Fred Bohl
Gold $$ Contributor
As an extension of the work done for the post, BEST spotting scope? started by Pat Graham,patgblue) and the fine article, Premium Spotting Scopes in Review Is Bigger Always Better? by Danny Reever, two inescapable conclusions could be drawn from all the testing. First, regardless of the optical quality or care in selection, at long range and/or high magnification the real on-range performance of spotting scopes winds up being limited by atmospheric effects. Second, there still remains a need to be able to see and analyze target bullet hole patterns at long range.
After consultation with persons more knowledgeable in applicable sciences, we are conducting experiments in two methods to overcome the “bad seeing†caused by atmospheric turbulence and poor air quality that tends to worsen as the day progresses. These methods are:
A – SOFTWARE ELEGANCE
The eyepiece of the spotting scope is replaced by a digital imaging sensor. A short video stream is taken. Using image processing software originally created for astronomic purposes, bad frames are discarded and the remaining frames are realigned to selected reference feature,s). The low quality frames are again discarded and the remaining frames are then stacked,added) to form a single frame of higher signal to noise ratio. This frame is then further filtered to increase contrast and sharpness.
PRO:
1. Produces a useful image in very bad seeing conditions.
2. Participating in the image processing enhances understanding of the interactive effects of wind and mirage,air turbulence).
3. Usable for each shooter properly equipped.
CON:
1. Image processing takes time,but not as long as a round trip to the target).
2. Lots of added equipment to haul to the shooting position.
COST:
1. All necessary equipment = $1200
2. Plus user supplied Laptop Computer
STATUS,as of 8/5/2007):
Trials continue in an effort to define a generally useful process/procedure in order to provide for more ease of use. It is also intended to provide guidance for more advanced techniques to handle the more extreme conditions.
B – BRUT FORCE HARDWARE
A package consisting of a video camera, transmitter and battery power pack is positioned at close range to the target. A receiver, LCD monitor and battery power pack is positioned at the firing position. This provides a continuous high resolution target image with almost no atmospheric effects.
PRO:
1. Produces a useful image in very bad seeing conditions.
2. Easy to use.
3. Minimal equipment at shooting position.
CON:
1. Limited to a very few simultaneous users on one firing line,limited number of non-interfering frequencies).
2. Some equipment must be taken to, set up and later retrieved from the target area.
3. The equipment down range may need some form of protection as it is in the potential field of fire. Note that the camera must have line of sight view of the target and the transmitter,near camera) and receiver,near shooting position) antennas must have line of site view of each other.
COST:
1. All necessary equipment = $1600
2. Plus user supplied Laptop Computer
STATUS,as of 8/5/2007) :
Trial completed. Borrowed equipment returned. We are researching alternate equipment to provide a cost effective multi-user solution.
After consultation with persons more knowledgeable in applicable sciences, we are conducting experiments in two methods to overcome the “bad seeing†caused by atmospheric turbulence and poor air quality that tends to worsen as the day progresses. These methods are:
A – SOFTWARE ELEGANCE
The eyepiece of the spotting scope is replaced by a digital imaging sensor. A short video stream is taken. Using image processing software originally created for astronomic purposes, bad frames are discarded and the remaining frames are realigned to selected reference feature,s). The low quality frames are again discarded and the remaining frames are then stacked,added) to form a single frame of higher signal to noise ratio. This frame is then further filtered to increase contrast and sharpness.
PRO:
1. Produces a useful image in very bad seeing conditions.
2. Participating in the image processing enhances understanding of the interactive effects of wind and mirage,air turbulence).
3. Usable for each shooter properly equipped.
CON:
1. Image processing takes time,but not as long as a round trip to the target).
2. Lots of added equipment to haul to the shooting position.
COST:
1. All necessary equipment = $1200
2. Plus user supplied Laptop Computer
STATUS,as of 8/5/2007):
Trials continue in an effort to define a generally useful process/procedure in order to provide for more ease of use. It is also intended to provide guidance for more advanced techniques to handle the more extreme conditions.
B – BRUT FORCE HARDWARE
A package consisting of a video camera, transmitter and battery power pack is positioned at close range to the target. A receiver, LCD monitor and battery power pack is positioned at the firing position. This provides a continuous high resolution target image with almost no atmospheric effects.
PRO:
1. Produces a useful image in very bad seeing conditions.
2. Easy to use.
3. Minimal equipment at shooting position.
CON:
1. Limited to a very few simultaneous users on one firing line,limited number of non-interfering frequencies).
2. Some equipment must be taken to, set up and later retrieved from the target area.
3. The equipment down range may need some form of protection as it is in the potential field of fire. Note that the camera must have line of sight view of the target and the transmitter,near camera) and receiver,near shooting position) antennas must have line of site view of each other.
COST:
1. All necessary equipment = $1600
2. Plus user supplied Laptop Computer
STATUS,as of 8/5/2007) :
Trial completed. Borrowed equipment returned. We are researching alternate equipment to provide a cost effective multi-user solution.