to target and track, but it should certainly have even nastier effects if the emitter is directed upon a pair of fleshy eyes.

Also, how would this system interact with Flare Compensation? I can't imagine FC blocks the blinding effect - as otherwise it becomes useless again - but it may help to prevent permanent damage if that feature is incorporated.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

No.

No offense, but it sounds like you're trying to create some techno-babble for why it won't work on eyes (natural or cyber). The point of this system is to stop cameras from capturing your image. If all it takes is the 'special lens system' of a cybereye to bypass the system, then the system is a total failure because everyone either uses cybereyes to bypass it or they learn to use unimplanted cameras with the same 'magitech' as found in the cybereyes. If the setting's assumption is that the system works on camera then it logically must work on cybereyes.

The only question I have is how it should interact with natural eyes. Realistically, it might find them harder to target and track, but it should certainly have even nastier effects if the emitter is directed upon a pair of fleshy eyes.

Also, how would this system interact with Flare Compensation? I can't imagine FC blocks the blinding effect - as otherwise it becomes useless again - but it may help to prevent permanent damage if that feature is incorporated.

The way that I approach this is very simple... The Fluff AND RAW state that it only applies to Cameras (specifically, the "reflectivity and shape of the image-producing sensors used in digital cameras")... therefore it CANNOT be used to affect Cybereyes or natural eyes... Simple and easy... I would even go as far as to say it would not even affect SLR Cameras that were not digital (an archaic technology, I know, but they do exist)...

My Two (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif)

[HappyDaze]

So TJ, you just get a camera lens that if physically configured to match a cybereye - or actually rig a second-hand cybereye to your camera - and you've defeated the tech entirely. Lame and illogical.

[HappyDaze]

The only suggestion that seems reasonable to me right now is that the standard system includes a safety inhibitor that prevents it from firing into someone's eyes (natural or cyber) using the barest traces of facial recognition to avoid the eyes among other facial landmarks. Of course, there's no reason such an inhibitor couldn't be removed by the not so nice people out there in the Sixth World... and then I'm back to the questions I've already asked.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

So TJ, you just get a camera lens that if physically configured to match a cybereye - or actually rig a second-hand cybereye to your camera - and you've defeated the tech entirely. Lame and illogical.

Also Easy... Incompatible, Does not work... Problem Solved...
Or put another way... the technology is not compatible with each other... one is molecular electronics and the other is not... thejy will nto interface correctly and so will not work at all... you just wasted time and effort for no real gain...

May not be as realistic as allowing your group to do anything it wants, but it is supported by the RAW (and I would say RAI as well)... otherwise there would be listed technology that allows this...

Again... Cameras are Cameras, and Cyber Eyes are Cyber Eyes... two different styles/types of technology... and even if the Cyber eye is capable of recording, it is still NOT a camera, it is a Cybernetic eye replacement that can function as a Camera... they are not the same thing... you cannot buy a camera sensor and implant it in the eye socket and say, Viola, A Cyber Eye... It does not work that way...

Of course, that is just my interpretation, but I think it is pretty valid

YMMV

[Shinobi Killfist]

The only suggestion that seems reasonable to me right now is that the standard system includes a safety inhibitor that prevents it from firing into someone's eyes (natural or cyber) using the barest traces of facial recognition to avoid the eyes among other facial landmarks. Of course, there's no reason such an inhibitor couldn't be removed by the not so nice people out there in the Sixth World... and then I'm back to the questions I've already asked.

So what exactly do you expect a cheap low availability item to do??

Look, you already have your answer. You created this thread with an answer in hand, so why bother even asking if you don't want to hear opposing opinions.

[the_real_elwood]

So basically, you want to buy a relatively cheap device and be able to effectively blind everyone around you? Without going into any pseudo-technical reasons why it might not work, it probably shouldn't be able to work against cybereyes OR meat eyes just for game balance issues. And if you've got cybereyes with an image recorder, congratulations. You've invested a lot of nuyen and essence into just being able to take a picture/video of something. If it was able to blind everyone, it should cost a lot more than it does.

And if you did decide it could blind cybereyes or meat eyes, it should be defeatable by any kind of flare compensation or glasses/shades.

[Kerenshara]

*shrugs*

If cybereyes glint like a camera lens, they are going to be obvious as drek to the casual observer. I don't remember which edition or what book there was discussion about the nature o cybernetic replacements and how noticable the good "replacements" were, but it was talked about how it would take a close observation of the eye t notice it was cybernetic, and the higher the grade, the better the resemblance to the original, where with a Deltagrade cybereye, you would almost need an optical inspection intrument to figure out it was fake. That suggests to me that there must be some kind of "wet" effect mebrane over the eye. It may not be the case, but it's what I always assumed to one extent or another. OK, so it wouldn't necessarily translate into vulnerability to airborne agents, but i might be enough to fool an optical recognition system looking to automatically track and "engage" small dancing targets like flying micro-drones with cameras. It may sound like I'm just trying to back some kind of BS fluff into drekky game mechanics, but this is one of the situation where the drekky gam mechanics fit my take on the fluff. I assume that unless you select "unnatural" on the appearance, especially in 2070 with cloning and bioware being dominant if you believe the SR4 fuff, they will have put a LOT of work into making the implant as completely natural as they can get. With a cyberarm, they can pass everything but physical contact or very close inspection at the high levels.

[rathmun]

Maybe the system just can't keep up with microsaccades very well. After all, your eyes move around a surprising amount even when you're looking at a stationary object. Handheld cameras don't.

[Blade]

I think it'd be far too powerful if it made everyone blind, so I'd rule that it doesn't work on eyes. To explain why it works on camera and not on eyes, I'd it's because it doesn't affect the lens but the sensor that's behind it, the thing that transform the data the lens receives into pixels which is different in cameras and in metahumans.
So unless you put a brain in all your cameras you can't apply the metahuman protection on cameras.
Problem solved (for me).

[DuctShuiTengu]

And here's your simple answer for why all cameras don't share the cybereye's immunity

Good Security Camera-
Camera (Rating 4): 400
Flare Compensation: 50
Low Light: 100
Thermographic: 100
Vision Enhancement (Rating 3): 300
Total Cost: 950 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif)

Camera Neutralizer-proof Good Security Camera-
Single Cybereye (Rating 4): 900
Flare Compensation: 750
Low Light: 1,000
Thermographic: 1,000
Vision Enhancement (Rating 3): 4,500
Total Cost: 8,150 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif)

The board of directors is looking forward to hearing Mr. Daze's presentation on why spending 3,600,000 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) (an 857.895% increase in cost)to protect the 500 cameras at our various sites in Seattle from this specific piece of technology is an efficient use of funds. We expect to be greatly entertained by it.

[rathmun]

snip
Total Cost: 950 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif)
snip
Total Cost: 8,150 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif)
snip

I think we have a winner!

[HappyDaze]

This is from Augmentation, page 29:

The reasons for this side effect are complex, but I’ll try to keep things simple. Part of it is neurological, and part is psychological, and it’s rooted in the fact that while a neural interface translates digital data into sensory stimuli your mind can understand, the actual information carried is inherently different.
If you’ve ever had cybereyes, you know what I’m talking about. Cybereyes are essentially trid cameras. Fully wireless-enabled, tricked-out, low-light, image-linked cameras—but cameras nonetheless. The colors, contrast, resolution, aliasing, and depth perception are all different from what you would experience through your natural eyes. Many people find that this difference changes their experience of things, distances them from what they see, making it seem slightly unreal.

So...

To explain why it works on camera and not on eyes, I'd it's because it doesn't affect the lens but the sensor that's behind it

This might make natural eyes (and optical devices) immune, but cybereyes and electronic cameras are both methods of electronic imaging - both use the smae types of sensors and then send output. For cybereyes this output is usually DNI, and for cameras is can be too.

If cybereyes glint like a camera lens, they are going to be obvious as drek to the casual observer. I don't remember which edition or what book there was discussion about the nature o cybernetic replacements and how noticable the good "replacements" were, but it was talked about how it would take a close observation of the eye t notice it was cybernetic, and the higher the grade, the better the resemblance to the original, where with a Deltagrade cybereye, you would almost need an optical inspection intrument to figure out it was fake. That suggests to me that there must be some kind of "wet" effect mebrane over the eye. It may not be the case, but it's what I always assumed to one extent or another. OK, so it wouldn't necessarily translate into vulnerability to airborne agents, but i might be enough to fool an optical recognition system looking to automatically track and "engage" small dancing targets like flying micro-drones with cameras. It may sound like I'm just trying to back some kind of BS fluff into drekky game mechanics, but this is one of the situation where the drekky gam mechanics fit my take on the fluff. I assume that unless you select "unnatural" on the appearance, especially in 2070 with cloning and bioware being dominant if you believe the SR4 fuff, they will have put a LOT of work into making the implant as completely natural as they can get. With a cyberarm, they can pass everything but physical contact or very close inspection at the high levels.

So your dsconnect is merely in targeting, right? If the targeting parameters were changed - so that it actively seeks to shine in the eyes - you would agree that the blinding effect would apply to cybereyes.

Maybe the system just can't keep up with microsaccades very well. After all, your eyes move around a surprising amount even when you're looking at a stationary object. Handheld cameras don't.

This could well be true making targeting the eyes a difficult proposition, but it certainly wouldn't make them immune to blinding.

And if you did decide it could blind cybereyes or meat eyes, it should be defeatable by any kind of flare compensation or glasses/shades.

All the compensation in the world won't matter if the laser is drowning out all other input. It would be like trying to use windshield wipers to see out your windshield with a firehose spraying at it.

Cost is irrelevant to the discussion of "How does it work?" and I am simply not asking "How much does it cost?" so I won't be dragged into that pointless argument.

Throwing mud in a camera's lens and throwing mud in a cybereye (or natural eye) all result in the same effect - the image won't get through until the mud is removed. It doesn't fucking matter what the cost of any of the three pieces are - the mud still does what it does.

Now try replacing 'throwing' with 'shining' and 'mud' with 'laser' and we have the example I set.

[Blade]

This might make natural eyes (and optical devices) immune, but cybereyes and electronic cameras are both methods of electronic imaging - both use the smae types of sensors and then send output. For cybereyes this output is usually DNI, and for cameras is can be too.

How do you know that the (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) 400 camera and the (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) 900 use the exact same type of sensor? How do you know at which point the connection between the eyes and the brain is done?
I'm not saying it's not possible that cybereyes can't use the same thing as regular cameras. I'm just saying that given the fact that we don't know everything about the difference between cameras and cybereyes, it's possible to say that there's a difference between the two that makes cybereyes immune against camera neutralizer. It's up to the GM to choose what he prefers.

[DuctShuiTengu]

Right, allow me to explain the reasoning that brought me to the question of cost in a bit more detail:

1. A Camera Neutralizer rolls (Rating x 2) dice at a threshold of 2 to shine lasers at cameras to stop them from working.
2. A Rating 6 Camera Neutralizer would have 12 dice, enough to simply buy the 2 hits needed even when taking a -4 penalty due to visibility.
3. If this device can also be made to work on normal (or cyber-) eyes, then for 1500 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) , runners, security personell, etc could guarantee that all their opponents will be blind.
4. If such a cheap device could reliably cause blindness in all opponents, everyone would use one.
5. This either results in every fight using blind-fighting on both sides, or (if you assume that a Camera Neutralizer can neutralize another Camera Neutralizer) whoever wins init blinding their opponents and then picking them off at their leisure.
6. Both of these possibly outcomes is highly unsatisfactory
7. Therefor, there must be some reason why Camera Neutralizers do not work against eyes - whether normal or cybernetic.
8. This reason cannot be something that can be easily fixed (such as adjusting the program slightly to target eyes as well as cameras) or once again, everyone would do it.
9. If cybereyes are not blinded by Camera Neutralizers, then whatever feature makes them immune ought to be something that can be duplicated by cameras.
10. If it is possible to make cameras that are immune to Camera Neutralizers, why aren't they used?
11. Cost and convenience are the two big limiting factors in security.
12. Better cameras aren't less convenient than worse ones, but likely are more expensive.
13. Cybereyes are much, much more expensive than cameras.
14. Most places aren't going to be willing to deal with that kind of price-hike unless they're seeing large returns.
15. Normal security cameras aren't neutralizer-proofed because it would cost too much.
(16. Some security cameras at very important locations may still be neutralizer-proofed because what they're watching is worth it.)

[HappyDaze]

Next you'll try telling me that the video sensors on drones are not cameras...

[HappyDaze]

How do you know that the :nuyen:400 camera and the :nuyen900 use the exact same type of sensor?

They don't have to be exact matches anymore than any two cameras have to use the exact match of sensors.

How do you know at which point the connection between the eyes and the brain is done?

The output feeds are interchangeble thus they both transmit image to electronic signal. It never says that the image becomes DNI without first becoming an electronic signal, and such a thing is never suggested.

Besides all this, just remember that:

Cybereyes are essentially trid cameras. Fully wireless-enabled, tricked-out, low-light, image-linked cameras -- but cameras nonetheless.

[Chibu]

I'm gonna have to agree that cybereyes are cameras. They have lenses, they have electronic parts that convert light into a digital signal. That's all there is to it. Sorry folks.

However, I also agree that a piece of cheap tech shouldn't be able to auto-blind folk. 'cause well, balance is all. That's a fine reason for me. I also see no reason why you can't use a cybereye as a camera. in a building other than "Why would you?".

Other than that, I don't feel like making up reasons.