User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 8:39:59 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And right after the damming data I posted too? Coincidence no doubt. HuntTXhogs, if you have the relevant data for popular Armasight scopes please send/post it and I'll add it. I'm not very familiar with them and there are a lot of models. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Am reviewing the IR Defense MKII 35mm, Flir T-70, Flir RS-64, and Armasight Apollo now, all 640 cores, scope pics and hopefully dead hog pics to follow later!  You've questioned me for months about me directing consumers to valid sources of information on the Armasight scope , funny how you now have the urge to review one - guess it'll be good as I can now direct them your way for first hand info. It's too bad really that you didn't do this review sooner so that I could have avoided the questioning all along. Who is providing the MKii and Armasight to you for this review? And right after the damming data I posted too? Coincidence no doubt. HuntTXhogs, if you have the relevant data for popular Armasight scopes please send/post it and I'll add it. I'm not very familiar with them and there are a lot of models. Geez, I must have been planning this for months just to attack your relevant data that you posted yesterday? Yeah, right..... 
Perhaps a big marketing director will read the data and make a multi-million dollar purchase and move lots of kit, perhaps not. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 9:03:10 AM EDT
[#2]
I will have to say that after checking out all the different thermal gear over the years, perhaps the best scope that I have is my old Flir T-50 with the large 38 micron 320 core VOx microbolometer and large 60mm lens for absolute image quality and performance on par with the newer smaller 640 cores.
That old adage about larger microbolometer pixels absorbing more radiant thermal emissivity energy per pixel certainly is a truism. Miniaturization certainly has been the GOTO model for the last couple of years in the industry, but the bottom denominator with uncooled VOx cores is there will be no more future shrinking as the silicon foundry has met it's minimum wavelength match and the cooled cores in the other mid-wavelenths are going to remain large, bulky, energy hogs with high maintenance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 11:50:33 AM EDT
[#3]
Sounds like larger sensor arrays with the smaller pixels combined with larger objective lenses would be the way forward. At least for moving the tech forward.
Otherwise it'd just be more about making them cheaper to produce at the current 320/640 configurations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 2:19:43 PM EDT
[#4]
So who is backing your review Skypup?
Where'd ya get the MKii and Apollo from? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 3:19:49 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So who is backing your review Skypup? Where'd ya get the MKii and Apollo from? I guess maybe you could be backing it. 
My friend picked up the Apollo with 42mm objective lens from a pawn shop in Miami for a song and a dance thinking it was a handheld scanner and did not even know it was a scope, had to show him how to operate it. My other friend purchased his MKII-35mm new. Both scopes work great and have not had any problems learning how to put them to use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 3:23:34 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like larger sensor arrays with the smaller pixels combined with larger objective lenses would be the way forward. At least for moving the tech forward. Otherwise it'd just be more about making them cheaper to produce at the current 320/640 configurations. They can cut more smaller pixel sensors from each silicon wafer from the silicon foundry, so more economical from that aspect as that is an art more than a science production wise. Larger pixel sensors require larger germanium lens so that costs more. It is all a trade off one way or another towards both performance and costs..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 3:41:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Am reviewing the IR Defense MKII 35mm, Flir T-70, Flir RS-64, and Armasight Apollo now, all 640 cores, scope pics and hopefully dead hog pics to follow later! Absolutely fantastic, looking forward to reading about that! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 3:45:40 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not a problem, I like your avatar, but I don't remember me ever telling you what you should be doing? Perhaps if I did somewhere along the line, I apologize for the transgression. 
Do hamsters even have edges? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 4:13:43 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do hamsters even have edges? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not a problem, I like your avatar, but I don't remember me ever telling you what you should be doing? Perhaps if I did somewhere along the line, I apologize for the transgression.
Do hamsters even have edges? Depends on which thermal you are using. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2015 11:56:41 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That old adage about larger microbolometer pixels absorbing more radiant thermal emissivity energy per pixel certainly is a truism. Is it fair to say that smaller pixel pitch means more sensitivity but requires larger lenses for the same FoV? I've always thought my 5X ThOR has poorer sensitivity than my older 2.5X and I chalked it up to different gain settings, but I also understand that it has a newer tighter pitch in the core vs the 2.5X. But that being said, when I looked through the IR patrol I thought the sensitivity was excellent, and it has one of the newer smaller pixel pitch detectors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2015 12:27:00 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is it fair to say that smaller pixel pitch means more sensitivity but requires larger lenses for the same FoV? I've always thought my 5X ThOR has poorer sensitivity than my older 2.5X and I chalked it up to different gain settings, but I also understand that it has a newer tighter pitch in the core vs the 2.5X. But that being said, when I looked through the IR patrol I thought the sensitivity was excellent, and it has one of the newer smaller pixel pitch detectors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That old adage about larger microbolometer pixels absorbing more radiant thermal emissivity energy per pixel certainly is a truism. Is it fair to say that smaller pixel pitch means more sensitivity but requires larger lenses for the same FoV? I've always thought my 5X ThOR has poorer sensitivity than my older 2.5X and I chalked it up to different gain settings, but I also understand that it has a newer tighter pitch in the core vs the 2.5X. But that being said, when I looked through the IR patrol I thought the sensitivity was excellent, and it has one of the newer smaller pixel pitch detectors. The bold is backwards. Requires smaller lens for same FOV. I'm not sure that there are specs to explain this. They may be, but it there are, I dont know what they are and the mfg's arent touting any. The UTM boasts of best thermal sensitivity in its class, and thermal sensitivity, intuitively, seems to be what we are talking about here, but I checked that spec on the UTM, FLIT Tau 2 and the IRD MKII, and the spec was exactly the same for both <50. It isnt an exact number, just less than 50. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2015 1:24:16 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The bold is backwards. Requires smaller lens for same FOV. I'm not sure that there are specs to explain this. They may be, but it there are, I dont know what they are and the mfg's arent touting any. The UTM boasts of best thermal sensitivity in its class, and thermal sensitivity, intuitively, seems to be what we are talking about here, but I checked that spec on the UTM, FLIT Tau 2 and the IRD MKII, and the spec was exactly the same for both <50. It isnt an exact number, just less than 50. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That old adage about larger microbolometer pixels absorbing more radiant thermal emissivity energy per pixel certainly is a truism. Is it fair to say that smaller pixel pitch means more sensitivity but requires larger lenses for the same FoV? I've always thought my 5X ThOR has poorer sensitivity than my older 2.5X and I chalked it up to different gain settings, but I also understand that it has a newer tighter pitch in the core vs the 2.5X. But that being said, when I looked through the IR patrol I thought the sensitivity was excellent, and it has one of the newer smaller pixel pitch detectors. The bold is backwards. Requires smaller lens for same FOV. I'm not sure that there are specs to explain this. They may be, but it there are, I dont know what they are and the mfg's arent touting any. The UTM boasts of best thermal sensitivity in its class, and thermal sensitivity, intuitively, seems to be what we are talking about here, but I checked that spec on the UTM, FLIT Tau 2 and the IRD MKII, and the spec was exactly the same for both <50. It isnt an exact number, just less than 50. Yes, sorry I meant to say larger pitch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2015 2:06:38 PM EDT
[#13]
First off, you would have to check the F-Stop of the lens system being used to begin with.
Without knowing that you'd know nothing as it is perhaps the most important parameter to start with, but as OdDuMet previously mentioned, not many manufactures specify this data for comparison. In regards to microbolometer performance, there are trade-offs between spatial, spectral, and radiometric resolutions when designing one. For high spatial resolution, the sensor has to have a small IFOV, however as the IFOV becomes smaller its ability to detect photon energy becomes smaller too. This leads to reduced radiometric resolution or the ability to detect fine energy differences. If a 12 micron thermoresistor takes one 12 micron photon of thermal emissivity to activate it and a 38 micron thermoresistor takes four 12 micon photons to activate it, which one do you think will provide a more stable output without further software normalization? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2015 4:12:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I will have to say that after checking out all the different thermal gear over the years, perhaps the best scope that I have is my old Flir T-50 with the large 38 micron 320 core VOx microbolometer and large 60mm lens for absolute image quality and performance on par with the newer smaller 640 cores. That old adage about larger microbolometer pixels absorbing more radiant thermal emissivity energy per pixel certainly is a truism. Miniaturization certainly has been the GOTO model for the last couple of years in the industry, but the bottom denominator with uncooled VOx cores is there will be no more future shrinking as the silicon foundry has met it's minimum wavelength match and the cooled cores in the other mid-wavelenths are going to remain large, bulky, energy hogs with high maintenance. I'd have to agree. I'm loving it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2015 4:36:42 PM EDT
[#15]
Buying a thermal device seems a lot like buying speakers to me. There are a lot of important specifications to understand and be mindful of, but even all added together, they still can't tell you how it will sound. For that, you need to actually try it out.
At least with thermal you can look at images and videos online. It isn't perfect, but if done right it's good info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2015 6:51:14 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what you're saying is my new Pulsar XD50A with 25micron 384x288 Core with 42mm lens wasn't a bad purchase for $3500. I'd have to agree. I'm loving it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I will have to say that after checking out all the different thermal gear over the years, perhaps the best scope that I have is my old Flir T-50 with the large 38 micron 320 core VOx microbolometer and large 60mm lens for absolute image quality and performance on par with the newer smaller 640 cores. That old adage about larger microbolometer pixels absorbing more radiant thermal emissivity energy per pixel certainly is a truism. Miniaturization certainly has been the GOTO model for the last couple of years in the industry, but the bottom denominator with uncooled VOx cores is there will be no more future shrinking as the silicon foundry has met it's minimum wavelength match and the cooled cores in the other mid-wavelenths are going to remain large, bulky, energy hogs with high maintenance. I'd have to agree. I'm loving it. Hell ya, if it survives a couple of four foot drops onto a concrete floor and bounces real nice and still works, it's a keeper!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2015 11:21:18 PM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2015 10:08:35 PM EDT
[#18]
in for the test results....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 11:16:45 PM EDT
[#19]
well - any results?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
