"In 2006, everything you know about rifle scopes will be Eclipsed"

[hksw]

Now, if you take a look at the shiny part of the bolt between the rings, about 80% appears white, as if reflecting light. To the right upper portion, there is an strange shaped dark area that would appear to be reflecting something dark, such as part of the underside of the scope. If you blow up those dark areas, you will see that they are irregularly pixellated. On the top image with the one-piece mounts, the irregularly shaded area appears to be shaded as a result of using the rubber stamp tool in Photoshop and the person copied over the same spot more than once, resulting in the almost parallel striatations.

The images may be of real items, but they have been doctored.

Clearly, the gun is a Browning A-Bolt which has a faceted bolt body. The dark images on the bolt is merely the reflection of the scope turret.

Does anyone else notice those bumps around the edges of the lense?

I think someone already addressed this. They are the anchoring points for the lenses.

IMO, I think the photos of the Leupold VX-L scope are real and untouched. (Here and on other boards.) Not liking or hating the new look but will have to just see how well it performs.

 

[strambo]

Of course it is over-hyped, that's just marketing. It seems like an idea worth bringing to the market though. A serious increase in objective lens without mounting issues. The lack of scope covers will be a real problem though. Time will tell if it is successful.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Clearly, the gun is a Browning A-Bolt which has a faceted bolt body. The dark images on the bolt is merely the reflection of the scope turret.

It may be a Browning A-Bolt. On that, I have no idea. However, I take it that you don't do much in Photoshop. The turret reflections are modified if not fully created and the top one is not well done. If the reflections are actually reflections of the turret, they seem terribly out of focus for what looks like such a smooth bolt body surface. It might be suggested that the image isn't well focussed because of the additional distance the reflected image travels to the camera. It looks like the image reflected travels about 1-1.5 inches further than where it is reflected on the bolt. However, there are other objects in the image that are at least that much further from the camera and are still in pretty good focus.

Also, since the turrets are in the same rotated position in each image, it is interesting to note that the supposed turret reflections are different between the two images.

As for the Eclipse scope, like I said, I didn't see anything strange in the image to indicate doctoring. Had they doctored it, I would have thought they would have at least removed the dust specs and spots on the front objective. I thought the presence of the dust and other spots sort of detracted from the scope, being something of a reminder that the front objective isn't going to be able to be protecting by regular round lens caps. So, I photoshopped the image to look a little better.

Here is my doctored version of the scope. I am not terribly skilled at graphic editing, can do a few simple tasks. Good image manipulation should be hard to detect if it can be detected through general observation. I have made several changes to the image, mostly in the area of the front objective. I have tried to remove much of the dust from the housing and from the lens. I removed the ugly key cutout from the housing, removed a couple of scratched, and removed the apparent fingerprint dust smudge off the housing as well. The final result is a seemingly cleaner image, sort of like when models are airbrushed before their images put into magazines.

 

[Freelance Tax Collector]

Whose the fella in the background? You can see his knuckles. I don't think a professional photo would have some guy in the background.

Maybe Im just refusing to see the truth.

 

[hksw]

It may be a Browning A-Bolt. On that, I have no idea. However, I take it that you don't do much in Photoshop. The turret reflections are modified if not fully created and the top one is not well done. If the reflections are actually reflections of the turret, they seem terribly out of focus for what looks like such a smooth bolt body surface. It might be suggested that the image isn't well focussed because of the additional distance the reflected image travels to the camera. It looks like the image reflected travels about 1-1.5 inches further than where it is reflected on the bolt. However, there are other objects in the image that are at least that much further from the camera and are still in pretty good focus.

Also, since the turrets are in the same rotated position in each image, it is interesting to note that the supposed turret reflections are different between the two images.

Right. I gotcha. It would be too much trouble to re-mount the same scope on the same gun with different bases using slightly different settings when chopping is much easier. (sarcasm)

 

[1911 guy]

It's real

Saw them pictured for sale in new edition of Gun Lists.

 

[Zak Smith]

A guy from Leupold has posted on the AR15.com thread, so it looks like it's legit.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=5&t=190963

 

[steveracer]

This isn't in question!

Are you guys all that stubborn? GO TO GUNBLAST.COM!
I'ts been tested, and there is no reason to P-shop this thing.
Jeez, you'd think it was a UFO sighting! We have all seen far crazier design ideas that were real, and sold well. I think some people are all too ready to toss up the BS flag around here.