Digital Scope?

[Impureclient]

Does a digital rifle scope exist?

I was thinking about my 12X camera zoom and how it's really compact, clear and can really reach out pretty. On the digital camcorders
it goes even further, 1000X I've seen. The sensors are getting very accurate so much so that negative film is almost obsolete.
So if they don't, I can't find any, why doesnt a scope manufacturer or elctronic company make some crazy
powerful and clear digital scope. In cameras and camcorders it doesn't add a huge amount more to the price as zoom goes up so it must
be an inexpensive technology. The weight would be minimal so it could be so much smaller than an optical scope. My 32X on my gun weighs almost two pounds.

Now that I think about it why don't they just make a digital camera/camcorder that is in the slender tube shape of rifle scopes that we can just mount on the rifle?
That way you can watch a video or take pictures of your hunting/plinking/target practice.

 

[Zak Smith]

Delay, frame rate, brightness, cost, dynamic range.

 

[Jim Watson]

I'd say delay was the worst part. There is an appreciable delay from the time I press the shutter on my camera until the picture registers, up in the flintlock lock time range. Cheap flintlock.

Also consider recoil; my camera doesn't kick much.

But there IS a digital rifle scope. It does not have the range of performance you imagine, but they have put in what they thought would sell.

http://www.elcansportingoptics.com/

 

[Impureclient]

I tought about that. Delay would be so minimal it wouldn't seem to matter unless you are tracking something that's moving very quickly/running.
Frame rate, anything around 50 - 60fps should be fine. Brightness can be adjusted internal digitally same as a digital camera. Is the dynamic range
in digital not up to par yet with optical? It must be pretty close in higher end CMOS sensors. It's hard to tell the difference between larger pixel and
large format film any more. Cost can't be much more than a higher end pro-sumer digital camera. My Canon was only $500 and now goes for like $300
and it takes some accurate/clear pictures and movies. Even if all this wasn't 100% of what optical can be, maybe 90-95% and the fact you can capture
everything in pictures and film would be what makes it even. At least I would be in line for one.

Edit: Maybe I'm getting the dalay thing mixed up. I figure that when shooting it wouldn't matter as what you see is probably within hundredths/thousandths?
of a second of what is really happening. That's why I said the thing about the animal running. I wasn't talking about the delay in taking pictures. Even that
has came a long way. Pretty close to SLR speed.

 

[Impureclient]

Yikes! That scope link you put up is way out of line in pricing. I guess it will be that way until more better ones show up.
That looks like they put a crummy digital camera into a tube. I would trust Canon, Sony or some other company that makes these
all the time before I would put some start up that just packaged the idea first. The larger companies will come along and vastly
improve it for a fraction of that price. They probably go to Ebay and buy small cameras and put them into plastic tubes, slap a $1K+
sticker on it and call it a day. I would rather just duct tape my camera to my gun before I used that one. I think the only thing in
the way is the recoil but they are even making digital cameras that can be dropped now so I'm sure they have ideas on that.

 

[Zak Smith]

Delay would be so minimal it wouldn't seem to matter unless you are tracking something that's moving very quickly/running.

I think even a slighy delay would screw up hand-eye coordination. Other than from bags on a bench, there is always movement of the image in the scope due to shooter wobble, etc.

It's hard to tell the difference between larger pixel and
large format film any more.

Let's do a little math here. A S&B 3-12x50mm PMII has a field of view of 3.1m @ 100m @ 12x, or approx 107 MOA. Its reticle lines are approx 1/8 MOA wide. So at a minimum, you'd need 856x856 resolution (the reticle line would be 1 pixel wide). At 60 fps, that's 2/3 of the rate of full 1920x1080x30 fps HD video.

At 3x, it has a field of view of 3.3x larger, and would need a data rate over 7.5x that of full HD and approx 2800x2800 resolution of the sensor and LCD to replicate what you can see in the scope.


............... Larger version of above photo.

 

[Lucky]

 

[Impureclient]

Now you're getting complicated on me Zak. Throwing all those numbers this late is going to make my head before bed.

I don't know when I take pictures with my camera it pretty much captures exactly what I see when I press the button.
As far as seeing exactly what a optical scope can see that's why I was saying there would have to be some trade off
for right now. Now give this a few years and optical will be what Grandpa's talk about to their Grandchildren.

In a scratchey old man voice:
"Now when I was a boy your age little Johnny we used long tubes filled with glass to see long distances away and we used
combustion engines instead of your new fangled fision powered scooters."