Am I confusing terms here? Seems bizarre that Image Mag can fit in a cybereye AND is better than the foot long telephoto lens (for way cheaper, too)
Edit: Rewrote question to be more straightforward. Original post in spoiler below
[ Spoiler ]
Full Version: Clarifying Image Magnification
Does anyone know if Image Magnification's "up to 50 times" magnification is the same thing as the Arsenal's Telephoto lens with its 6 to 12 times magnification?
Am I confusing terms here? Seems bizarre that Image Mag can fit in a cybereye AND is better than the foot long telephoto lens (for way cheaper, too)
Edit: Rewrote question to be more straightforward. Original post in spoiler below
Am I confusing terms here? Seems bizarre that Image Mag can fit in a cybereye AND is better than the foot long telephoto lens (for way cheaper, too)
Edit: Rewrote question to be more straightforward. Original post in spoiler below
Isn't the telephoto lense for an actual film using camera as opposed to a digital device?
Edit - And the advantage of a film camera is that you can't edit the picture to anywhere near the same extent as you can the digital image. So the picture is more likely to be accepted as 'real'.
Edit - And the advantage of a film camera is that you can't edit the picture to anywhere near the same extent as you can the digital image. So the picture is more likely to be accepted as 'real'.
Professional cameras described in Arsenal are either digital or film, depending on your preference.
I'm sure there are plenty of ways to fake a film photo that aren't too much harder than 'shopping a digital one. Exposing the film to a doctored digital image via some mechanism would only cost a little more for the gear and know how, so film wouldn't be that much more useful for defending against evidence fabrication.
I'm sure there are plenty of ways to fake a film photo that aren't too much harder than 'shopping a digital one. Exposing the film to a doctored digital image via some mechanism would only cost a little more for the gear and know how, so film wouldn't be that much more useful for defending against evidence fabrication.
Well a digital image just requires a single rank in computer and a rating one edit program, plus a commlink to run it on (At the most basic level). It's something which anyone could quickly do and have the skills for.
Considering how rare film camera's are likely to be in the sixth world I very much doubt the equipment needed to fake pictures will be found outside of a specialist store. As things like the holoprojector (just as an example) give viewers a chance to tell the image isn't real I suspect getting high enough quality digital images projected on to the film would be very expensive, because you're going to need high end equipment to actually make it look real.
I'm not saying it's impossible though, given the technology level there are bound to be ways to fake film photographs.
Hmmm and if the Professional camera's also come in digital then I guess the only difference could be image quality? Which isn't really much of a concern for runners unless they're disguised as photographers or need extremely fine detail shots for the Johnson.
As for the Cybereyes being better quality that might not technically be the case, they could be using fairly mediocre picture quality and using the brains naturally ability to compensate to make it seem better than it really is.
But if not then honestly I can't see any point in the Professional camera entry. Short of some kind of expensive social engineering prop....
Considering how rare film camera's are likely to be in the sixth world I very much doubt the equipment needed to fake pictures will be found outside of a specialist store. As things like the holoprojector (just as an example) give viewers a chance to tell the image isn't real I suspect getting high enough quality digital images projected on to the film would be very expensive, because you're going to need high end equipment to actually make it look real.
I'm not saying it's impossible though, given the technology level there are bound to be ways to fake film photographs.
Hmmm and if the Professional camera's also come in digital then I guess the only difference could be image quality? Which isn't really much of a concern for runners unless they're disguised as photographers or need extremely fine detail shots for the Johnson.
As for the Cybereyes being better quality that might not technically be the case, they could be using fairly mediocre picture quality and using the brains naturally ability to compensate to make it seem better than it really is.
But if not then honestly I can't see any point in the Professional camera entry. Short of some kind of expensive social engineering prop....
QUOTE (Oenone @ Aug 31 2008, 05:40 AM) 
Well a digital image just requires a single rank in computer and a rating one edit program, plus a commlink to run it on (At the most basic level). It's something which anyone could quickly do and have the skills for.
And anyonr could immidetly tell that the picture has been tampered with, photoshopping takes skill.
Yeah, a Computer + Edit test with hits equal to the quality of the forgery (or if you want to use the hinky forgery rules, you could do that too). Plus a photo doctoring or forgery kit (500 nuyen). That's really all you would need.
But back to my question. No one knows what the BBB means when it says 50 times under the Image Magnification entry??? Is that the same thing as the Telephoto lens' 6 to 12 times magnification? Am I confusing terms here?
But back to my question. No one knows what the BBB means when it says 50 times under the Image Magnification entry??? Is that the same thing as the Telephoto lens' 6 to 12 times magnification? Am I confusing terms here?
QUOTE (Mäx @ Aug 31 2008, 07:48 AM)
And anyonr could immidetly tell that the picture has been tampered with, photoshopping takes skill.
That's beside the point, I was simply pointing out that a vastly increased number of people can actually attempt it. Not everyone will be great at it, but you're much more likely to find someone able to do a decent job compared with something very few people have any experience with.
Personally, I'd say film cameras are expensive because they're a dying format. Just like polaroids now. I had to take some polaroid shots to demonstrate an installation I made, and it cost me 50 bucks for 20 shots.
The same with many formats. VHS today, for example (although, everyone just wants to get rid of them, so not such a good analogue), I was going to pick upa super 8 video cam and projector at a market the other day for 15 bucks, but I would have to order the film from melbourne. fuck that.
The same with many formats. VHS today, for example (although, everyone just wants to get rid of them, so not such a good analogue), I was going to pick upa super 8 video cam and projector at a market the other day for 15 bucks, but I would have to order the film from melbourne. fuck that.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.