Electronic Target Scoring Project

S

Sighters

New member
We are busy with a project to try and have the targets electronically scored. For this purpose we had these colored targets printed. Attached are some targets (reduced quality) that we shot recently. The actual scanned target is about 15 megs big and takes about 40 seconds to scan and 2 seconds to be scored.

The biggest problem was to get the different pellet diameters and velocities to make properly punched holes. Round nose pellets are not good at this. We are planning to compare score of the manual and scanned targets in the next week or so.



I will keep you guys posted.

Gert van Wyk
 

Attachments

  • HV.jpg
    HV.jpg
    91.6 KB · Views: 345
  • Sporter.jpg
    Sporter.jpg
    92.6 KB · Views: 596
  • LV.jpg
    LV.jpg
    91.6 KB · Views: 1,062
How's the electronic scoring coming along? I've been corresponding with OnTarget here in the US... he does target scoring for ARA and PSL over here. Seems like colored targets are better for the scanning software and provide a reference. Cool project! Even better if it can work OK with a commodity 11x17 USB printer.

-Casey
 
Casey,
Thanks for asking. I was starting to think that it's only in South Africa that competitors are at times very unhappy with the scorekeepers. We took about sixty targets, shot for three classes, and scanned them to compare with the manual process.

The computer program did an excellent job in determining the scores. It definitely did better than the manual scoring. I plugged all the "too close to call" shots to compare with the electronic scores. The algorithm that determine the closeness of the hole to the outer edge of the ring gives the same results every time you ran the program.

The 25 meter target program needs a bit of refinement with respect to the user interface. This should be completed in the next 2 weeks. The 50 meter RF target is up next and we plan to do the comparison tests after a competition scheduled for 22 October.

I need to make some observations. Manual scoring is not easy and is a thankless task at best. Scoring is mostly done under pressure and after a full day of it there will be mistakes. In many cases the scorer is also a competitor so by default his/her results will be questioned. Then the question of interpretation, different people will at times call a shot differently. Nothing we can do about it.

James Mitchell is the person responsible for this effort to introduce electronic scoring to our sport. A full time computer expert who is also a world class rifle stock maker.

Gert
 
Thank you very much James and associates for your effort in not only recognizing a problem but setting out to refine it. Our sport shall be indebted to you.. Your insight and work to eliminate a constant area of debate and concern is a giant step in the right direction.

We applaud you!

Frank
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll be interested in seeing the progress on the software

It would be great if it was something we could leverage world-wide to help score targets whether in practice at the range by yourself, at a club or informal match or at a competition. In the research I've done, scanning and scoring the targets is the accepted method for a number of competitions but the software has to be adapted to the particulars of a given target and match format.

If you can post any information as to the specs of the scanner being used that would be great.

I looks forward to hearing more!

-Casey
 
Gert as disusses this is the way of the future there is no doubt, you will need though to sort it on round pelletes as most of the winners at the world champs used round dome not flat pellets.
 
I will get some screen prints that show how the program looks at the targets. The A3 flat bed scanners are extremely expensive - Canon, Epson and the like - We are using a Brother LC1100HY A3 mixer, shredder liquidizer which does everything and costs about $300. As I have said previously it scans a target in about 40 seconds (300x300dpi setting) which may seem long but this Brother is a fraction of the costs of the others. The paper being 200 grams/sq.meter, one cannot use the document feeder so each targets is manually placed on the glass.

In all our tests we used only normal round nose pellets, 4.5 to 5.5 mm in all the allowed fpe settings up to 30 fpe.

I have attached a copy of the Excel spreadsheet that the program kicks out.


Gert
 

Attachments

  • Preview of “PCP HV25m-1.xls”.pdf
    34.7 KB · Views: 291
Last edited:
Looks great!

This was the scanner I was thinking about - about the lowest cost 11"x17" / A3 scanner I could readily find:

http://www.amazon.com/Mustek-Express-A3-USB-Scanner/dp/B000WKSZ5A

Did the color targets present any issues for the shooters? If it enabled automated scoring do you think the governing body would adopt such a target? Doesn't seem like it would be any tougher to score manually if need be.

Casey
 
Casey,
The WRABF will have to decide. We discussed the color issue at Summerville. We shot an open championship recently with the new targets and nobody had any problems seeing the rings. On the RF 50 m target we are going to have everything dark blue except the borders which will be red. I don't think humans can distinguish dark blue from black lines at 50 meters. Even with a x50 scope.

We are of the opinion that normal black targets will not work. It was our first attempt to use the current target but no luck, just too much black to read and interpret. Send me a pm and email address and I will mail you the file to print some targets and try them.

The Mustek scanner look great.


Example 2 of Scored Image. Sorry for the quality but the attachment size gets reduced in the process of posting it so lots of detail is lost.

Gert
 

Attachments

  • Sheet118Target14.jpg
    Sheet118Target14.jpg
    37 KB · Views: 268
Last edited:
Gert,

Thanks so much for all the effort you're making on this. It will really help the sport in the future. It sounds like a whole lot of bugs have been worked out with a few more to overcome. But if a club only has to put out a few hundred bucks to have all the scoring done.. and totally impartially, as well, then it seems like a very doable solution to an old problem. Technology is changing so fast, it's hard to keep up.. It's a good thing some of us are into staying on the cutting edge for the rest of us.. Thanks!

BTW... could you let us know what rules your club is using for "OPEN" Class, and what if any agreement, or progress on rules the world body has for a new "Open" Class.

Wacky Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top