Nokta Invenio Smart Detector & Imaging System

Very interesting upcoming metal detector coming from Nokta:
[www.youtube.com]
Must have a pretty hefty price tag too, but if it can eliminate digging all the bad targets and only get the good stuff few people might be interested to buy it.

Just saw the price tag and it is around 10 000 dollars.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2018 05:37AM by Etsija82.

This is not new news. And as usual, there is always a problem with this "shape-showing" imagery in regards to md'ing. I realize there's this glossy image/notion of computer screens showing magical images of treasure chests (complete with the hinges showing, etc....). But the problem remains the same from time-immortal: Pixel sizes. The utmost smallest pixel size is something like 1" across. Hence all objects we find (coins, rings, tabs, nails, foil wads, etc...) are ....... doh .... 1 pixel. Telling you absolutely nothing you didn't already know from the "beep" (that something is there) .

And even when the day comes that the pixel sizes are reduced to something like 1/10" pixel size : You STILL aren't going to get any magical TV images of underground objects for our purposes. Instead, you're just going to be seeing a messy botch of pixels.

Just not for the average hobbyist. Any technology that looks for buried treasure will get the attention of most of us, but not our money. In my opinion this will have a very select group of actual users. I imagine over time the technology will shrink into a smaller package with a smaller price. It usually does. I'm still waiting on the Anfibio news. But in any event Nokta/Marko seem to be busy in their product line. That is nothing but good news for us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2018 12:02PM by goodmore.

Will it obsolete the Nox-----enquiring minds wants to no.

I tested it and works perfectly. Show coin near to iron bar. And you can recognize easily. Is compact and is wireless. In my opinion best-writed software on market! For archeologist - perfect tool for site documentation. If they connect it to GPS and internet you get the very professional tool in reasonable price!

I cant see a problem as both Nokta and Makro had these deep cache/treasure detectors out for quite some time now and there are quite a few videos showing how effective they are at determining targets at depth and visually -

This unit here shows the benefit of targets via 3d graphics
[www.earthscan.co.nz]

It can only mean good things for all in the hobby and no doubt add to the technical advancements of both Nokta/Makro

[www.earthscan.co.nz]

Will we see this technology in a light weight detector so that we can really see thru iron. No more masking.

I think we will see this technology at a lower price and light weight and not that far in the future. Imagine what that would unmask.

Rick

This technology is lightweight. VLF machine with wireless 3D sensor. Base unit looks like FORS. LCD box is also lightweight. You can use it like normal unit with sound only. And choose fast real time imaging with simple ID identification . I hope I will get production unit soon for test and review. Prototype was perfect.

Just what I need to find those 13" mortar balls.

This tech is just the stepping stone. IF, and I really mean IF, they are able to get the target resolution down to centimeters, this work at depth, and a stable reliable TID, it would change the face of metal detecting. None of what I mentioned is impossible so we may yet see it in our lifetime!

Think about it....if it becomes so easy not only would it get boring but areas would really get cleaned as all the goodies would be gone...Imagine hunting a local park knowing 99 percent of the gold rings are gone....

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This tech is just the stepping stone. IF, and I re
> ally mean IF, they are able to get the target reso
> lution down to centimeters,...

Even if the "stepping stones" get the pixel sizes down to "centimeters" , it's still not going to show magical TV images on your screen. You are still going to have nothing more than messy blotches of pixels.

For example: At the current 1" pixel size, consider how that does on something like a horse shoe (which has a distinct shape , right ?). All you get is a messy blotch of pixels. Not a horseshoe shape. Same logic for if they got the pixel sizes down to teensy fractions of inches/centimeters : For the type objects we look for (tab vs coin vs ring, vs can slaw, vs foil wad, etc....), all you will get is messy blotches of pixels. Not some star trek TV screen image.

Dan-Pa. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .....Imagine hun
> ting a local park knowing 99 percent of the gold r
> ings are gone....

Same reply as to Beyonder. I would also add that the moment you add any sort of tilt to a coin or a ring, you can kiss shape-showing goodbye.

And even if pixel sizes got down to thousandth-of-inches small, then our biggest nemesis is still not solved: Round tabs (esp. with the beaver tail bent under or removed). They perfectly mimic ring shape, eh ?

The solution is not shape showing (which would take millionth of inches pixel size to do any good) . The real solution is a detector which shows COMPOSITION. Not conductivity and not shape.

If I was the one that dug 99% of the gold rings out of a site, I would be a very happy camper

Resolution is very good if you see 20 cm triangle shape bar and coin or gold ring together.

Thank you Rick on your kind words -

Please tell the guys at FT we are thinking of them ........ oh and please hurry

[www.earthscan.co.nz]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2018 03:22AM by rustic charm.

Dan-Pa. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Think about it....if it becomes so easy not only w
> ould it get boring but areas would really get clea
> ned as all the goodies would be gone...Imagine hun
> ting a local park knowing 99 percent of the gold r
> ings are gone....


Dan, a lot of places are like that now where we live.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This tech is just the stepping stone. IF, and I
> re
> > ally mean IF, they are able to get the target re
> so
> > lution down to centimeters,...
>
> Even if the "stepping stones" get the pixel sizes
> down to "centimeters" , it's still not going to sh
> ow magical TV images on your screen. You are sti
> ll going to have nothing more than messy blotches
> of pixels.
>
> For example: At the current 1" pixel size, consid
> er how that does on something like a horse shoe (w
> hich has a distinct shape , right ?). All you ge
> t is a messy blotch of pixels. Not a horseshoe sh
> ape. Same logic for if they got the pixel sizes
> down to teensy fractions of inches/centimeters :
> For the type objects we look for (tab vs coin vs
> ring, vs can slaw, vs foil wad, etc....), all you
> will get is messy blotches of pixels. Not some st
> ar trek TV screen image.
>
> Dan-Pa. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > .....Imagine hun
> > ting a local park knowing 99 percent of the gold
> r
> > ings are gone....
>
> Same reply as to Beyonder. I would also add that
> the moment you add any sort of tilt to a coin or a
> ring, you can kiss shape-showing goodbye.
>
> And even if pixel sizes got down to thousandth-of-
> inches small, then our biggest nemesis is still no
> t solved: Round tabs (esp. with the beaver tail
> bent under or removed). They perfectly mimic ring
> shape, eh ?
>
> The solution is not shape showing (which would tak
> e millionth of inches pixel size to do any good) .
> The real solution is a detector which shows COMPOS
> ITION. Not conductivity and not shape.

Tom, you would be surprised what tech can do. Why not have a represented actual picture placed onto the "blob"? It would be an easy matter of taking a digital photo of let's say a penny at all angles(180 degrees north and south 180 degrees east and west) and depending on the curvature of the blob on a penny reading and if it fits the possible size range, paste one of the digital pics of the penny at the calculated angle.

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Tom, you would be surprised what tech can do. Why
> not have a represented actual picture placed onto
> the "blob"? It would be an easy matter of taking a
> digital photo of let's say a penny at all angles(1
> 80 degrees north and south 180 degrees east and we
> st) and depending on the curvature of the blob on
> a penny reading and if it fits the possible size r
> ange, paste one of the digital pics of the penny a
> t the calculated angle.

Hello Beyonder. To answer your question: "Because science can not break the laws of physics".

Sure, To take a digital picture with your smart phone or digital cam: Yes, a person can see the difference between a foil blob, a tab, and a gold ring. So "Why not just do that with a metal detector seeing the image in the ground?" Eh ? Here why: Because the digital camera is seeing through thin air (or water, in the case of water-proof cameras). But for objects in the ground, guess what medium they have to see through ? Solid ground.

So unlike fish sonar (which can tell you the size and type of fish, even from a distance), or photography : Solid soil presents a problem un-like those examples. And the marvelous advances of science and technology you speak of, when it comes to electronics: Is all a function of "faster and smaller", right ? (Cell phones, computers, etc....). But no amount of "faster and smaller" is going to change the laws of physics.

I think he's talking about software placing an image of what it could be on what is detected.

Rick

Rick, N. MI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think he's talking about software placing an ima
> ge of what it could be on what is detected.
>
> Rick

Isn't that already on some detectors ? For example, shows you an icon of a nickel, when you get the nickel TID. Or ring, if you get into the ring TIDs. Like the CZ6 for example, has little logos of the various quadrant items. And some of the Whites can can elect ....... instead of #'s or graph, to show an icon (quarter, nickel, dime, foil, etc...).

Software has to be programmed by humans. And what data is going to tell the difference between a round tab and a ring ? A foil blob and a dainty gold ring ? Beaver tail vs a gold amulet ? It would have to be dependent on information coming from the ground. And then you get those durned laws-of-physics interfering



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2018 05:09PM by Tom_in_CA.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick, N. MI Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think he's talking about software placing an i
> ma
> > ge of what it could be on what is detected.
> >
> > Rick
>
> Isn't that already on some detectors ? For examp
> le, shows you an icon of a nickel, when you get th
> e nickel TID. Or ring, if you get into the ring
> TIDs. Like the CZ6 for example, has little logos
> of the various quadrant items. And some of the W
> hites can can elect ....... instead of #'s or grap
> h, to show an icon (quarter, nickel, dime, foil, e
> tc...).
>
> Software has to be programmed by humans. And what
> data is going to tell the difference between a ro
> und tab and a ring ? A foil blob and a dainty gol
> d ring ? Beaver tail vs a gold amulet ? It woul
> d have to be dependent on information coming from
> the ground. And then you get those durned laws-of
> -physics interfering

i am speaking of size and position via digital representation. Not just an icon. But you are right the tech to show you what it is is not possible yet. As you are so fond of using the fish finder argument, I will steer clear however, How many things in life were deemed not possible due to the law of physics? I know you have a canned rebuttal for that one too lol

Don't we do this already when we profile a target in all metal mode or pinpoint mode? Don't get me wrong, the color screen is nice but I already do all this today without the $10k price tag. T handles and triangles in clean ground with near by objects are easy profiles. Profiling small targets is the same too, round vs not round. Shoot, I already profile pocket knives as possible pocket knives, keys as possible keys, etc. That is base business, right? As far as putting an image on a likely target, you already have detectors that will show an icon for a likely target. I'm sorry but I don't see anything to warrant the price tag. Adding $9K for some internal mapping software and a color monitor seems a bit much to me.

Maybe I'm all sour grapes because of the price tag. Move it down to $1500 for the display and then I'd want it just for the novelty of it. It would also be easier to dump when the novelty wore off because I already know that after a little while I'd get tired of having to slow down my profiling just so I could see the picture I already had in my head pictured on the display. Maybe good for looking at a structure's wall though, as I do have to draw the walls, but even so.....bit pricey. One good cache might pay for it though. hmmmm...still pricey.

My two cents worth,
HH
Mike

Mike Hillis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't we do this already when we profile a target
> in all metal mode or pinpoint mode? Don't get m
> e wrong, the color screen is nice but I already do
> all this today without the $10k price tag. T han
> dles and triangles in clean ground with near by ob
> jects are easy profiles. Profiling small targets
> is the same too, round vs not round. Shoot, I al
> ready profile pocket knives as possible pocket kni
> ves, keys as possible keys, etc. That is base bu
> siness, right? As far as putting an image on a l
> ikely target, you already have detectors that will
> show an icon for a likely target. I'm sorry but
> I don't see anything to warrant the price tag. A
> dding $9K for some internal mapping software and a
> color monitor seems a bit much to me.
>
> Maybe I'm all sour grapes because of the price tag
> . Move it down to $1500 for the display and then
> I'd want it just for the novelty of it. It would
> also be easier to dump when the novelty wore off b
> ecause I already know that after a little while I'
> d get tired of having to slow down my profiling ju
> st so I could see the picture I already had in my
> head pictured on the display. Maybe good for loo
> king at a structure's wall though, as I do have to
> draw the walls, but even so.....bit pricey. One g
> ood cache might pay for it though. hmmmm...still
> pricey.
>
> My two cents worth,
> HH
> Mike

I agree totally Mike. I am just saying that there is tech that can accomplish what we want.

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ..... How many things
> in life were deemed not possible due to the law of
> physics? I know you have a canned rebuttal for tha
> t one too lol

Haha, well no more than the canned claim . It's all good ! It's all just tech talk pro & con.

Yes the "canned rebuttal" is that things that were once deemed scientifically impossible (heavier than air flight, breaking the 3-minute mile, etc...) do not logically mean that "Therefore anything mused is possible". All that means is that yesteryear science was wrong on certain subjects. Not that "anything is therefore possible". There can most certainly be impossible things, by logical definition . Eg.: Circular squares, etc....

Might there be some altogether different tech, aside from shape-showing & conductive scale TID that comes along ? Sure. But with the current tech of ability to discern targets (shape showing, conductive scale TID, etc...) no amount of faster and smaller is going to change that.

Why do you think we've come to an immense slow down in the past 20 yrs., in terms of detector abilities ? Contrast to the period between the mid 1960s to the mid 1980s, when .... if you had a detector that was a mere 5 yrs. old, you had a dinosaur. But today, many of the 10 to 20 yr. old machines are competitive (heck, even still made in some cases). Yet the past 20 yrs. has seen LIGHTYEARS of computer evolution (smaller and faster). Hence as you can see, there becomes a point-of-diminishing returns



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2018 05:43PM by Tom_in_CA.

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ....I am just saying that there
> is tech that can accomplish what we want.

Then maybe I'm misunderstanding your "what we want". In the progression of this thread, I thought we were talking about a machine that can show shape, so refined, that it could become possible to tell ring vs coin vs tab, vs foil wad.

If so, then no, there is not already tech. that can do that.

So what sort of task are you referring to ? Because if it's rough images (blotchy messes of pixels), then sure, there is already tech to do what we want. But no, there's no tech that can tell aluminum apart from gold, or tell the shape of targets enough to do any good for the type objects we seek

Be nice if they could image 'density'. Density is a helpful discriminator when you live in the world of aluminum trash.

HH
Mike

Ask Dilek about it. But If I good remember density option exist in software menu.