User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/10/2019 3:00:23 PM EDT
[#1]
35...IMHO S/N rules.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2019 3:04:53 PM EDT
[#2]
prices?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2019 3:06:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
prices? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2019 3:06:42 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
35...IMHO S/N rules. Quoted:
prices?  exactly
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2019 3:06:59 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
35...IMHO S/N rules. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2019 3:08:53 PM EDT
[#6]
#2.
There was a thread a while back where they talked about the digital equivalent of lp/mm. Iirc 64 would still be multiples better than even a 4k screen at that size. It was a good thread, I'd say check that out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2019 3:14:18 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I lean that way too, though I’d have to seriously consider an 80LP tube. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
35...IMHO S/N rules. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2019 4:25:05 PM EDT
[#8]
As everyone knows, the S/N ratio changes drastically with even the slightest movement of the external gain pot. the S/N can also be changed by "tuning" or adjusting one of the pots on the tube itself. I think the lpmm on a tube is pretty much baked in. I would chose a tube with a lower S/N and really high PCR, low EBI, and higher resolution over one with slightly higher S/N.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2019 4:32:10 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As everyone knows, the S/N ratio changes drastically with even the slightest movement of the external gain pot. the S/N can also be changed by "tuning" or adjusting one of the pots on the tube itself. I think the lpmm on a tube is pretty much baked in. I would chose a tube with a lower S/N and really high PCR, low EBI, and higher resolution over one with slightly higher S/N. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2019 5:55:59 PM EDT
[#10]
SNR of 35 no doubt.
Once the SNR is in the 30s (even high 20s), I start weighing tubes more on EBI. Then PCR. Very last is resolution. Would pick a 64lp/mm 0.5 EBI tube over a 72lp/mm 0.8 EBI tube without hesitation. Only situation where I might look at resolution twice is if the tube was intended to be solely used in a clip-on scope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2019 6:38:12 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SNR of 35 no doubt. Once the SNR is in the 30s (even high 20s), I start weighing tubes more on EBI. Then PCR. Very last is resolution. Would pick a 64lp/mm 0.5 EBI tube over a 72lp/mm 0.8 EBI tube without hesitation. Only situation where I might look at resolution twice is if the tube was intended to be solely used in a clip-on scope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2019 7:09:23 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well if course, I was gonna caveat that at 80+ LP. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
35...IMHO S/N rules. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2019 7:49:52 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How noticible is the jump from 72 to 80+? You had a 82 or 83 that you use for astronomy if I remember correctly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
35...IMHO S/N rules.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2019 8:29:47 PM EDT
[#14]
I've got a 0.2 EBI/30.3 SNR/64 lpmm filmless tube in my MOD3s and it certainly has made me appreciate specs beyond just SNR.
I do not buy on specs or consider them all that much for personal use, but it's fun to compare tubes for their different attributes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2019 10:00:48 AM EDT
[#15]
I see Austin Lang is trying to sell the same sets of tubes again. sigh
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2019 10:15:45 AM EDT
[#16]
The higher FOM unit
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2019 6:51:11 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting. What will the EBI difference do for you over the resolution difference? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2019 7:29:40 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Any resolution improvement over 64lp/mm is a point of rapidly diminishing returns, unless in a clip-on configuration or some other system that has magnification downstream of the tube. Under extremely low light conditions, the resolution of the human eye drops even further and a tube with a resolution of say 57lp/mm would appear equally sharp, rather equally fuzzy. Under those same extremely low light conditions, EBI will be the dominant parameter that determines tube performance and how pleasing the image appears or even whether an image even appears. A 10-20% difference in EBI then becomes noticeable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2019 2:53:52 AM EDT
[#19]
Application?
For Aviation, anything over 30 SNR and I prioritize EBI over extra SNR. Ground use, I'd probably still pick the higher lp tube as long as both are over 30. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2019 3:14:51 PM EDT
[#20]
If your SNR is over 30...
If your Halo is under 1... If your EBI is under 1... If your lp/mm is 64 or higher... IMO you would have to test back to back to tell which is which in normal, head mounted use and even then its not going to be very noticable. I doubt you could throw one on in a blind test in a new location and say "This is the 31.9 SNR tube, this is the 34.6 SNR tube, or .8 vs .6 Halo, or .8 vs .5 EBI..." etc. if you just tried one random tube and didnt look at the other. Perhaps if one is more than double the EBI or Halo of the other it would be immediately noticable in situations where those are much more obvious, but there would probably not be much practical difference, even then. I tried a recently tried an L3 tube which was lower in ALL those stats vs mine and had to look for a blem or pull it away from my face to tell which was which. Halo size was probably the easiest to spot back to back and 72lp/mm vs 64lp/mm the hardest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2019 4:55:43 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
#2. There was a thread a while back where they talked about the digital equivalent of lp/mm. Iirc 64 would still be multiples better than even a 4k screen at that size. It was a good thread, I'd say check that out. 2304 pixels vs. 3328 pixels across. A 60" TV at 6 feet is a 40 degree wide FOV, but not as tall. 3840 pixels wide is still better than a 64lp tube either way if that is yhe formula. 72lp/mm x 2 lines x 26mm with a 40 degree fov would be 3744 pixels. If based off the 18mm tube 2592 pixels wide. So 72 lp/mm might be under 4k in that case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2019 5:20:26 PM EDT
[#22]
Most of the time the lower SNR is a much safer bet, assuming that the rest of specs are close. Just a little bit of dust on the objective lens will kill its (lens) resolution and resolutions of the tube is not going to matter all that much anymore. Based on our experience, objective lenses of PVS-14s are always _very_ dirty even if users try to keep them clean in the field. SNR, on the other hand, is not being affected by external factors and will ultimately provide a better low light resolution that is noise limited. As a side note, it's always advisable to keep the gain down as much as possible (as long as the eye will adjust) in order to save the precious SNR that has a tendency to drop as the gain goes up. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
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.
