My Thoughts on "E-Target" conundrum

[alinwa]

My interest is Bench Rest (altho I may get talked into trying F Class)


Currently the discussion seems to center around paper VS electronic targeting. IMO there is also a third option, target cameras. I live on a range. I own two acoustic target setups and two camera setups. I see a problem, a situation and a possible solution as follows;


PROBLEM; I do not believe any acoustic system currently in use is accurate enough for BR

SITUATION; In shooting 8-10 NBRSA 600 BR Matches I've never seen anyone win other than morning relay. I, myself have done very well in EVERY morning relay I've drawn and NEVER placed when shooting afternoon relay. I welcome commentary here but I will take the stance that I, myself would MUCH RATHER everyone shoot together head-to-head.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION; Target cameras are cheap. In my discipline the solution seems just just butt simple, I already do it at home so I know it works. Use the cameras for sighters, cover them for record. (OK OK, I LIE...... no, I DO NOT "cover them for the record" at home.) But I sure could. And if I did the course of fire would be exactly like an NBRSA competition only better. I shoot 8-10-15 groups on a sheet of plywood depending on how much the wind is sucking that day....."having the room" simply IS NOT an issue because ALL YOU NEED is targets, you don't even need pits!


But help a brother from another mother out......


WHAT'S WRONG with my idea?


WHAT OBVIOUS THING AM I MISSING GUYS???



Let me repeat....... "cameras are cheap"........ I use wireless, because I like portability but in simple fact a guy can hire a contractor to come and plow in a conduit/cable/cat5/sleeve/fiber optic line.... FIFTY CABLES...... and buy 50 live feed monitors for less than the cost of ONE acoustic target! REALTIME feeds on REAL COPPER WIRES for a 50yr lifetime system......


WHAT


AM


I


MISSING???

 

[alinwa]

AND BTW...... I fully realize that nobody has enough benches for EVERYBODY to always shoot at once but IMO 10mn of swapping out targets while guys swap out benches is pretty easy to accommodate.....

Could certainly have everybody on the firing line at the same time..... and in that case being "second relay" could be a freaking BLESSING! I'd dearly LOVE to watch my competition shoot for 15min then take a 10min break and set down to fire for effect.....

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Im against them for br for the accuracy reason but would actually attend an f class match if i didnt have to pull targets. Theyre as accurate as a pit dweller i guess, but i still think their records should be a seperate class from pit pulled targets. I never get in on the discussions because i dont have a dog in the fight but would love to shoot on them sometime.

 

[alinwa]

OK OK OK LET ME BE CLEAR!!!!


I'm saying PAPER TARGETS.

Just use the cameras for sighting, monitoring, watching, getting on paper..... ie "the sighter period"

And have all the targets downrange and everybody shoots together. You can easily put out targets for everyone, easily split the shooters up so they're all shooting "the same match"

But you've only got to go down and collect the targets at the end of the day!

The problem is Dusty, the way long range is set up right now you've got two completely different sets of shooters shooting under completely different conditions. Might as well be comparing results of two matches on different days.

 

[alinwa]

I got my acoustic targets for ONE THING..... to prove that bullets don't "go to sleep" LOL

 

[alinwa]

And, of course another option available with cameras is....you can now shoot the match just like a short range match if you want to.....ie put up 2 targets and in 10 minutes you get to shoot all the sighters and record shots you can stand, howsomever you want.....

Biggest thing though is..... each set of shooters gets to shoot in the same time frame. You can run all the LG stuff through together and all the HG stuff together. In simple fact, everybody can shoot morning together, and afternoon together. IMO it really flattens the field. Frankly it sucks to think that you could have won the trigger pull but didn't get to shoot it. Cuz, pure-dee luck.

 

[memilanuk]

The problem with cameras, from an F-class/HP Rifle perspective:

One, having a system that can adequately cover the *entire* 6 foot by 6 foot target frame for mid and long range target faces.

Any number of cameras can do that, but doing it at the resolution necessary to accurately identify individual shot holes *anywhere* in that entire surface might not be "just butt simple".

Then add in the additional resolution to handle any shots touching another hole. How do you handle hole-in-hole shots?

Are you going to go down and change the target face each and every string?

Kind of defeats a large part of why ranges are going *to* e-targets - to *not* have warm bodies down range, and to *not* have to delay while someone drives down, changes *all* the target faces, and then drives back out.

I'm not saying that the first couple problems are insurmountable... just that they aren't quite as simple as they seem at first blush. In my mind there might be a possible solution in using a combination of optical and acoustic tech - use the acoustics to locate in a general way the shot location / determine that there should be a *new* hole in a given region, and the optics to refine the position data to the level people seem to want.

But then we get into the big bug-a-boo for HP/F-class: yeah, locating a shot hole on a blue/white BR target is one thing. Doing it on a black bull used for HP/F-class... way less easy, especially in sub optimal lighting conditions. Do you want to change the entire target, the entire sport, just for the sake of your optical target system? Part of the reason that *acoustic* target systems took root is that they don't care what the target face looks like - literally. I realize it's not something that BR guys are burdened with, but F-class is *part* of HP Rifle - same rule book, same basic target image...

 

[alinwa]

OK.... my idea is to incorporate one of the camera scoring systems already available. I'm not staying current but I think stuff like Orion and Elite, now that it's been in use for 10+ years MUST be worked out/proven?? These systems score just like the acoustic system but should be able to handle multiple targets per camera (my little setup easily resolves a 4X8 sheet of plywood which has room for an entire relay of 600yd BR targets) with the backup of paper which gets collected as needed. As per usual, the winners would have to be hand-measured and verified.

And potential records could be examined/verified. this is huge in BR. Basically, this is the game-changer for accuracy guys.


In my mind it looks like the speed/convenience of acoustic e-scoring with the backup proof of paper.

Basically hole-in-hole would be handled like it is now.... no advantage.

In the case of 600-1000yd BR

I see all three LG relays set up down range..... ONE setup. And no pits because you spot your own on camera.
Then, switch out and shoot all three HG targets


AND....... it's easy to set up more targets than there are benches so 30 people could shoot 15 benches without anyone ever leaving the shooting area.


BUT.... as I said, I'm not current on the camera tech, I just remember reading the literature and watching videos of how the camera program kept a running score just like acoustic's do now. I don't even know if a camera system can record and score a 4ftX6ft or 6ftX12ftbank of 3 targets if it can't..... then the only advantage would be instant feedback, eliminate the need for a pit crew.


And yes, I agree.... the black target thing is a problem. I have trouble seeing holes in the blue.

Whewww.... the idea looked good last nite when I was half asleep. But it's probably beyond current tech to expect camera resolution and scoring ability for 3 sets of targets at a time.

thanks for some clarity Monte!





oops, edited for spelling..... AND..... I do see what you're saying about hole-in-hole. When you have an on the ball spotter you do get the audible verification of shots fired kinda' like acoustic and WITH the visible impact to keep people from firing off paper on purpose.

I guess the spotter system does really cover some problem's I hadn't thought through well....

I guess I was just chafing about the widely spread relays more than anything. And I could fix that by concentrating on another playing field like short range BR.


I just absolutely KNOW from living on a range that you can't really "read" conditions at 600yds for BR accuracy. When it gets bumpy, YOUR GROUPS OPEN UP So I'm always looking for ways to let everybody compete in the same time frame.

I'll stop whining now

 

[AndyTaber]

I too have a target camera that i use for practice and load development. The problem i experienced is i couldn’t see bullet hits on a black target or thick scoring ring. I had to switch to using the light red/orange 300 yard benchrest score targets to see bullet hits.

And also as a benchrest shooter i would hate to make a close scoring call using a scope or a camera. They all look better from far away.

 

[memilanuk]

Don't get me wrong... I think it's absolutely 'possible' (other than maybe the black hole in black target face) just needs a nudge... and it's probably going to be expensive the first few iterations, like the Kongsberg e-targets that were $10k+ per firing point, then the Hexta at $6-7k, then SMT G2 @ $3k, then ShotMarker and Solo @ $800-900. It *could* be done... you just have to convince someone somewhere that the additional n% of resolution over the current gen of acoustic targets is worth the $$$. Computer vision technology is growing by leaps and bounds at this point in time... it's positively fascinating (and scary, in some instances) what it can do.

For our range over here, honestly, the push for e-targets was less about 'better accuracy' and more about 'better safety'. The pits had degraded over time, the target carriers were run down, and there was going to be an easy $100k (if not double that) in dirt work, concrete, etc. to make it 'right' again on the scale that it was. Or 4-5 e-targets, with nobody down range at all - not a very hard sell to the club board.

 

[alinwa]

Don't get me wrong... I think it's absolutely 'possible' (other than maybe the black hole in black target face) just needs a nudge... and it's probably going to be expensive the first few iterations, like the Kongsberg e-targets that were $10k+ per firing point, then the Hexta at $6-7k, then SMT G2 @ $3k, then ShotMarker and Solo @ $800-900. It *could* be done... you just have to convince someone somewhere that the additional n% of resolution over the current gen of acoustic targets is worth the $$$. Computer vision technology is growing by leaps and bounds at this point in time... it's positively fascinating (and scary, in some instances) what it can do.

For our range over here, honestly, the push for e-targets was less about 'better accuracy' and more about 'better safety'. The pits had degraded over time, the target carriers were run down, and there was going to be an easy $100k (if not double that) in dirt work, concrete, etc. to make it 'right' again on the scale that it was. Or 4-5 e-targets, with nobody down range at all - not a very hard sell to the club board.

Thank You Monte.... that's real-world.

ONLY problem involves us guys who like BR. e-targeting does not work for BR, period. I can't think of one BR guy who'd accept it. NOT because they've got problems with tech but because in BR that "plus/minus 1mm.....maybe....depends" factor is huge.

FACT is.... somebody beats Bart's 3/4 inch group with a group that's "5/8 but MIGHT BE 7/8 and MIGHT BE under 1/2" it ain't gonna' taste too good

So, maybe a couple hunner't guys on the planet it aint gonna' work for..... I'm putting my hopes in camera tech backed by paper proof!

LOL


al

 

[dcali]

I’ve always suspected that cameras could render acoustic targets obsolete. The ones i’ve seen do not have the required resolution to be truly foolproof. But I’m sure it could be done. The only downside is that you still need to change the the target face, but that’s got some upsides as well.

 

[GeoffR]

I’ve always suspected that cameras could render acoustic targets obsolete. The ones i’ve seen do not have the required resolution to be truly foolproof. But I’m sure it could be done. The only downside is that you still need to change the the target face, but that’s got some upsides as well.

A few years ago I was involved in a research project into a possible optical (camera) based ET system by a bunch of under-graduate students at the ANU (Australia National University) here in Canberra. We/they ran into a few problems - it is not as simple as one might think on a target the size we use in long range shooting.

Use of cameras was part of this research but on their own were not considered sufficient.

The main problem was to do with the detection of [new] holes in the target - holes that were basically coincidental with previous shots. The system relied on changes in the [digital] picture and therefore needed some kind of contrast between a new hole and previous holes.

We figured out a way to deal with this with some fancy back lighting technology (natural light not being suitable) and some image analysis techniques. But given that we figured that no-one would want to pay for this optical technology, we didn't take it any further. This attitude based largely on the fact that no-one wants to really pay much for acoustic technology (why would optical technology be any different)?

Would it be worth resurrecting this project? It could be done if there was sufficient interest - and some money I suppose. Anyone interested???

In my opinion optical sensing techniques (if they work) would be superior to acoustic techniques (that we currently use). I am not thinking about simply taking photographs. But one of the other considerations was (at that time when suitable optical sensors were somewhat expensive) was that should someone shoot a sensor (or camera) they would probably want to cry. But things are different now in regards to the costs of a lot of optical technology. But considerable R&D would nonetheless be required.

Again, would it be worth the effort?

Geoff.

 

[dcali]

A few years ago I was involved in a research project into a possible optical (camera) based ET system by a bunch of under-graduate students at the ANU (Australia National University) here in Canberra. We/they ran into a few problems - it is not as simple as one might think on a target the size we use in long range shooting.

Use of cameras was part of this research but on their own were not considered sufficient.

The main problem was to do with the detection of [new] holes in the target - holes that were basically coincidental with previous shots. The system relied on changes in the [digital] picture and therefore needed some kind of contrast between a new hole and previous holes.

We figured out a way to deal with this with some fancy back lighting technology (natural light not being suitable) and some image analysis techniques. But given that we figured that no-one would want to pay for this optical technology, we didn't take it any further. This attitude based largely on the fact that no-one wants to really pay much for acoustic technology (why would optical technology be any different)?

Would it be worth resurrecting this project? It could be done if there was sufficient interest - and some money I suppose. Anyone interested???

In my opinion optical sensing techniques (if they work) would be superior to acoustic techniques (that we currently use). I am not thinking about simply taking photographs. But one of the other considerations was (at that time when suitable optical sensors were somewhat expensive) was that should someone shoot a sensor (or camera) they would probably want to cry. But things are different now in regards to the costs of a lot of optical technology. But considerable R&D would nonetheless be required.

Again, would it be worth the effort?

Geoff.

I'm the wrong one to ask, because I'm fine with paper, but I would much prefer an optical/paper combination to acoustic targets. You get the benefit of a paper target as backup and for closer examination of winners, and for people to take home if they happen to shoot a really great relay.

I assume that given an image of sufficient resolution, perhaps combined with microphones to detect shots and some computer vision software, it could be done. That's not to say it's easy, as you mention. There are still challenges. But as cameras come down in price and computer vision libraries increase in capability, there might be a time soon when it would work and be cost effective. At some point, yes, I think it's worth the effort. I'm not familiar enough with the state of the technology to say how much effort that would be.

 

[jonkeil243]

Not to derail. But I am thinking out of the box. I work in medical imaging field. Specifically MRI. We deal in a matrix. Very basically a digital image is made of a voxel , data info is height,width and depth. Routine we work with sub millimeter voxel sizes. You would only need 2 dimensions to locate something in space. Why could a target system be used using a similar matrix designed using IR laser/rf/ or some other energy source maybe radiation and detectors be designed to sense bullets?
When I was a facility director, Digital mammography was just coming into play over screen film mammography. The resolution was night and day different.Things were seen that had not been seen before or missed. The digital detectors were that much better.
All the detectors I know of in the MRI.CT.X ray can operate extremely fast in the millisecond range. Mri uses a radio receiver, CT/Xray use radiation detectors. But basically the technology exists maybe it can be modded for this purpose and Maybe the answer is in that area of technology.
Just a thought

 

[dcali]

Not to derail. But I am thinking out of the box. I work in medical imaging field. Specifically MRI. We deal in a matrix. Very basically a digital image is made of a voxel , data info is height,width and depth. Routine we work with sub millimeter voxel sizes. You would only need 2 dimensions to locate something in space. Why could a target system be used using a similar matrix designed using IR laser/rf/ or some other energy source maybe radiation and detectors be designed to sense bullets?
When I was a facility director, Digital mammography was just coming into play over screen film mammography. The resolution was night and day different.Things were seen that had not been seen before or missed. The digital detectors were that much better.
All the detectors I know of in the MRI.CT.X ray can operate extremely fast in the millisecond range. Mri uses a radio receiver, CT/Xray use radiation detectors. But basically the technology exists maybe it can be modded for this purpose and Maybe the answer is in that area of technology.
Just a thought

I’m sure it *could* be done (maybe) but that sounds extremely expensive. The typical sensors that are integrated into all manner of electronics are pretty cheap and no where near capable of picking up a bullet in flight. A millisecond is a long time.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Not to derail. But I am thinking out of the box. I work in medical imaging field. Specifically MRI. We deal in a matrix. Very basically a digital image is made of a voxel , data info is height,width and depth. Routine we work with sub millimeter voxel sizes. You would only need 2 dimensions to locate something in space. Why could a target system be used using a similar matrix designed using IR laser/rf/ or some other energy source maybe radiation and detectors be designed to sense bullets?
When I was a facility director, Digital mammography was just coming into play over screen film mammography. The resolution was night and day different.Things were seen that had not been seen before or missed. The digital detectors were that much better.
All the detectors I know of in the MRI.CT.X ray can operate extremely fast in the millisecond range. Mri uses a radio receiver, CT/Xray use radiation detectors. But basically the technology exists maybe it can be modded for this purpose and Maybe the answer is in that area of technology.
Just a thought

Will it come with a portable nuclear reactor to provide the power?

 

[Delfuego]

a guy can hire a contractor to come and plow in a conduit/cable/cat5/sleeve/fiber optic line.... FIFTY CABLES...... and buy 50 live feed monitors for less than the cost of ONE acoustic target! REALTIME feeds on REAL COPPER WIRES for a 50yr lifetime system.....

One fiber optic cable would be able to push video for 50 cameras, run 2 for expandability and redundancy

 

[alinwa]

I’m sure it *could* be done (maybe) but that sounds extremely expensive. The typical sensors that are integrated into all manner of electronics are pretty cheap and no where near capable of picking up a bullet in flight. A millisecond is a long time.

In my idea, all the camera need do is record the bullet hole and take it's readings from it....... not from the bullet in flight

That said, a single camera pickup triggered by bullet glint only could establish a reference from ONE LOCATION better than current acoustic tech. With proper lighting and angle.