User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/20/2022 9:56:28 PM EDT
I bought one today. Picked it up at Opticsplanet for around $959 with VIP pricing. It is also on riskyAliexpress for $999. There is lower res 256 version too for, DP09 $447
Nick Chen did a small test of it on instagram. Specs: 384x288  17um  25hz  4hrs on 1 CR123  origin: Chyna  $959  89g, 3/4 weight of a Gopro8 phone connection for larger display will post more when it arrives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2022 6:00:45 PM EDT
[#1]
looking foward to a review of this
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2022 11:23:41 PM EDT
[#2]
short demo, this thing is decent
 Infiray iRay DV DL13 Thermal monocular demo  Attached FileFootage: InfiRay iRay DL13 vs AGM Taipan TM-384 vs AGM ASP TM384  Footage: InfiRay iRay DL13 vs AGM Taipan TM-384 vs AGM ASP TM384 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 1:48:54 AM EDT
[#3]
The rear eye piece seems... Unfavorable?
How is it to use? How are the menus, etc? Looks like there are just 2 buttons? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 2:00:29 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The rear eye piece seems... Unfavorable? How is it to use? How are the menus, etc? Looks like there are just 2 buttons? menus are easy with 2 buttons. Eye screen is small, TM384 small. Eyepiece focus is easy, front focus is easy but can be overlooked if you don't know its there. Body is thin, not something to go to war with or drop. Not water resistant as far I know. Extremely lightweight and tiny. Overall, very cool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 2:01:32 AM EDT
[#5]
Is your freezer running? Thermal says so!
Some video from further than 5 feet would be nice. 100+ yards is the only reason I might even look at it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 2:03:55 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is your freezer running? Thermal says so! Some video from further than 5 feet would be nice. 100+ yards is the only reason I might even look at it. yea, that's coming. I've only had it a few hours. In the photo you can see the road 200 yards away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 2:06:49 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is your freezer running? Thermal says so! Some video from further than 5 feet would be nice. 100+ yards is the only reason I might even look at it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 4:02:20 AM EDT
[#8]
Don't expect too much
The D-R-I (person) for this device is, detection 480m - recognition 120m - identification 60m Frame rate is low at 25hz (so will appear laggy when panning) - most are 50hz or 60hz, pixel pitch is coarse at 17 microns Vs 12 micron (will lack image detail with distance) and its sensitivity is low by current standards e.g. ~ 60 vs 30 or 40mK (will lack thermal resolution image will lack contrast). On the plus side it has a good FOV ~ <28x21 degrees and its cheap. It will be useable for short ranges ~ 120m and within buildings |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 4:31:47 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By @GroundhogOZ , pixel pitch is coarse at 17 microns Vs 12 micron (will lack image detail with distance) Maybe you can explain this to me because what you said didn't make sense with how I understand sensor technology. With a fixed sensor resolution (ie the sensor is going to be 384x288 no matter what size the pixels are), a smaller pixel pitch doesn't increase the number of pixels available. It just results in a smaller overall diagonal sensor size. Obviously if you were putting that directly into a thermal imager that used a 35mm lens with a 17um sensor previously, changing only the sensor, it would typically result in higher native magnification, and therefore more detail (?) But why would going to 12um pitch result in more image detail than a 17um sensor with a proportional lens (ie smaller lens diameter to maintain the same native zoom and fov), assuming all firmware/tech/manufacturing processes are the same? In non-thermal camera sensors, this would be like saying you will get more image detail by going from a full frame dslr 20 megapixel 6.5um pixel pitch sensor (coarse) to a much smaller point n' shoot 20 megapixel 1.5um pitch sensor, assuming the lenses used offer comparable native magnification and fov. Which would seem to be false, right? I could see if the sensor diagonal size remained constant and a finer pixel pitch allowed a higher density and therefore more pixels in the same footprint (ie bumping up the resolution for a given sensor size). But with a fixed resolution, how does that work? Edit: the way I understand it, larger pixels or photo receptors, allow better capture of more information. Photons remain a constant size, so being able to detect more of them allows more detail than a smaller pixel with a more limited surface area. I also understood that the industry move to smaller pixel pitch was to decrease costs and lower pricing because you can get the same resolution and native magnification with smaller germanium lenses and more sensors per sheet. And rendering software advances have helped modern 12um image quality beat older larger sensor image quality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 4:45:10 AM EDT
[#10]
In order to answer your great question, see the numbers below
(1) 384x288 detector - 12micron pixel pitch - 9mm focal length DRI (human sized target) = 470m - 120m - 60m with FOV = 28.7 x 21.7 Vs (2) 384x288 detector - 17micron pixel pitch - 9mm focal length DRI (human sized target) = 340m - 80m - 40m with FOV = 39.8 x 30.4 So with increased pixel pitch you get a larger field of view (for the same focal length) but less resolution (fewer pixels on target) and therefore lower identification range (PID being very important). Or to put it more succinctly, in order to get a positive identification at greater range you need to put more pixels on the target, the smaller the pixel pitch the more pixels you can get on target but to do this you sacrifice some field of view (for devices with the same focal length). The greater number of pixels on target the more fine detail you can see (higher resolution). The higher detail/resolution/pixel density on target allows you to make a PID at greater distance with more certainty. Hopefully that make sense
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 5:17:38 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In order to answer your great question, see the numbers below (1) 384x288 detector - 12micron pixel pitch - 9mm focal length DRI (human sized target) = 470m - 120m - 60m with FOV = 28.7 x 21.7 Vs (2) 384x288 detector - 17micron pixel pitch - 9mm focal length DRI (human sized target) = 340m - 80m - 40m with FOV = 39.8 x 30.4 So with increased pixel pitch you get a larger field of view (for the same focal length) but less resolution (fewer pixels on target) Hopefully that make sense I asked about keeping the fov the same. Which requires a different focal length. And typically a different diameter lens. Your comparison basically just shows that a smaller pitch sensor allows higher native zoom for a given size lens. But if you bumped the lens up on the 17um sensor to get an equivalent fov and native mag, you'd have the same image detail, and indeed (academically) better quality due to larger photo sites. Just like if I go from a full frame camera to a aps-c crop sensor (smaller sensor), if I use the same lens on both cameras, the focal length is the same in terms of how far away it is from the sensor but it isn't proportionally the same in terms of image frame (fov).  Attached File Attached FileHence why if you buy a 50mm lens for a crop sensor camera, to take the same picture with a full frame, you need to go up to a 75mm lens.  Attached FileSo does that mean that 12um sensor offers better image detail than a larger pitch sensor for a given focal length? Because the point of going smaller pitch seemed to be to provide equivalent fov and native mag (so same image detail at a given distance) but with a smaller (cheaper) germanium lens. Or like you're saying, to bump up the native mag without having to use a larger lens. But apples to apples, 12um doesn't actually offer higher image quality than a comparable 17um sensor. Am I missing something? I just mean I've heard this a lot from lots of sources - that 12um represents a better image quality. I figure that's typically just consumer misinformation or misunderstanding because it's the latest it MUST be the best objectively in all metrics. So I was surprised to see you say what sounded like that same thing, despite that fact that you always seem to have a more technical understanding of this stuff than the average Joe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 5:44:04 AM EDT
[#12]
Originally Posted By @GroundhogOZ , pixel pitch is coarse at 17 microns Vs 12 micron (will lack image detail with distance) Ok so if I understand what you're saying.... You mean that this thermal imager with a 17um pixel pitch will have lower detail at a given distance than the same imager with a 12um pitch, because the 17um will have a lower native magnification (also described as base optical zoom) than the 12um would have. So it's because of the zoom rather than the pixel pitch. Would that be accurate? So you're not actually suggesting smaller pixel pitch offers better image quality than larger order pitch other than how it impacts the magnification. That makes sense. So it's like saying a 1-6x lpvo will have more image detail at 100 yards on 6x than when it's on 1x, except describing it in terms of exit pupil. "The 24mm exit pupil will have less image detail at distance than the 4mm exit pupil." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 6:00:17 AM EDT
[#13]
 Thermal Imaging Scope & Spotter - HOLO That one looks neat |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 6:46:47 AM EDT
[#14]
@daggertt
You can't have constant field of view for 12 micron Vs 17 micron whilst the focal length of the lens is constant. Think of a detector as an array of blocks, lets say each detector is made of 10 blocks. The area of the 12 micron detector will be 1440, whereas the area of the 17micron detector will be 2890 - all else being equal the 17 micron detector will therefore reflect a larger field of view. Now if you had some spare 12 micron blocks, you would need 20 - 12 micron blocks to cover the same area equivalent as 10 x 17 micron blocks - higher number of blocks for the same area equals higher resolution. This is crude but I know you understand the point. However, the only way you can keep the field of view the same for two equal sized detectors (384x288 but with different pixel pitch) is by changing the focal length of the lens. So going back to our to original detectors (1) 384x288 detector - 12micron pixel pitch - 9mm focal length DRI (human sized target) = 470m - 120m - 60m with FOV = 28.7 x 21.7 Vs (2) 384x288 detector - 17micron pixel pitch - 9mm focal length DRI (human sized target) = 340m - 80m - 40m with FOV = 39.8 x 30.4 What focal length would be required to give detector (1) a similar field of view as the 17 micron detector (2)? Answer You would need to reduce the focal length of the lens in front of sensor (1) from 9mm to about 6mmm which would give you a field of view of ~ 42x32. As you have gathered with thermal detectors you trade off field of view - pixel pitch and focal length. Hence if you go to a better detector e.g. 640x480 its smart to recognise you need to also increase the focal length of the lens to ensure you get a significant increase in DRI. If you don't do this and stick with 9mm lens as in example (1) you wont increase the DRI - you will simply increase the FOV from 28.7x21.7 to 46x35 In contrast if you go with a 19mm focal length you will get a dramatic increase in DRI to 1000m-250m-130m and still retain a good field of view of ~ 23x17. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 7:22:21 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @daggertt You can't have constant field of view for 12 micron Vs 17 micron whilst the focal length of the lens is constant. Quote HistoryQuoted: @daggertt You can't have constant field of view for 12 micron Vs 17 micron whilst the focal length of the lens is constant. I asked about keeping the fov the same. Which requires a different focal length. So yeah...not to mention like 3 paragraphs and illustrations and math equations about how to determine the equivalent focal length.  You didn't read anything I wrote. lolIn other words I think I'm right in understanding that you mean that this thermal imager with a 17um pixel pitch will have lower detail at a given distance than the same imager with a 12um pitch, because the 17um will have a lower native magnification (also described as base optical zoom) than the 12um would have. So it's because of the zoom rather than the pixel pitch. So it's like saying a 1-6x lpvo will have more image detail at 100 yards on 6x than when it's on 1x, except describing it in terms of exit pupil. "The 24mm exit pupil will have less image detail at distance than the 4mm exit pupil." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 7:37:08 AM EDT
[#16]
LOL I just got into the flow of it and hopefully allows others to understand the discussion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 7:54:12 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I asked about keeping the fov the same. Which requires a different focal length. And typically a different diameter lens. Your comparison basically just shows that a smaller pitch sensor allows higher native zoom for a given size lens. But if you bumped the lens up on the 17um sensor to get an equivalent fov and native mag, you'd have the same image detail, and indeed (academically) better quality due to larger photo sites. @groundhogoz - I’d also be interested to a response to this question. Nobody is arguing that putting more pixels on target isn’t increasing detail. He’s asking if there’s something about the tighter pixel pitch that makes it more sensitive to thermal information, seemingly opposite from how it works in traditional visible light sensors. It’s a claim that has come up multiple times, and it’d be nice to clarify if it’s only true when fixing focal length or true with consistent field of view between two systems. In your calcs, please leave DRI and FOV the same between the two systems. Then is there any advantage to 12um other than smaller germanium requirements? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 9:20:22 AM EDT
[#18]
Again great question - short answer is you can keep FOV and DRI the same but you will have a smaller germanium lens as the focal length will be lower.
(lower focal length = smaller germanium lens) But....................this assumes the thermal sensitivity remains the same...................as you upscale, you tend to improve (buy) thermal sensitivity, this is important because it can allow the differentiation between two adjacent pixels (can be really important at distance). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 9:23:31 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @groundhogoz - I'd also be interested to a response to this question. Nobody is arguing that putting more pixels on target isn't increasing detail. He's asking if there's something about the tighter pixel pitch that makes it more sensitive to thermal information, seemingly opposite from how it works in traditional visible light sensors. It's a claim that has come up multiple times, and it'd be nice to clarify if it's only true when fixing focal length or true with consistent field of view between two systems. In your calcs, please leave DRI and FOV the same between the two systems. Then is there any advantage to 12um other than smaller germanium requirements? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 9:28:31 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: THANK YOU! Finally someone understands what I'm trying to ask. Short answer the focal length changes - so the size of the lens changes :) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 9:29:24 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again great question - short answer is you can keep FOV and DRI the same but you will have a smaller germanium lens as the focal length will be lower. (lower focal length = smaller germanium lens) But....................this assumes the thermal sensitivity remains the same...................as you upscale, you tend improve (buy) thermal sensitivity, this is important because it can allow the differentiation between two adjacent pixels (can be really important at distance). You're literally repeating what I said in my question as if it's the answer. Here's my last attempt... Question: will 12um provide better image quality than 17um or 25um given the same fov and native magnification (and all software/manufacturing/sensitivity, etc factors held constant)? Yes or no? I'm not trying to trap or trick you. I don't think we are debating anything. I genuinely am wondering if I'm misunderstanding this conceptually. As for thermal sensitivity, is this a function of pixel pitch or was that a completely irrelevant and random factor you just threw in to muddy the water even more? Lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 9:32:04 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Short answer the focal length changes - so the size of the lens changes :) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: THANK YOU! Finally someone understands what I'm trying to ask. Short answer the focal length changes - so the size of the lens changes :) nevermind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 9:35:42 AM EDT
[#23]
Thermal sensitivity (measured in mK) is purely a function of the quality of the detector and thickness of the germanium window.
A 12 micron detector will always provide better image quality than a coarser pixel pitch - again this is the short answer. These systems are not designed in isolation, thermal sensitivity, focal length, base magnification, pixel pitch and required field of view are all taken into account relative to the end use. You can't reduce to it to one variable when any given solution requires at least 5. From a mil perspective the detector may be the same for a recce guy, a CQB guy and a sniper - the variables that will change will be focal length and base magnification (all will want the smallest pixel pitch and best thermal sensitivity). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 9:47:10 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A 12 micron detector will always provide better image quality than a coarser pixel pitch - again this is the short answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 9:51:21 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But whyyyyyy Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A 12 micron detector will always provide better image quality than a coarser pixel pitch - again this is the short answer. This please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 11:43:36 AM EDT
[#26]
I have a TM384
edit, they are both 12um. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 11:44:36 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But whyyyyyy A VOx core, which most are using these days is sensitive to Thermal Radiation from 8-14um. By shrinking the Core's pixel pitch to SUB 14um, the pixel is missing any thermal radiation from 12um-14um; the information is simply not there because the wavelength of the energy is larger than the pixel that could receive it. IF everything else were equal (FOV, Optical Mag, Thermal Sensitivity, Quality of the Lens, etc), a 17um core will have a higher information image than a 12um core; I'd imagine this would manifest as a higher contrast image. Of course not everything else is equal IRL. By having the 12um core, the cost of the core is reduced per device which allows the manufacturer to use higher quality Germanium lenses or a better image processor, while maintaining the cost of the device (or reducing it to sell more). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 1:10:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As I recall, what he said is incorrect from a Physics POV. A VOx core, which most are using these days is sensitive to Thermal Radiation from 8-14um. By shrinking the Core's pixel pitch to SUB 14um, the pixel is missing any thermal radiation from 12um-14um; the information is simply not there because the wavelength of the energy is larger than the pixel that could receive it. IF everything else were equal (FOV, Optical Mag, Thermal Sensitivity, Quality of the Lens, etc), a 17um core will have a higher information image than a 12um core; I'd imagine this would manifest as a higher contrast image. Of course not everything else is equal IRL. By having the 12um core, the cost of the core is reduced per device which allows the manufacturer to use higher quality Germanium lenses or a better image processor, while maintaining the cost of the device (or reducing it to sell more). And yes obviously IRL these companies are focusing all their attention and tech improvements on the smaller cores so a current 12um sensor will typically look better than an older sensor with bigger pixels. But it's not strictly speaking BECAUSE of the smaller pitch, but in spite of it. I just keep hearing this crap regurgitated as fact but it makes no technical sense, but when one of the resident experts said it I thought maybe I had truly misunderstood something. At this point I'm very confident I did not.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 8:22:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Footage: InfiRay iRay DL13 vs AGM Taipan TM-384 vs AGM ASP TM384
Footage: InfiRay iRay DL13 vs AGM Taipan TM-384 vs AGM ASP TM384 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 11:04:21 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As I recall, what he said is incorrect from a Physics POV. A VOx core, which most are using these days is sensitive to Thermal Radiation from 8-14um. By shrinking the Core's pixel pitch to SUB 14um, the pixel is missing any thermal radiation from 12um-14um; the information is simply not there because the wavelength of the energy is larger than the pixel that could receive it. IF everything else were equal (FOV, Optical Mag, Thermal Sensitivity, Quality of the Lens, etc), a 17um core will have a higher information image than a 12um core; I'd imagine this would manifest as a higher contrast image. Of course not everything else is equal IRL. By having the 12um core, the cost of the core is reduced per device which allows the manufacturer to use higher quality Germanium lenses or a better image processor, while maintaining the cost of the device (or reducing it to sell more). No - it has nothing to do with what wavelengths can be detected. The sensitivity to specific wavelengths is dependant on what the detector is made of e.g. PtSi or InSb as two examples. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2022 11:08:47 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok thanks. This is how I understood it. And yes obviously IRL these companies are focusing all their attention and tech improvements on the smaller cores so a current 12um sensor will typically look better than an older sensor with bigger pixels. But it's not strictly speaking BECAUSE of the smaller pitch, but in spite of it. I just keep hearing this crap regurgitated as fact but it makes no technical sense, but when one of the resident experts said it I thought maybe I had truly misunderstood something. At this point I'm very confident I did not. I gave you the facts - its straight forward. Hows your big screen TV with one inch pixels? How does 360p work with it? 9mm lens 384x288 - man size target - 90% probability 3.5u pixel pitch (mil grade) DRI 1060m 270m 130m FOV 8 x 6 10u pixel pitch (mil grade) DRI 320m 80m 40m FOV 24 x 18 12u pixel pitch (civ grade) DRI 270m 70m 30m FOV 28 x 21 17u pixel pitch (civ grade) DRI 190m 50m 20m FOV 39 x 30 Not only does pixel pitch give you resolution it allows you to build compact, very high resolution detectors (and very expensive too) e.g. 1920 x 1080, 3.5u (mil grade) 19mm focal length - man sized target - 50% probability Detection range, 4010m - Recognition Range, 1000m and Identification range, 500m and thats before the good lens', imaging software and other forms of magnification come out to play. civ grade = available to the general market mil grade = not available to the general market (1) The pixel pitch has nothing whatsoever to do with the wavelengths that can be detected - this is determined by the composition of the detector e.g. PtSi, SbIn, PbSnSe, AlGaAS et etc, thickness of the detector and composition of the lens. For example the FLIR Boson 12 micron detector - picks up wavelengths from 7.5um to 13.5um (2) In the real world you shoot for low pixel pitch to get resolution and raise or lower the focal length to achieve the desired field of view that the end user requires (3) 17 micron detectors are considered obsolete - that doesn't mean they are of no use, they still work well - however, you don't want to come across a foe with a 3.5 micron detector - you'll be PID and hit and wouldn't know anything about it. (4) Software - pixel coding also matters - with lower pixel pitch you don't just get better resolution, you get better contrast (particularly with histogram equalised/255 grey scale). Note: the DRI calculations for the first series of calculations were at 90% probability not 50% probability. I have have thus changed 50% to 90% to reflect this. The second calculation with the 1920 x 1080 detector was determined at 50% probability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2022 1:11:25 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I gave you the facts - its straight forward. Hows your big screen TV with one inch pixels? How does 360p work with it? 9mm lens 384x288 - man size target - 50% probability 3.5u pixel pitch (mil grade) DRI 1060m 270m 130m FOV 8 x 6 10u pixel pitch (mil grade) DRI 320m 80m 40m FOV 24 x 18 12u pixel pitch (civ grade) DRI 270m 70m 30m FOV 28 x 21 17u pixel pitch (civ grade) DRI 190m 50m 20m FOV 39 x 30 Not only does pixel pitch give you resolution it allows you to build compact, very high resolution detectors (and very expensive too) e.g. 1920 x 1080, 3.5u (mil grade) 19mm focal length - man sized target - 50% probability Detection range, 4010m - Recognition Range, 1000m and Identification range, 500m and thats before the good lens', imaging software and other forms of magnification come out to play. civ grade = available to the general market mil grade = not available to the general market (1) The pixel pitch has nothing whatsoever to do with the wavelengths that can be detected - this is determined by the composition of the detector e.g. PtSi, SbIn, PbSnSe, AlGaAS et etc, thickness of the detector and composition of the lens. (2) In the real world you shoot for low pixel pitch to get resolution and raise or lower the focal length to achieve the desired field of view that the end user requires (3) 17 micron detectors are considered obsolete - that doesn't mean they are of no use, they still work well - however, you don't want to come across a foe with a 3.5 micron detector - you'll be PID and hit and wouldn't know anything about it. (4) Software - pixel coding also matters - with lower pixel pitch you don't just get better resolution, you get better contrast (particularly with histogram equalised/255 grey scale). Again, thanks for demonstrating the using smaller pixels allows for smaller and cheaper overall products by permitting better performance for a given lens size. Which is still not the question. So far literally everything you've said has just been talking around the question. At this point I think you're literally incapable of grasping what we are asking. It's ok. Not your fault. Thanks for trying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2022 1:29:08 AM EDT
[#33]
Thanks for that - you seem incapable of understanding how thermals work.
Screens are not detectors - it was an analogy and screens are not the same as detectors........thats the equivalent of saying a fridge and a washing machine are the same because they are white goods and both run on electricity. You need to read some basic literature about thermals - why thermal lens systems are designed the way they are and why the detectors are composed of certain materials, how they are made and what they are sensitive too. The smaller pixel pitch detectors are found in the most expensive gear. You just weren't aware of 3.5um pixel pitch detectors. Pixel pitch determines resolution - detector/lens composition determines wavelength range, sensitivity and contrast. The drive to lower pixel pitch is a drive towards ever better resolution it has nothing to do with cost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2022 2:35:57 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks for that - you seem incapable of understanding how thermals work. Screens are not detectors - it was an analogy and screens are not the same as detectors........thats the equivalent of saying a fridge and a washing machine are the same because they are white goods and both run on electricity. You need to read some basic literature about thermals - why thermal lens systems are designed the way they are and why the detectors are composed of certain materials, how they are made and what they are sensitive too. The smaller pixel pitch detectors are found in the most expensive gear. You just weren't aware of 3.5um pixel pitch detectors. Pixel pitch determines resolution - detector/lens composition determines wavelength range, sensitivity and contrast. The drive to lower pixel pitch is a drive towards ever better resolution it has nothing to do with cost. Pixel pitch =/= resolution... You can obviously have a 1920x1080 17um sensor, or you could also have a 1920x1080 12um sensor. One is going to cost more per unit to produce since it is physically larger (the 17um, though this doesn't take in to account the savings or expenses associated with the smaller die sizes so the savings in the sensor itself is likely only temporary) A 1920x1080 17um sensor will have 2,073,600 pixels (resistors) spaced in a 17um 2D array. A 1920x1080 12um sensor will have 2,073,600 pixels spaced in a 12um 2D array. Obviously the 12um array has smaller resistors, spaced closer together, and results in a smaller 2D array. If FOV is kept the same, detection/recognition/ID ranges should be identical as each sensor package is looking at the same thing with the same number of pixels on target. The only way one sensor would give a better image in that case is if the sensor SNR was better (NETD). I'd love to learn how I'm wrong here, and I very well could be, but I'm not sure you are able to explain it in a way I will understand... Note I was mistaken on the 12um not picking up 14um wavelength like I said earlier. I had a brainfart and was thinking amplitude when I should've been thinking wavelength. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2022 2:52:11 AM EDT
[#35]
9mm lens, 384 x 288 detector with 12 micron pixel pitch at 50% probability - man sized target
Detection = 470m, Recognition = 120m and Identification = 60m 9mm lens, 384 x 288 detector with 17 micron pixel pitch at 50% probability - man sized target Detection = 340m, Recognition = 80m and Identification = 40m That is resolution e.g. the target is resolved at 60m by the 12 micron detector and at 40m with the 17 micron detector. The target is resolved at 60m due to the higher resolution of the 12 micron detector relative to the 17 micron detector. I've said all that needs to be said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2022 3:00:01 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks for that - you seem incapable of understanding how thermals work. Screens are not detectors - it was an analogy and screens are not the same as detectors........thats the equivalent of saying a fridge and a washing machine are the same because they are white goods and both run on electricity. You need to read some basic literature about thermals - why thermal lens systems are designed the way they are and why the detectors are composed of certain materials, how they are made and what they are sensitive too. The smaller pixel pitch detectors are found in the most expensive gear. You just weren't aware of 3.5um pixel pitch detectors. Pixel pitch determines resolution - detector/lens composition determines wavelength range, sensitivity and contrast. The drive to lower pixel pitch is a drive towards ever better resolution it has nothing to do with cost. So far you haven't demonstrated that smaller pixel pitches improve image quality, other factors being held EQUAL (not same). You seem to think you're proving some point with what you think is special knowledge about 3.5um sensors. 3.5um simply allows much higher resolutions from a smaller, usable size device. While the civilian market is going for compact and lowering costs/prices, the military is going for compact size. If you want a thermal that can pid a person at 1000m, you can either use a larger pixel pitch and have the thing weigh 35lbs and be enormous, or you can use a much smaller pixel pitch and make it for in the palm of your hand with the same fov and magnification. That doesn't mean 3.5um offers objectively better image quality than a 25um device which has the same magnification, fov, sensitivity, and material. In fact i contend that those factors being equal, the 25um will provide better image quality than a 3.5um device due to having more surface area on each item to capture/detect information. It's the same thing as a $400 point n shoot camera that fits in the palm of your hand with a 500mm equivalent zoom factor compared to a professional full frame camera that requires a lens that is literally 35lbs and $26000 for an 500mm zoom, both having 20mp sensors but one being 6.5um and the other being 1.5um. On paper they put the same amount of pixels on target but no one with half a brain would insist that the point n shoot offers better image quality. Also no one who had to carry one around in the field would choose the larger camera.   |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2022 3:16:23 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 9mm lens, 384 x 288 detector with 12 micron pixel pitch at 50% probability - man sized target Detection = 470m, Recognition = 120m and Identification = 60m 9mm lens, 384 x 288 detector with 17 micron pixel pitch at 50% probability - man sized target Detection = 340m, Recognition = 80m and Identification = 40m That is resolution e.g. the target is resolved at 60m by the 12 micron detector and at 40m with the 17 micron detector. The target is resolved at 60m due to the higher resolution of the 12 micron detector relative to the 17 micron detector. I've said all that needs to be said. 12um only offers higher magnification than 17um for a given lens. Not better image quality. Here's an analogy for you: You're essentially comparing exit pupils on an lpvo. "24mm lens, 24mm exit pupil = 150m identification 24mm lens, 4mm exit pupil = 300m identification See? Smaller exit pupils offer more image detail at distance!" When in reality what you're actually comparing is 1x vs 6x. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2022 7:48:57 AM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2022 11:04:00 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You keep throwing out spec comparisons for a constant lens. Which just proves my point. 12um only offers higher magnification than 17um for a given lens. Not better image quality. Here's an analogy for you: You're essentially comparing exit pupils on an lpvo. "24mm lens, 24mm exit pupil = 150m identification 24mm lens, 4mm exit pupil = 300m identification See? Smaller exit pupils offer more image detail at distance!" When in reality what you're actually comparing is 1x vs 6x. Tech people say that 12um is better than 17um so it is. That's good enough for me and the less um's the better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2022 11:40:10 PM EDT
[#40]
Anyone have any additional video or hands on use with this unit?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2022 11:46:00 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone have any additional video or hands on use with this unit? what do you want to know, i'll do my best |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2022 11:51:38 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: what do you want to know, i'll do my best Honestly just more videos. Something that has animals at various ranges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2022 3:47:48 AM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2022 2:37:42 AM EDT
[#44]
211 yard human test, did good but did something interesting. Full screen mode required.
 cheap tiny thermal InfiRay iRay DL13. 200+ yard walk, with surprise @swampfoxoutdoors @slappomatt |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2022 10:09:46 AM EDT
[#45]
Not a bad little unit. A USB-C Female ended cable, should power it from a Power Bank.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 12:05:58 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 211 yard human test, did good but did something interesting. Full screen mode required.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udPUB3wSSQQ@swampfoxoutdoors @slappomatt Thanks. Looks like a sharp little unit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 12:22:35 AM EDT
[#47]
I have the AGM-TM15 and this blows it away. but its in a different category obviously.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 9:12:45 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have the AGM-TM15 and this blows it away. but its in a different category obviously. Yeah I had no idea what this unit actually looked like till the video and then me looking it up. I was assuming the traditional monocular tube design. I think I noticed a screw mount on it wonder if it can be helmet mounted? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 12:59:35 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah I had no idea what this unit actually looked like till the video and then me looking it up. I was assuming the traditional monocular tube design. I think I noticed a screw mount on it wonder if it can be helmet mounted? That threaded insert is in a less than ideal spot for that. If it was in the middle'ish, an M24 FLIR Shoe could be modded - or it could screw into a Lion's Gear Bridge - but the screen would have to flip as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 2:21:53 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That threaded insert is in a less than ideal spot for that. If it was in the middle'ish, an M24 FLIR Shoe could be modded - or it could screw into a Lion's Gear Bridge - but the screen would have to flip as well. I know we have a magical genius here that 3D printed a few mounts for the AGM taipan series of Monocular for helmet use. If anyone can remember who that was please @ him and get his input on it. It maynot be feasible. |
|
|
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.
Attached File