- Thread starter sib1948
- Start date
I have no review except I am selling the one I have on hand. Way below cost....Just can't get out and use it. Work is taking my life over it seems.
I did take it out and play with it in the man cave. Easy set up, and transmitted to my laptop. Sorry that's all I can report.
I did take it out and play with it in the man cave. Easy set up, and transmitted to my laptop. Sorry that's all I can report.
Here is another option:
TARGETVISION | TARGETVISION ? Contact us to pre-order yours today!
I saw them at the NRA show in Houston and it looked pretty slick. The downrange unit is the tube you see inside the case, and the reciever is built into the case. You wirelessly connect to the reciever using a smart phone or tablet. I don't think they are available yet, I know they mentioned that they were holding off until they had their app ready. They were using a third party app at the show.
TARGETVISION | TARGETVISION ? Contact us to pre-order yours today!
I saw them at the NRA show in Houston and it looked pretty slick. The downrange unit is the tube you see inside the case, and the reciever is built into the case. You wirelessly connect to the reciever using a smart phone or tablet. I don't think they are available yet, I know they mentioned that they were holding off until they had their app ready. They were using a third party app at the show.
Working on a DIY target camera using a raspberry PI and a directional WIFI antenna. It should be able to connect to any phone, ipad or laptop directly. I will post the details when its done. This could be a cheap DIY option.
it would be amazing if you could come up with a DYI option that would work with an ipad! id be all over that!
No, it does not need WIFI or Cell reception. It's 100% self contained.
We have quite a few independent reviews here:
Bullseye Camera Systems Review - Testimonials and Reviews
Eastman's also just put us as a pick on the Christmas List Guide in their magazine.
Good afternoon Gents
As a man that subscribes to the KISS theory quite often; here is a thought. Has anyone tried using Skype on their smart phone and tablet for this? I understand that you would have to have cell phone service for it to work; but im just curious to see if anybody has done it..
As a man that subscribes to the KISS theory quite often; here is a thought. Has anyone tried using Skype on their smart phone and tablet for this? I understand that you would have to have cell phone service for it to work; but im just curious to see if anybody has done it..
I came up with this idea involving the iPad's touch abilities to allow the user to make marks and annotations on a digital over-lay of the image. I'm sure this wouldn't be that difficult to make an app for. One over-lay would be good, but I could even see uses for more than one over-lay allowing one target to be used for several groupings with annotations for each grouping on a different over-lay. Being able to easily switch between different cameras would also be a great option. Shot recognition/numbering would be a very useful option as well.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
We are releasing our iPhone/iPad version of our Bullseye Target Manager software at SHOT Show in January - software upgrades are free of charge. We will be adding annotation abilities as well as a host of other features as we continue to evolve and develop the software. Suggestions are always welcome!
I shoot at a gun club with a lot of other shooters. One of these camera systems is bound to be in the way or get shot by somebody. It would be nice if the camera had a telephoto zoom lens so that it could be placed way off to the side and out of the way of people walking to/from targets and bullets.
I seem to remember reading on the Bullseye site that they offer insurance just for that purpose. Camera gets shot and they replace it. Don't know if they still offer it or how much it is but I would think it would be worth having
I think the first company that can make a dependable, rechargeable with min 6hour per trip battery life, self contained and small, 1.2k yard wireless set up that can work with an ipad for under 300 dollars will get my business..... All in due time.
Last edited:
It would have to use cellular broadband for communication as WiFi is inadequate for the distances concerned.
As such the camera would require a data subscription in addition to the data subscription for the iOS device.
WiFi could work with a few repeaters... so you'll need a few more batteries with the same available capacity (run time) and the camera and the iOS device.
A dedicated system using RF seems like a much better solution to me.
Joe
I got a Bulls Eye for Xmas. I shot with it yesterday and I love it. I can't wait to get it out to much longer ranges.
At what range did you shoot at? I've been holding off buying one because of problems that have been reported on Amazon and Sinclair. It 's hard to find independent reviews. I don't believe a review that comes from someone who was "supplied" with the unit to test. I want to hear from ppl who actually bought the unit off the shelf.
You must be thinking of your in-home 802.11 AP with the small omni whip antenna.
You can get extended range from 802.11 if you switch the antenna type from omni to high gain directional for not a whole lot of $$$ (say easily under $100, including a cheap tripod to mount it).
Such as these:
a) ♠ WiFi Antenna | 2.4 GHz 11 Element Yagi
b) WiFi Antenna | 14 Element WiFi Yagi Antenna
3) Antenna 2.4GHz 24dBi Long-Range Grid Parabolic Directional WiFi High Gain - Data-alliance.net
4) http://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=CDKTi7DnMUqOsEqqa6wGomIGoD5nS34ED6b-c-Un5l_mqowEIBRADILZUKAVQ9d7u8_r_____AWDJtomHzKPAF6AB3-
nr_APIAQeqBCZP0LkwEaVcEIRaWV_0C9dIgD6JL1mUwfZL6K6gyQ43UMrczKs03YAFkE7ABQWgBiaAB4mWlAOQBwLgEsSdhrj7g_b48wE&sig=AOD64_32WO-FMPUYWG0NdxD6OpqAeaIKkw&ctype=5&rct=j&q=long+distancew+wifi+&ved=0CEEQww8&adurl=http://www.ccrane.com/antennas/wifi-antennas/super-usb-wifi-antenna-3.aspx%3FRefID%3DWS110401WSDG0100
5) Directional WiFi Booster Antenna Outdoor Long Range WiFi Panel Patch 14dBi USA Made
Wow, you can Google.
Have much experience using WiFi for point to point links traversing distances?
I do. It sucks.
Joe
I have a TargetCam.net TargetCam, and a good friend of mine has the Bullseye system. Both are good systems, and from what I have seen both companies stand behind their products. The systems differ a bit functionality-wise, so knowing the strengths of each system may help people chose.
Here are my observations...
1) Both are easy and quick to set up. The TargetCam is smaller (smaller case and smaller tripod) and a little faster to set up.
2) The TargetCam is advertised to go out to 2500 yards. I have had mine to 1000 yards and it worked just fine. The Bullseye is advertised to go out to 1000 yards. My friend has had his out to 600 yards and it worked just fine. I have reason to suspect the advertised ranges are not correct.
3) The Bullseye system likes to be 5-8 feet from the target, at about the target height. This allows for a good image, and for the software to work properly. The Target cam produces a usable image at up to 24 feet away, and can be set lower to the ground. I have an Ipsec target painted a dirt color that I use to protect the TaergetCam when lots of shooters are at the range. I don't always use this protection though as 24 feet from the target, usually is safe. The Bullseye setup sits to high to easily protect it with a plate, but some have said they offer insurance.
4) The Bullseye system has the very cool software that identifies the last shot, and can mark groups. Some folks will find this very helpful.
5) With the Targetcam, you can set up multiple cameras and view them (one at a time), from a single base station. This is great for people that want to monitor multiple targets.
So... I hope this helps some folks decide. Both work as advertised, and I think both systems are worth the money.
Here are my observations...
1) Both are easy and quick to set up. The TargetCam is smaller (smaller case and smaller tripod) and a little faster to set up.
2) The TargetCam is advertised to go out to 2500 yards. I have had mine to 1000 yards and it worked just fine. The Bullseye is advertised to go out to 1000 yards. My friend has had his out to 600 yards and it worked just fine. I have reason to suspect the advertised ranges are not correct.
3) The Bullseye system likes to be 5-8 feet from the target, at about the target height. This allows for a good image, and for the software to work properly. The Target cam produces a usable image at up to 24 feet away, and can be set lower to the ground. I have an Ipsec target painted a dirt color that I use to protect the TaergetCam when lots of shooters are at the range. I don't always use this protection though as 24 feet from the target, usually is safe. The Bullseye setup sits to high to easily protect it with a plate, but some have said they offer insurance.
4) The Bullseye system has the very cool software that identifies the last shot, and can mark groups. Some folks will find this very helpful.
5) With the Targetcam, you can set up multiple cameras and view them (one at a time), from a single base station. This is great for people that want to monitor multiple targets.
So... I hope this helps some folks decide. Both work as advertised, and I think both systems are worth the money.
Last edited:
You know what they say about assuming ...
Repeaters and directional antennas are my preferred methods, as well as not letting the distance between nodes get too large.
I assume nothing, I have decades of experience with WiFi as a small and medium business consultant, and based on my experience, I'll pick RF when I want to go to the range and shoot without spending hours troubleshooting.
Joe
Some other thoughts that are intended to be constructive:
I typically shoot in mountainous areas "out in the middle of nowhere" and have difficulty connecting to a cell tower with my phone.
For this application (target camera), I would be more inclined to favor a system that is not reliant on commercial infrastructure being available. That is, I'd rather have a self-contained system that has all the parts it needs to function, and not have to depend on it working only "IF" I could get cell coverage.
I see requiring a FCC HAM license requirement as a negative (even though I hold such a license).
The responsibility of obtaining a license (required to transmit) has always been on the end-user, not the manufacturer of HAM equipment.
That is, there have been no restrictions (ttbomk) on anyone being able to buy most HAM equipment. They can legally monitor (RX/Listen), but not transmit, without a license.
I see S/W that can identify my most recent shot, order of shots, calculate group size, etc. as a positive, and feel that this would significantly influence my choice.
I am more inclined to spend money to make efforts to prevent equipment damage, rather than to insure and replace it, although both have their pros and cons.
Maybe the mfgs. of these systems should talk to JC Steeltargets and see what they can come up with for "bullet proofing" some of their key components (camera, batteries, TX, router, etc.). Seems like a bullet proof enclosure could serve a dual purpose: protect components when used with the target camera systems (providing it does not act as an EMS for the TX); act as standard steel targets when used "stand-alone".
I would believe that either system (802.11 or special frequency) could always employ repeaters to significantly increase distance; however, this would most likely not be the most efficient method, from an economical and setup convenience standpoint.
I like the concept of having multiple shooters being able to see the video data at once, as they each could be monitoring the same feed , but shooting at a different target or portion of a target. I rarely, if ever, go shooting alone and would like to be able to "share" the benefits of such a system with those with me.
While the self-contained system is nice, from a "fits in one box" standpoint, it limits the user to THAT single display. Yes, I read that different sizes of displays can be custom ordered, but they cannot be readily upgraded by the end user (cmiiaw). A WiFi connection allows me, the end user, to select and upgrade my display (Laptop, tablet, phone, large monitor etc. ) and change my selection at anytime I choose. I would think that a system with a "panel in a box", that is non-802.11 based, could easily provide an option to rebroadcast the received images locally via 802.11 (local in relationship to the shooters), so that a choice in viewing devices (other than the panel in the box) could be made by the user AND the images be made available to multiple shooters. Sort of a best of both or hybrid system: non-802.11 for long range transmission and 802.11 for local (at the shooters location) image distribution.
I typically shoot in mountainous areas "out in the middle of nowhere" and have difficulty connecting to a cell tower with my phone.
For this application (target camera), I would be more inclined to favor a system that is not reliant on commercial infrastructure being available. That is, I'd rather have a self-contained system that has all the parts it needs to function, and not have to depend on it working only "IF" I could get cell coverage.
I see requiring a FCC HAM license requirement as a negative (even though I hold such a license).
The responsibility of obtaining a license (required to transmit) has always been on the end-user, not the manufacturer of HAM equipment.
That is, there have been no restrictions (ttbomk) on anyone being able to buy most HAM equipment. They can legally monitor (RX/Listen), but not transmit, without a license.
I see S/W that can identify my most recent shot, order of shots, calculate group size, etc. as a positive, and feel that this would significantly influence my choice.
I am more inclined to spend money to make efforts to prevent equipment damage, rather than to insure and replace it, although both have their pros and cons.
Maybe the mfgs. of these systems should talk to JC Steeltargets and see what they can come up with for "bullet proofing" some of their key components (camera, batteries, TX, router, etc.). Seems like a bullet proof enclosure could serve a dual purpose: protect components when used with the target camera systems (providing it does not act as an EMS for the TX); act as standard steel targets when used "stand-alone".
I would believe that either system (802.11 or special frequency) could always employ repeaters to significantly increase distance; however, this would most likely not be the most efficient method, from an economical and setup convenience standpoint.
I like the concept of having multiple shooters being able to see the video data at once, as they each could be monitoring the same feed , but shooting at a different target or portion of a target. I rarely, if ever, go shooting alone and would like to be able to "share" the benefits of such a system with those with me.
While the self-contained system is nice, from a "fits in one box" standpoint, it limits the user to THAT single display. Yes, I read that different sizes of displays can be custom ordered, but they cannot be readily upgraded by the end user (cmiiaw). A WiFi connection allows me, the end user, to select and upgrade my display (Laptop, tablet, phone, large monitor etc. ) and change my selection at anytime I choose. I would think that a system with a "panel in a box", that is non-802.11 based, could easily provide an option to rebroadcast the received images locally via 802.11 (local in relationship to the shooters), so that a choice in viewing devices (other than the panel in the box) could be made by the user AND the images be made available to multiple shooters. Sort of a best of both or hybrid system: non-802.11 for long range transmission and 802.11 for local (at the shooters location) image distribution.
Glad to hear it.
I hope you have continued success with your shooting and your endeavors.
And you.
I'm mounting up a new scope while wondering why I'm arguing this point with you at all.
Easy to get sucked into.
Carry on.
Joe
I did not view it as arguing...just a difference of opinion and experiences.
I do not see anything we've discussed as black/white or right/wrong.
I appreciate the conversation and the time you took to read, review, and respond to my opinion(s).
You appear to have some experience in the matter, with outcomes more positive than mine.
I haven't done any point to point/directional wifi in several years or more, so there's certainly new and better implementations available since I wrangled with it.
I still fight with infrastructure mode Wi-Fi for my clients on a weekly basis, though.
Last thing I want to be doing with my precious range time is fighting with technology is all.
Joe
I've shot with it up to 750 yards. Works great. Love it. Paid for it too.
I have had, so far, zero issues with the wifi on my system.
We are developing this right now. The live image sent back to the base unit via RF then rebroadcasted to users via wi-fi in the shooting area. This gives relaible transmition over the long range and then viewing options on smart phone, tablet...etc.
I'm heading to a large trade show now but will log back on with more details later from my hotel.
Our cameras are mounted about 20 feet from the target. A lot of our customers buy more than one camera. Each camera is set on it's own channel and user can then just change the channels on his viewing station to see other targets. This is very simple and we have a lot of customers doing it.
Last edited:
Also plan on ordering a target cam here in the near future and I am interested in the new ELR antenna. Already have my HAM license, now I just need to slide yet another "gun related" purchase past the wife after I told her I was done for awhile......
I have a bullseye camera system and love it... it worked at 1400 yards for me .. and picked up the WiFi just fine in the Oregon fog bank!!! with the extended antenna u can reach over 2k with this very nice system... I ha e used and seen the target can setup.. I would rather use the bullseye system.. just my 2 cents
kasey
kasey
Shooting is my new hobby, and in years past wifi, video and solar energy were also hobbies. As with many on this site who like to tinker, I built my own camera system that works beyond 1 mile based upon this webpage Wireless Target Camera | Project Savage. One difference is that mine charges with some small solar panels. Works great, but for those who value time and do not want to be fussing around, a commercial product is probably a better option. Mine works to give the video/picture to my android phone, ipad, tablet or laptop - really any device that can get a wireless signal and can play video. Got tired of driving down to the 600 yd target to see how the prior 5 shots did as no optic I own can see that far. It would be great to have software that tracks each shot, but I'd rather have more trigger time to help get better than invest in writing code.
Last edited:
Could you please post a fast and simple list of what to purchase and how to put it together with pics? Will an ipad mini pick up the wifi 1200yards away tho?
Here is a pretty good thread on how it was done (not mine but elements I followed). DIY Wireless Target Thread Part Deux
Here is a quick list of what I used.
Raspberry Pi with clear case
16 G SD card
micro USB power cord
6V, 10Ah SLA battery
UBEC: New RC 3A UBEC Plane Input 5-23V Output 5V3A Continuous: Amazon.com: Industrial & Scientific
Powered USB hub: Dynex Powered Hub bought at BestBuy
Webcamera: Microsoft LifeCam Amazon.com: Microsoft LifeCam Cinema 720p HD Webcam - Black: Computers & Accessories
Cheap 20-60X spotting scope on tripod (if you what to place camera out of harms way by having camera "look" through spotting scope 20-50 yds away and 20+ yds off center)
High gain Wifi USB Antenna:Amazon.com : Alfa 2000mw 2W Waterproof Marine high power Long Range Outdoor 802.11 B, G, N, USB wireless network Wifi Adaptor with Integrated 12dBi Antenna - Up to 150mps : Usb Network Adapters : Computers & Accessories
50 cal ammo can
Toggle power switch
optional solar panels, RadioShack 1.5W Solar Panel 6V : Solar Panels | RadioShack.com
As implied above to do this will require knowledge of batteries/voltage/soldering, etc and intermediate/advanced computer programming in linux. This is not a plug and play system. If you want one of those, Bullseye and TargetCam seem to be the best options
Battery > UBEC > Power toggle switch> USB HUB power-in> This gets you to 5V at hub which powers everything and allows everything to talk
Hub > Camera
Hub > Antenna
Hub > Pi
A couple important things to know:
To RECEIVE: I have found that you have several options. My phone can pick up the wireless signal without any modification to about +-100 yds. The least complicated way to get more distance without much computer programming background is to by a second wireless antenna (Amazon.com : Alfa 2000mw 2W Waterproof Marine high power Long Range Outdoor 802.11 B, G, N, USB wireless network Wifi Adaptor with Integrated 12dBi Antenna - Up to 150mps : Usb Network Adapters : Computers & Accessories) plug it into a laptop (Win 7 worked for me) and use that antenna to connect to the camera's wireless network (SSID: rangecam) to stream the video. My laptop can "see" the wireless rangecam network to 300 yd without the more powerful antenna (i.e. unmodified) but the signal is weak and therefore slow to update. With the more powerful antenna and line-of-sight between the two antennas I did 1 mile without any problem. Did not shoot at that range (maybe this summer) but could see the target with about a "realtime" 5 sec delay.
The most useful, powerful options that allows any device to "see" the target (but involves significant linux programming background), it to convert an old Linksys router into a DD-WRT router, equipped with a omnidirectional or directional antenna and can act as a bridge to the range cam that allows any device (aka ipad/tablet/etc) to "see' the video.
Hope this helps, Drew
Here is a quick video of my 1st use at 600 yds. Sorry the target is moving around so much, there were 20+ mph sustained winds during that session. The holes are .223 for reference. The tripod blew over at the end....
[video]http://www.cord.edu/faculty/rutherf/12/600camera.swf[/video]
An unvarnished snippet, and a first attempt with both the camera system and shooting .223 at 600 in such high winds, so try not to judge either the wireless system or the marksman too harshly...
Last edited:
Similar threads
