- Your highest shooting achievement
- 10m pistol French Championship qualifications
- Skill Level
- Amateur/Hobby Shooter
- Primary Discipline
- Air Pistol
- SCATT Experience
- 3 years
- Joined
- May 13, 2020
- 222 Posts
- 149 Helpful Votes
- 3 Best Q&A Answers
Scatt calibrates on itself. Literally.
Here is a target "black center" on which my MX-W2 calibrated without the slightest problem:
Of course there's a story behind this trick. 3 days ago I posted the Q&A tread "Question about reduced target size", in which I wondered how the Scatt -- at least the wireless MX-W2 -- handled the real-distance 10m pistol shooting although the sensor is in fact around 9m from the target with your arm and pistol straight in shooting position.
As I tried to solve the issue I came to one hypothesis, that the Scatt does not measure, nor even use at all, the black round shape of the target center, meaning all it needs is a roughly dark shape with some minimum contrast with the surrounding white area. Then of course I had to prove this hypothesis. Well, it checks out perfectly.
Here are the other trick targets that I tested. The surrounding square is added for comparison, it's side is 8cm.
- A scatt-printed target for 8 meters, titled "10m Air Pistol Target. To be placed at 8m from shooter". The black circle is 4.8 cm in diameter
- The same printed for 5 meters. The black circle is 3.0 cm in diameter
- A star with outside diameter 6cm and 1cm peaks
- A 4cm square
- A star with outside diameter 9cm and 3cm peaks
- At last the Scatt name.
The first two black rounds were printed with the Scatt target printing tool and the others with a drawing software. Just the black shape on a blank white page.
Now what about the scores? Well in a single word: Identical. How did I check it? Using one of Scatt's most interesting tools, the trace speed, which measures the moves and is an indicator of stability. If the Scatt sensor & software did use the black shape size at all, my speeds would be very different with the 5m target vs. the 8m, and considering that 8m is actually the distance I'm shooting the 5m should have given way out of range values. But id dit not. In fact the average values are extremely close, with a 4% standard deviation for S1 and 5.5% for S2 (which by the way also shows that I was shooting very consistently).
There is now way you can compare these shapes in terms of size. Which measure is meaningful? outside? inside? average radius? What is the size of the Scatt logo? This just shows one thing: the shape does not matter very much.
Anything special about my target setup? Not really, in fact it was only average in lighting and poor in contrast. You can barely see the white sheet of paper on the bookshelf side, with the scatt logo in the middle. The sensor calibrated immediately on it.
That's it for today. I had a lot of fun doing this trick, and debunking a tiny piece of Scatt's secrecy was a delight.
What about a "Weird tricky target" competition in the forum?
David
Here is a target "black center" on which my MX-W2 calibrated without the slightest problem:
Of course there's a story behind this trick. 3 days ago I posted the Q&A tread "Question about reduced target size", in which I wondered how the Scatt -- at least the wireless MX-W2 -- handled the real-distance 10m pistol shooting although the sensor is in fact around 9m from the target with your arm and pistol straight in shooting position.
As I tried to solve the issue I came to one hypothesis, that the Scatt does not measure, nor even use at all, the black round shape of the target center, meaning all it needs is a roughly dark shape with some minimum contrast with the surrounding white area. Then of course I had to prove this hypothesis. Well, it checks out perfectly.
Here are the other trick targets that I tested. The surrounding square is added for comparison, it's side is 8cm.
- A scatt-printed target for 8 meters, titled "10m Air Pistol Target. To be placed at 8m from shooter". The black circle is 4.8 cm in diameter
- The same printed for 5 meters. The black circle is 3.0 cm in diameter
- A star with outside diameter 6cm and 1cm peaks
- A 4cm square
- A star with outside diameter 9cm and 3cm peaks
- At last the Scatt name.
The first two black rounds were printed with the Scatt target printing tool and the others with a drawing software. Just the black shape on a blank white page.
Now what about the scores? Well in a single word: Identical. How did I check it? Using one of Scatt's most interesting tools, the trace speed, which measures the moves and is an indicator of stability. If the Scatt sensor & software did use the black shape size at all, my speeds would be very different with the 5m target vs. the 8m, and considering that 8m is actually the distance I'm shooting the 5m should have given way out of range values. But id dit not. In fact the average values are extremely close, with a 4% standard deviation for S1 and 5.5% for S2 (which by the way also shows that I was shooting very consistently).
There is now way you can compare these shapes in terms of size. Which measure is meaningful? outside? inside? average radius? What is the size of the Scatt logo? This just shows one thing: the shape does not matter very much.
Anything special about my target setup? Not really, in fact it was only average in lighting and poor in contrast. You can barely see the white sheet of paper on the bookshelf side, with the scatt logo in the middle. The sensor calibrated immediately on it.
That's it for today. I had a lot of fun doing this trick, and debunking a tiny piece of Scatt's secrecy was a delight.
What about a "Weird tricky target" competition in the forum?
David
Last edited: