imaging sensors as aiming devices?

[westernrover]

The telescope was first used for observing.
Sometime during the 20th century, it became popular as a gun sight for hunting.
Optical sights have become widely adopted by militaries.
Observing is done increasingly through digital imaging sensors. In astronomy they are nearly ubiquitous.
Will imaging sensors catch-on for gun sights?

What I'm imagining is a sensor (digital camera) integrated into an optical sight that doesn't even have an ocular. It would not need to be mounted in a position accessible to the eye so long as it is somehow aligned to the bore. Because a very high resolution sensor can be much smaller than the pupil, it could use relatively tiny lenses (like the size of smartphone lenses). It would be compact in length also because the necessary focal lengths for a small sensor are much shorter.

Traditionally, we needed things like 50mm objectives to provide a large enough "exit pupil" at higher magnifications for the human pupil, and to gather enough light in low light for a bright image. With a 50mm objective, to achieve a modest magnification took a considerable focal length. An imaging sensor could be filled with light from a much smaller objective lens which would consequently require a shorter focal length all for the same magnification of a much larger and longer system designed for the human eye. The sensor's data could be amplified or data gathered over a longer time could be "stacked" with over-exposed areas (blown-out highlights) controlled by an algorithm (similar to HDR) to produce bright images from extremely low light in spite of a tiny objective lens.

I know we already have optics with cameras -- I see the videos people produce from their gun's optics, and today's thermal scopes are essentially tv screens in the ocular. What I'm imagining is that if things continue the way they're going, this might evolve to become the most common way of aiming.

The operator would "aim" through their view on a screen -- their smartphone display, or some kind of VR/AR headset (which have been described as a smartphone strapped to your face). Yes, Microsoft's military Hololens goggles come to mind. Might this appeal to those who don't just want to shoot or hunt, but want to "share" their exploits on social-media? I suppose their view could also be augmented -- with IR, thermal, range, wind, and other data in real time. Would it radically change long-gun and even handgun ergonomics?

 

[tarosean]

A company called TrackingPoint did this year's ago. They sold a complete kit for civilians probably about 5-10yrs ago.. (no idea if they still do)
A local forum member had one at a range day. I didn't care for it at all. I am so used to good glass that looking at a video in a large scope was odd. Not sure if I could rewire my brain for it.

 

[westernrover]

I figure some people will balk at the idea of a crazy electro-optical contraption on their gun, from which they've come to admire a certain aesthetic. They'd also balk at wearing a bulky headset with their face covered by a tv screen.

Imagine though, a traditional rifle like a Trapdoor Springfield or a Colt SAA without a bulky optic on it at all -- as it should be. Instead, there is a tiny sensor on the front sight post. The shooter wears sunglasses or clear safety glasses (as they probably ought to). On the backside of their glasses, however, they see image data from the front sight sensor. They can make those hip-shots with their Colt with the same kind of accuracy as in the movies -- cutting the hangman's rope -- because they can actually see the gun sights, that is the exact point of aim, even when shooting from the hip.

 

[illinoisburt]

Been common for a long time in the form of night vision optics. The new digital IR and thermal "scopes" are camera/sensors with small screens which are viewed by the shooter. The digital technology is evolving rapidly and costs are coming down. I suspect they will become very common in the next decade.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

One of these should do?
Wraith HD 4-32x50 Digital Riflescope – Sightmark.com

 

[westernrover]

Well, yes and no. Of course we're aware of the digital imaging devices for rifles on the market already. That step taken already prompts us to ask "what if things continue this way?" A lot of the digital sighting devices we have now are "hybrid" in the sense they use digital technology to emulate traditional optics but 'better.' For example, they still mount in a position to be "looked through." They still provide a display inside an ocular. But that could be done away with because the same image data could be piped to any display, anywhere. It could change the very way we hold guns (and in some cases whether we hold them at all) because we mostly hold guns in a way that facilitates looking down the barrel. If the sensor is pointed down the barrel (or at the front of it so that the barrel doesn't obstruct the view), the image could be displayed anywhere we want. We can completely disconnect sighting from the way we hold guns. I don't think we've explored what this means very much yet.

 

[westernrover]

We've all seen "first person shooter" games. That is shooter games where the perspective is in first person. We should be just as familiar with 3rd person shooter games that date back at least as far as "Asteroids." People have been experimenting with living in 3rd person perspective:



One guy tried driving a car in third person -- using the perspective from a camera mounted on a pole above the trunk.



Shooting a hand-held gun this way would be just as awkward as living or driving in 3rd person.
Flip the perspective around -- so that you are in 1st person perspective relative to the gun, and now shooting is as easy as playing a video game, even if you don't hold the gun.

 

[illinoisburt]

Technically speaking I can connect my smartphone to my digital rifle scope via Bluetooth or wifi right now and watch it livestream so it shouldn't be a huge step to enable an app on a goggle or similar device to overlay the imaging. There are real world uses for this technology like firing around corners or /over/under cover. I do agree the cameras a could made very small and compact, likely not much bigger than the power sources. If anything it likely does already exist somewhere even if not readily available for our consumer market.

 

[230RN]

Sorta related to not holding the gun based on see-through sights.

I've got lasers on all my carry guns and have developed the technique of holding my J-frame in one hand rigidly at about the bottom of my rib cage and waiting for the dot to just about cross the target, then pulling the DAO trigger so the gun goes off just as the dot hits the center of the target. Pretty good results at 7-15 yards, which is mostly where I practice.

If you're going to try this at the range, make sure your targets are hung lower than usual since with the gun that low, your bullets will be traveling more upward than straight out and might hit the ceiling or go over the berm.

You might also have some explaining to do to the RO since it looks for all the world like you'te carelessly shooting from the hip.

More lore: Dark backstops make the red laser dot disappear and you may think the laser isn't working. Don't point the gun at your hand to see if it's working. (A party --not myself -- did this and shot through his hand. He was brave enough to describe the event for the benefit of all humanity, despite his admitted stupidity.)

I'm a big believer in laser dot sights despite their limitations.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Mk-211]

There used to be a company that had a scope that had a laser rangefinder/aiming point system all built in.

Can't remember the name of the company or if they're still in business. This was back a few years ago and from their videos, looked like a good system.

 

[The Glockodile]

I imagine a monocle setup a la what the AH-64 uses.

 

[shoobe01]

I mean, are you aware of the ENVG and FWS?

The Family of Weapon Sights — Individual (FWS-I) mounts to the M4 Carbine and M249 Squad Automatic Weapon and provides the Soldier with infrared (thermal) imagery in all weather conditions, under all lighting conditions and through obscurants.
...
FWS-I’s thermal sensor gives Soldiers the ability to see through fog, dust and smoke, giving an advantage both day and night. Additionally, FWS-I wirelessly transmits the weapon sight crosshair and thermal imagery to the Enhanced Night Vision Goggle (ENVG) III and ENVG-Binocular, providing a Rapid Target Acquisition (RTA) capability. RTA enables Soldiers to detect, recognize and engage targets accurately from any carry position and with significantly reduced exposure to enemy fire.​

This is fielded. Improved each generation every 18 months or so, but fielded stuff. Some US soldiers can aim their gun around the corner and see it in the eyepiece of their multispectral binoculars. Other (western) armies have similar programs, UK and France at least have a few connected setups like this around also.



No, you can't just make lenses smaller for free. There are only so many photon, so if you want to see well, far away, at night, etc you need big lenses. Note how your mobile camera sees poorly in the dark compared to a DSLR? If you think your newest phone takes photos in the dark well, look closer at what is happening: it takes a bunch of pictures and figures out what is going on. That is WAY too slow a process for live viewing.

Also see the size of thermal lenses. Thermal imagers have always been digital and when we got to microbolometers and away from mechanical scanning, they are unequivocally microchip sensors, and pretty small. Still, you see biggish lenses and bigger the farther or higher res at that distance you want to look. Same core is in MANY products which vary the optical packaging a lot.

 

[westernrover]

Some applications are more demanding than others. Those cheapo consumer digital scopes that were linked farther above wouldn't be acceptable for a military unit with a bigger budget, but the cutting edge stuff is too expensive and often too complex or bulky for civilian consumers that aren't crewed. Is multiple-image processing too slow for hunting? What does it take? 1/30 s or even 1/8 second? Agree that's too slow for the battlefield, but consumers might accept a lot less for tech that is enabling even if it isn't suitable for critical applications. When cell phones came out, the call quality was awful compared to land lines, but consumers gladly suffered. When consumer digital cameras came out, the quality sucked compared to film, but consumers switched even while most pro's waited many more years before seriously considering. Consumers again accepted crappier cameras built into their phones and consumer digital camera sales plummeted even though those cameras were substantially better and had especially better optics. We could say the same thing about video. Low budget movie-makers adopted video early on, way before major studios considered going digital. Likewise, consumers stopped buying camcorders even though the video they produced was far better than what their smartphone was capable of. Of course there are still high-end wired telepresence devices, professional digital cameras and digital video cameras, but they cost tens of thousands of dollars and most consumers don't even consider buying them unless they're in a related profession.

 

[denton]

IIRC, such a thing has been developed and is used by the military.

You can build all the electronics in something that looks like a conventional rifle scope.

The front objective would have to be pretty decent sized, if you want sharp imaging. The resolution of small lenses is limited by diffraction, and there is no getting around that.

Behind the objective lens, you'd need something on the order of an 8K image sensor. You could put a little pop-up sensor on top to read the wind, and a rangefinder circuit sharing the front objective. Those could feed data to a small processor which would then supply range and windage corrected crosshairs. You could even shift sensitivity into the near infra-red (heat sensing is at far infrared). That would do a lot to clear up fog or haze. Finally the image gets painted on a small high resolution screen, and magnified by something like a conventional ocular lens.

It's all technically feasible. There would be no parallax, and you wouldn't have to do any windage or range adjustments. But I don't think you would like the price tag. Fun to blue sky, though.

 

[Mk-211]

I knew I would find this, here's the system that I mentioned.

https://talonprecisionoptics.com/technology/how-it-works/

 

[DoubleMag]

I back the Toyota HIghLander by the dash cam does that qualify

 

[tarosean]

Is multiple-image processing too slow for hunting? What does it take? 1/30 s or even 1/8 second? Agree that's too slow for the battlefield, but consumers might accept a lot less for tech that is enabling even if it isn't suitable for critical

Game laws are going to be the issue.

 

[hk940]

There used to be a company that had a scope that had a laser rangefinder/aiming point system all built in.

Can't remember the name of the company or if they're still in business. This was back a few years ago and from their videos, looked like a good system.

I watched a video a few years back Called "Heilohogging" It was about shooting wild hogs from a helicopter in TX.
The shooter was holding his AR by his lap and getting a real high kill rate. I never saw the shooters face to see if he was wearing some type of tv display, bur he was nor sighting thru a scope. The video lasted about 20 minutes and about 75% kill rate.
I will try to locate the video and post it.
I got the video but it is too large to upload. Try searching you tube for Heli Hoggin Texas Style.
It was from 2018 so it might be gone by now.
I just watched some of it and there is some type of camera mounter to the AR.

 

[jmorris]

What I'm imagining is a sensor (digital camera) integrated into an optical sight that doesn't even have an ocular.

I don’t really understand the optical sight that doesn’t even have an ocular.

I have used red dot sights that are occluded like the one on the Glock below.



IIRC it’s an Armson OEG. Your dominant eye can only see the dot, your other eye only sees the target, your brain puts the two together.

If you only have one eye you have to pick which one you want to see and move your head, making it useless as a “sight”.

Some of the stuff above is just putting a camera behind an optic and viewing the transmitted image on a screen. That’s not really ground breaking, you can do that at home.

 

[Nuclear]

You wouldn’t have to have one single, large video camera and lense. You could use an array of small video cameras & lenses, and using software, “stitch” the images together, creating a virtual lense size the distance between the farthest individual lenses.

 

[Mk-211]

From the link I posted above.