video camera for target shooting?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apparently so. Point?

If your point is that the who mess would be maybe needlessly complex, then YEP.

The point is that there are unlikely to be enough available frequencies to make a mess like that work.
 
That's how indoor Olympic shooting is handled. In Australia(?) the indoor pistol events had video cameras aimed at the targets. There was immediate feedback for the audience with every shot.
 
The current electronic scoring targets use accoustics to pinpoint the shot on the target nowadays similar to this one by Kongsberg. No cameras are used at the serious venues, just an electronic bullseye that shows where the holes are produced. I was at Camp Perry last week and the new air rifle/pistol range has a very nice electronic set-up.
 
i contacted the manufacturer of the camera i was looking at and they said the optimum range is 100ft.

definitly not enough. i was hoping for a range of at least 200yds.

looks like i will go for better optics for now.

happy
 
Humm...

To be precise I had never thought of that, I have a 45X BSA spotting scope that is not as good as I would like, and it glitches at full zoom. :cuss:

On the other hand I have a good Digital 8 with a 450X digitally stabilized zoom, that at 200 yards I should be able to tell just how ragged the hole in the paper is. :rolleyes:

Good idea think I'll try it.:D
 
As noted above, what you really want is optical zoom. Digital zoom for very distant small objects is not very good. My bet is that the 200 yd target itself will look like a big black blur. If you can still see targets and holes with the 45X BSA, your best bet would be to use that and rig your camcorder to look into the eye piece without any zoom and use its screen as your viewer.

Try both and post your results.
 
are you saying to use 2 tripods: one for the camera and one just in front of it for the spotting scope, two separate items placed close together?

i currently use a 90x spotting scope and i can see .30 holes at 300yds on white paper if the wind is not blowing. it doesn't need to be blowing very much to move the scope set at 90x.


happy
 
A few optics/camera manufacturers make adaptors that clamp onto your scope and attaches to the camera/camcorder at its usual mounting point and be allowed to position in such a way to have the camera/camcorder lens right at the ocular of the scope. Like this UA-1 unit from Pentax (which is what I have), http://www.precision-camera.com/product/88041. There are others plus there are clamps that can be attached to the tripod spindle that you can do thae same with.
 
hksw said:
As noted above, what you really want is optical zoom. Digital zoom for very distant small objects is not very good. My bet is that the 200 yd target itself will look like a big black blur. If you can still see targets and holes with the 45X BSA, your best bet would be to use that and rig your camcorder to look into the eye piece without any zoom and use its screen as your viewer.

Try both and post your results.

Not at that short of a range, the camera already has a 50X optical, and the pixel density is sufficient that you do not start to see pixelization until close to 300X it all boils down to camera quality.
 
At 50X optical, it should be doable. However, if you've ever compared a camcorder's optical zoom to that of a scope's, it isn't quite the same, scopes win hands down. Personally, though, I'm not all that confident about the digital. But, give it a shot and post your results.
 
my uncle uses a wireless video camera of some sort at 1000 and 1300 yards.

The camera itself is mounted a little ways to the side of the target, and infront of it, with target in focus. Has a TV that displays what's on the camera on the bench next to his shooting area so he can look over and see where the impact was.
 
This is an interesting concept - you're basically talking about a live, real-time video, like a closed circuit system, so you can see on a monitor where you're hitting on a target, right? Fire a few, see where they're hitting, adjust your sights, repeat. I like this idea!

I was just recording my shooting with a video camera, and reviewing it later.
 
I just talked to one of my security guys.
A decent 2 or 5 GHz video links start at around $500.
Better units have regular antenna ports so you can easily use a better antenna to make even a low power unit have enough range.
 
Jim,
Did you look at the link that MrKubota posted? That's what we were using out in the desert and it worked great at 1000 yards.
 
Not a camera but very cool

Take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eDmP4JS7c

and this one gives you a idea how it works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fSc9M6pVdM

OK, it's not a camera but a workable idea

-----------------
I thought of a system that would place a Ethernet camera downrange close to the target (don't need a high res. camera then) and using wireless ethernet get the signal back to the line to your laptop. Getting a 2.5GHz signal a 1000yd should not be hard using small beam antennas at both ends. The picture could be displayed on a laptop and if you had the programing ability the laptop could do automatic scoring.

just an idea.
 
That's pretty cool! Looks kinda 'spensive though. That first guy was a helluva shot, three rounds touching at that distance? Not in my lifetime.
 
I think a web cam, on a short post/tripod, just a couple feet in front of the target, but low so it's safely out of the way, but angled up wouldnt work pretty well. Eliminates the need fro something with clear, high zoom ability like you'd need to set the camer on the bench by you not the target.Also, you could eliminate the transmission problems mentioned by using a standard corded cam, just make your cord longer, which should be simple, and connect it to a cheap laptop at your bench.

I suppose YOU could still screw up and shoot it, but worrying about random idiots hitting it isnt an issue if you have your own backyard range, or shoot out in BFE at a place that no one else goes to like me (just dont invite idiots to go shooting with you :D). For a public range, you are just out of luck, or will have to take your chances, but with it close to the ground, and right in front of YOUR target, I'd think the chances of someone shooting it is slim (if not, you REALLY need to find a better range to go to :D).

I may actually give this a shot, as I just aquired an old, cheap, but 100% functional laptop for free, and have been needing a use for it, and webcams can be had pretty cheap now. I'm confident I can splice and extend the wires long enough for a couple hundred yards, which is all I shoot anyways. Interesting idea I think, as glancing over at a laptop screen would be eaiser and require less movement than using my spotting scope, plus, you can capture and save the final target image to save for referance for load testing data, (or bragging rights :D).

If I get something put together that works, I'll post the setup and results for those interested. May not be an ideal setup for every range/scenario, but could be useful for many people still.

Now I just needto get a job offer and make some money to afford the webcam, and the gas and ammo to actually go shooting.:(
Man, layoffs stink, especially when there 1200 people layed of with you, all looking for jobs in a city of only 150,000 and state of only 3mil. Kinda flods the market.Oh well, there are a couple other states I'm willing to live in....
If anyone here works for Northrop Grumman in Yuma,AZ tell them to hurry up with my resume and hire me.:D
 
50 Shooter,

Mrkubota's link comes up to a "babycam" catalog.
Troubling thing, the heading says "2 mile" the spec page says of the camera-transmitter
"Directional antenna transmits up to 300 feet"
and
"Requires an Amateur Radio License"
which is not a huge problem, the landowner I shoot with has one.

The receiver is listed at 2 miles, which might not be much help if the transmitter plays out at 300 feet.

But if a 360 line camera will resolve bullet holes from a few yards away, I could probably get stuff out of a catalog.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top