What are the thoughts of building an INTENS tube into a PVS-30?

Anybody on here running an INTENS tube in a clip-on or head mounted config?

The Intens is ITT new name for pinnacle tubes. They say it performs better but I don't see much. Anyhow, being a clip on the tube in the PVS 30 is most likely set in a elastomer compound. Swapping tubes may not be an easy job and the scope would need to be re-collimated.

Might be a manufacturer job to have it done right. Not sure as I have never peered inside a 30

INTENS is a Photonis name for their new line of tubes, not yet sold to outside mil/leo etc. Would be great in a PVS-30 no doubt, but acquiring such might be difficult and expensive.

Yes you are right.  I got confused between the Everest and Intens. Too many new things for me to contend with.

 
Yes. Currently running two INTENS tubes for test and evaluation purposes. They are the first series of 4G tubes from PHOTONIS.




4G is a multi-mission standard that provides a minimum performance specification for just about any conditions in which you would need to use an image intensifier. It's a PHOTONIS derived standard, but the standard itself is open - that is, anyone can use it. If you've been following my grading of tubes based on specification, it sits right in the area of Exceptional. 28:1 Min S/N is very high.




Performance is generally close to Gen3 Filmless and slighly better than a typical Gen3 Filmed tube.  Image noise is very low, far lower than most Gen3, even at the bottom of the spec. Resolution about the same. EBI same range. Shock tolerance and Halo are big improvements though - you get around 0.6mm halo with 500G's recoil resistance. Sometimes smaller too - likely all the way down to 0.5mm.




In most aspects the INTENS work just like a Gen3. You won't get a noticeable increase in performance over what you'd get from a normal high-performance tube with S/N > 28:1 and if you put two side by side, it's really difficult to tell the difference - even with expert level experience with both tubes.




However if you are using them for tactical purposes, the Gen3 is practically blind compared to active-INTENS and I think it is the harbinger of the end of the current Gen3 era. Spectral response range is about twice that of Gen3, although that in itself poses some serious engineering challenges. So the INTENS is well suited to OOB purposes. Far more so than the XR5 is. It also has the capability to spot stuff on the battlefield than Gen3 might miss, but keep in mind that spectral range and monochromatic output are always a double-edge blade. Still, the potential of the INTENS is much higher regardless.




I haven't installed them in a clip-on setup yet - I suppose I could, but I haven't had the time to configure one in that geometry yet. All my testing has been head-mounted to date.




They make them for the ANVIS, PVS-14 and PVS-15 and PVS-31 and the gain control is worth having, though the tubes have much better brightness tolerances than US tubes, and there's several power supplies, including some that have surprised me during testing. All of them are autogated and have extended high-brightness performance, probably around 4x the capability of Gen3 there ( almost no loss of resolution at 500 lux compared to ~ 50% loss of resolution at 200 lux for Gen3 ).




So if you have a Gen3 already and are thinking to replace it, then unless you have tactical reasons for doing so, I wouldn't recommend it. This extends to buying a device pre-configured. For most people and for most civilian use, the INTENS is much the same as a very high end Gen3. But if you're Mil/Pol/Gov then it's worth taking a look at.




Take a look at the other comments too - It may not be possible to re-tube a PVS-30 at home, but most head-mounted systems should be fine.




Regards


David.






















 

Thanks again David for the new details on the INTENS, it's really interesting to hear new tidbits about it!

Regarding the quoted part, you say it's hard to distinguish them from each other - is the noise level or scintillation level one that would give it away (compared to an average Gen3 in the sense that it's not an especially low-scintillating unit)?

 
From memory, very low noise thin-films provide a similar image, but filmless would probably be possible to differentiate by ion strikes - though it's possible to get really clean filmless tubes too.


Still, we're talking very close in terms of image and performance under all conditions. So their envelope of performance would overlap enough to make reliable ID from image alone very difficult or impossible.


Halo is a good way to distinguish two images, but only if there is clear halo visible in both. And you might find a very low halo gen3.


If it comes down to it, spectral differences are the most reliable method. They very quickly sort out which is which. IR or UV, both are good.


Regards

David

CJ7, thanks for the info.
Do you have any pics of the image provided by the INTENS tubes?

 
Two images at NL4 ( Night Level 4 )




INTENS tube - mx11769 form factor. Note that two strobes are visible in this image.








And Gen3. It can't see both strobes.





And here's a NL5 (night level 5 ) image of 4G and Gen3 combined ( 4G is on the left ).


 

CJ7 thanks for the pics!