10-4.  

Just checking cause I've heard of people selling 20/22's that are actually 1701's with the customer getting a bogus sheet and no actual data record.

Yeah, I'd be livid. Not that there's anything wrong with a 1701, but because they were probably charged at least $500 more for a 20um

I don't know if this is the case exactly but I'm assuming it's because some people are using 18/20/22 similar to Omni numbers.

Old skool tagscrbe

This

20UMs allow for 2 75-150 micron blems in zone 3 and 1 150-225 micron sized blem. Compared to a 1701 they have higher minimum center resolution and high light resolution, around 400 higher minimum FOM, half the allowable EBI. There is no reason why anyone should get upset by paying more for a tube that allows some small blems but guarantees you don’t get a filmless tube with EBI of 3.0 and 4.0 and 57 resolution, all of which are examples I have seen in the last month.

I suppose it's possible they are 20/22 or whatever tubes the seller says they are but they don't have actual data sheets from L3Harris. Unless the buyer can read inside the eyepiece they won't know without taking off the eyepiece and most likely voiding the warranty.

How exactly do you give your own data sheet when there is no data record from the mfg? List the minimums only or just a swag? Spin the bottle? Lol

The video texassooner posted it looks like it's in zone 2 borderline zone 1. What sizes are allowable in zones 1 & 2 with the 20UM's?

The same way the manufacturer does.  There are people that have the equipment test tubes.  You can pay to have it done.

ETA: I wouldn’t trust a non OEM spec sheet either.....that’s highly unusual

I could be wrong but I think the test sets only cover some certain things. IIRC, some specs such as sensitivity are more complex to measure.

Sorry should have clarified, 20UMs have the same blem allowance in zones 2 and 3.

The 50-100 micron blems are usually so small I don’t even see them. Larger than 150 is definitely visible but not as large as the largest you see allowed on 1701s.

Yes that is correct.  It’s just money though.....  https://www.hoffmanengineering.com/Test-Equipment-from-Hoffman-Engineering/Night-Vision-from-Hoffman/

Ok, so the same as 1701. My 1701 sheets are in inches, so:

1x .006-.009 (152-228 micron)
2x .003-.006 (76-152 micron)

in zones 2 & 3. I thought they had tighter spot specs in zone 2. In the vid I thought it looked over .009. ETA; But it is slightly zoomed.

Yeah, you ain't kidding, lol. I believe the mfg's also do some measuring/testing before the tube gets a power supply.

1701s allow the .009-.012” blem size in Z3 where 20UMs do not

Cliff notes on how to use that thing?

Photonis Intens 2200 FOM and 2700 FOM, plus tester image at low light...





Pictures are much better prior to conversion  by the site...

L3 Unfilmed 39.6 SN tube:

Where did you get the Intens, may I ask?

Good catch, I should've clarified that's why I left it out.

@gbmaryland
Great looking tubes and nice clean pics

Those are some nice tubes you have there

EBI of 3.0?

It technically "could" be worse actually, lol. The max EBI of a 1701 tube is 5.0

Where the 1701's shine is when someone has them on hand and you know the actual specs. I wouldn't roll the dice ordering a 1701 unless I was guaranteed certain minimums.

ETA: This is important info and why people need to ask sellers questions. Some sellers don't list or mention which filmless tubes (1701, 18um, etc.) they are selling. Same goes for thin filmed tubes also. The more educated you are the better. I'd avoid any place who won't answer your questions or spend the time to explain what exactly they are trying to sell you.

Certain someone real popular on fb offered a buddy a real decent set of 1701 tubes. the question is are the specs real or not lol.

Also as to asking questions the average buyer wont know what to ask. Heck I am just now learning some of the things you guys take for granted. Its a wide field with tons of information that is hard to glean.

1701's can have some awesome specs so I don't see why not especially if they have the L3 data sheets.

That's very true. Someone can't go wrong going with a reputable dealer.

It can be a big leap of faith that's for sure.

Yep. As seen in this thread, 1701s can have good specs. the "worst" spec I have is is EBI at 0.9, but it's still under the "goal" for filmless of 1.0

Just for fun, I took a new green phosphor unit that I got from the EE out and did the same lighting conditions as the original indoors pics.

I do not know the specs of this device. It's a commercial L3 thin filmed GP tube. Ironically, it produced a better/more legible image (IMO) of the target box in the darkest of conditions than the thin filmed WP Elbit did.

Peter Lesbo... back in the day before he dropped off the face of the planet.

They are great tubes, and the higher performing ones are largely on par with the L3 unfilmed tubes.  If its so dark that an Intens tube isnt working well for you, and L3 will likely need an illuminator too.

Through the lens there was a noticable difference between the 2220 and 2700 FOM tubes when it came to clarity. So I would absolutely stick with a very high FOM tube if I was going down the photonis route.  I’d probably stay away from the Echo tubes, XR5, and XD4... Intens or L3 unfilmed.

I have an L3 filmless and I absolutely love it. The technology geek in me wants to try out the Intens. I would love to do a comparison myself. I just didn't know where you would even get one in the US.

I am curious why you say l3 unfilmed

@dbmaryland  also where is maryland are you I would love to look thru other tubes. And I have a great area to play with night vision if you want woods, fields and very dark.

The differences were very subtle and probably had a certain wishful thinking bias to it as well. It's manufacturer specific. Didn't see any noticeable difference between examples from the same CAGE code. For some CAGE codes, I only had one sample on hand. Have heard others note minute differences with oculars when used with a WP tube. I don't have my notes handy now and don't remember the exact specifics. Not something worth getting hung up on. Have also heard that different oculars have slightly different focal lengths.

Sorry, I missed this....

It's a mixed bag for me.  I've been looking for a long time for something that unbelievable.

To the point that I got out my calculator once and figured out that I would need a SN of 40+, with at least 72lp/mm, an EBI of .5 or less, and a Halo of .5 of less.  Then I reached out to a vendor, who called L3, and then it appears the FBI looked into me.

(At the time we were all seeing tube that were at best around 32SN and the rest of those specs were pipe dreams, or only going to the miliary.)

Recently, L3 Unfilmed (and even their filmed tubes) are turning out to have exactly those specs.

Photonis actually has specs that are VERY similar... assuming that everyone measures stuff the same way.

For example: FOM 2521, LG 12950ulx, center res 74mm/lp, EBI .09, SN 34, halo .6

That's a VERY good tube on paper.

Add to that the blue color they use in the WP tubes, which seems to work better for my eyes...

...AND the Intens power supply does a MUCH better job of mitigating high light.

It's not the ICT power supply from the RC tubes being sold at Mod Armory, but they are very good.

L3 Unfilmed is the best as it edges out everything else in near total darkness; the contrasting ability of L3 unfilmed is the best I've seen... and I've had alot of tubes:

- MX-10160/AVS-6 (The best thin filmed use I've ever owned) [OMNI-VII]
- Photonis Intens XW3040YB
- Photonis XR5
- Photonis XD4
- ITT Pinnacle WP (early one)
- Elbit WP (recent) [not even close to the other ITT tubes I've had even with its great SN (the EBI and the Halo were higher than the other ITT tubes)]
- L3 Filmed tube, recent manufacture, actually, a TOTAL surprise.  It was great! ...and it only had a 19 S/N... seriously, it was wonderful to look trough.
- L3 Unfilmed tube, 39.x SN, etc... etc...

The L3's output brightness was not a good as the Intens... but the funny part is that the L3 rated output of 3.3fL is more that 2 times the Intens rated output of 5 cd/M^2 (it's 11fL if you convert it)!

The likely reason is that my  Mark 1 eyeball reacts better to the Intens blue/white output than the white used by L3... so it's highly subjective. ;)

My understanding is that the Intens tubes are specifically designed with a blue/white that causes all of your rods/cones to function better with the Intens tubes.

...that's my long winded answer.  However, the L3 tubes (unfilmed) WILL contrast better in near darkness.  (In totally darkness you need thermal or an illuminator.)

I have a 40+ SNR Elbit thin film WP tube on hand right now, I keep meaning to get it out to take some pictures next to some filmless stuff of lower SNR just to see how it compares. Will try to do it tonight and upload some results.

I agree that filmless does edge everything in low light, however I also find that looking at it from a practical perspective rather than an R&D/lab/internet NV nerd perspective (which I consider myself the latter as well), the actual difference between comparable spec unfilmed tubes and other gen 3 tubes like Elbit in super low light to not be meaningful. Does L3 give you more of a picture with less noise when the tube specs are about equal? It sure does. In near total darkness, do either produce a picture that would be considered good? In my experience no, with either option you would want supplemental IR illumination if you were doing anything remotely serious besides testing.

EDIT - the above isn't meant to disparage filmless at all. They're the best tubes. I use them myself most often. Everybody has different motivations and needs and should choose what they want based on their needs.

I agree. Almost any tube with good specs will be more than adequate for most people. To me there are two major areas where the high spec filmless difference really comes into play.

#1. Overall enjoyment. A lot of us mention low light as being where high spec filmless excels and I think some people get the impression that’s really the only benefit, which is incorrect. It looks better in all conditions and the super clarity is extremely pleasing.

#2. Increased detection/ID. In lower light conditions filmless is the better choice if you don’t want to use IR. I’ve tested this with animals on my property, my dog, and the wifey.

Especially when they’re mixed in with trees/vegetation, higher spec filmless (low ebi, high snr, etc.) increases the chances to see them vs them being hidden in the tube’s noise or lost in the contrast. Of course, if they’re not moving and blended well, it can be difficult to impossible regardless of the tube. I’ll take every edge I can get and filmless gives that edge compared to filmed. Doesn’t really matter if you use a lot of IR but the seeing how the trend is going passive then filmless is the better choice for that IMO.

@gbmaryland
Holy smokes brother did the feds contact your neighbors or something? That’s crazy that L3 or the vendor would do that. Unless your last name is dirka dirka mohammed jihad then that makes sense, lol

Yep... imagine you're working for the DoD at the time, and you're paid a visit by someone who says "Hey man, oddest thing happened..."

Then you show him your crazy back of the envelope math skills (also know as "I pulled this outta my butt"), and he proceeds to tell you a little story.



I was rip roaring pissed off. Lucky I wasn't a contract officer, 'cause ever tube the USG bought from that point forward would have mysteriously been an ITT tube. (Obviously, not, but sill...)

Of course, I DO actually have a totally German name... Completely.  As such, unless you're speaking me, you'd never know I was a US Citizen (born and raised).

Damn I’d be pissed as hell too. Did the vendor ever get back to with any info they got back from L3 or did they ghost out? Just curious.

That’s shitty getting checked into like that for no reason other than asking for certain specs. They could of asked you do first fill out an ITAR statement with ID or something like that. Or I guess those specs were just that friggin radical at that time, lol.

They strung me along telling me it would cost around $10,000 to get a tube with those specs, and I found all that crap out...

Here’s some collages I did last night with the following tubes:

Elbit thin film:

40.1 SNR
76 lp/mm
1.1 EBI
3040 FOM

Filmless 18UM:

36 SNR
64 lp/mm
0.5 EBI
2304 FOM







The Elbit looks better in high light while the filmless tube’s relatively close SNR but lower EBI probably caused it to look slightly better in the pitch dark. In the exterior low light I thought they were too close to call. Y’all can judge.

@westernhaikus1

Nice tubes you got there. Thanks for the comparison.

Thanks. The 40 SNR on the Elbit was fun to play with. I left out the PCR values because I actually am not sure what the filmless tube PCR value was because in its a goggle that I don’t want to re-collimate just to figure out which tube is which in it damn L3 put their tube serials too far off on the edge to see them through the eyepieces!

We've discussed recently in different threads how the thin film tubes have a "hazy" or "smudged" appearance compared to the filmless. Would you say your Elbit tube is the same way? Also, is the phosphor color that different when you look through it compared to the filmless?

While I can't answer for him -

In my experience the phosphor color is almost the opposite of what the pics he posted show. In all the thin filmed Elbit tubes I've had, the phosphor has more of a blue hue when looking at it. The filmless are closer to a black and white image, with a little of like a teal hue.

I wouldn't say that it's "hazy" I would just say that when in the same lighting conditions, you have more noise because the thin filmed doesn't gather light as well. Two units with the same exact specs one filmed and one filmless, you'll likely have a more clear image just due to the fact there's less scintillation

Interesting. Thanks.

I don't understand how the S/N ratio could be the same. If the thin film has more scintillation, wouldn't that be more "noise"? How can the ratio be the same unless the thin film is producing more signal?

Not doubting you. I'm here to learn.

Agreed on the phosphor color, that's definitely not what the L3H's look like. Cell phone cameras can F' you off so you have to adjust it if you want it to look accurate. Toggling between photo and video usually does the trick with my iPhone.

I don't have an Elbit thin filmed WP to compare but here are a couple of examples of the clarity of L3 filmless WP. Some of the color difference is pic 1 was -14 glass and pic 2 anvis. This was using an iPhone 8plus with zero editing to the pics. 2763 sensitivity, .8 ebi, 62779 gain, 34.2 snr, and 72 res.  

Sitting under tree shadow with Moon overhead (don't remember the phase)


PT Switch on IR low because it was a no Moon night.

Because of the difference in light gathering ability. The more available light, the less scintillation you get. Because the filmless is about 20% better at light gathering, it would have a better looking image when compared to a thin filmed (unless there's enough light that neither unit is having any trouble)

My opinion of where the unfilmed L3 shine...

This is almost a completely dark room, but notice the contrast ability of the L3 filmless.



This is an Omni VII thin film (pretty high specs):



It’s the ability to show clear contrast in very dark environments.

Conversely, this is an ICT RC tube vs an unfilmed L3, and the 72lp/mm in highlight of the RC tube is pretty obvious compared the 40lp/mm of the L3:

I got that, but why doesn't 20% more light gathering ability equate to 20% better signal output? In other words, if the thin filmed has more noise, then to maintain the same ratio of signal to noise would it not have to have comparatively more signal as well?

If a thin film and filmless have the same S/N ratio, then how can the thin film have more noise? Because it definitely doesn't have more signal output. It should be about 20%less signal output, right?

Not trying to be argumentative and maybe I don't understand how they actually test those numbers.

The best answer IMO is that the differences go beyond the test criteria. They both may achieve similar test numbers but the perceived performance & image to the human eye/brain is different.

We've had at least 2 ARF members that I know of who went above and beyond purchasing high spec tubes both in thin filmed and filmless WP. Their consensus was that the filmless is superior. They are end users. As far as I know, they are not resellers on this forum under a non-dealer user name or associates of resellers with an agenda. I've heard the same from others through social media.

Personally, I've owned close to 12 different thin filmed GP tubes all with good to great specs, and none of them can compare to filmless. Does that mean the difference is so significant that everyone should buy filmless? No. But if you want to know what's the best or want it, then it's high spec filmless (everything, not just FOM).