So I recently picked up a L3 filmless tubed WP PVS-14 and compared it to my ITT Pinnacle thin film tubed PVS-14 and to my eyes the WP looks better.  Wife agreed that the WP looked a lot better to her eyes too.  So I took some pics of each and tried to get the same image in both.  Specs on each are:

ITT Pinnacle
Res:    64 lp/mm
SNR:   29.9
EBI:    0.56

L3 White Phosphor
Res:    72 lp/mm
SNR:   34.2
EBI:    1.3

When looking through them normally the WP looks better, but I took the color out in the second pic and I can't hardly tell any difference between the two.  It just seems strange that the WP looks so much better to my eyes until I compared the two pictures of color vs. color removed.  Is it really just the shade of color that makes such a dramatic difference to my eyes (and evidently many others)?

On a side note, I actually just sold the green tubed PVS and I told the buyer that the image quality/resolution of the green one pretty much matched my new WP unit and IMO the pic with the color removed pretty much proves it.




If you see a small bright spot in the images it's just the lightning bugs, they were out like crazy.

Wow. The difference really IS negligible. I actually have an OPMOD Pvs-14 with an ITT Pinnacle and the same 64 res and 29.9 s2n. I've been considering a white phosphor system with the idea that it would absolutely blow my mind. This brings things into perspective. Thanks for saving me ~4k!

Coincidently enough I talked to someone earlier today about getting WP tubes in my Mod3's; quoted $6250 for the tubes and work required.

Think I'll stick with my green tubes!

I would say that 72/64 and 34/29 SNR is a pretty big jump.

NV is really hard to capture the actual look to the eye. And most Gen3 will get the job done I myself can notice the difference in a really good tube and prefer it. But maybe I’m a NV snob/elitist??

Care to upload some photos through some of your systems? I'm curious to see how good a really good system looks.

Actually you can see more detail in the top B&W image--especially in the highlights and branches of the big tree and in the V-shaped fence-line. But yes, the difference is kind of subtle in these example images. Maybe you'd notice a bigger difference if they were used in a darker or indoor environment?

Don't let me talk any of you all out of WP tubes because subjectively I think it looks much better.  Objectively though, especially in the pics with the color removed, I don't see THAT big of a difference.

Let me be clear. I think a matching spec green tube and white tube will look the same.

What I see is that your WP has higher specs and therefore a better image. Not because it’s white but because it has better resolution and a higher S/N. But I suspect the resolution is what makes it looks better in these pics.

If given the choice, I prefer White for a couple of reasons, one of which being I often use thermal hand in hand.
Another being I feel WP matches “moonlight” better when using a monocular.

Interesting, thanks for posting.

A tiny bit of focus difference in the objective lens could make the green tube look less sharp in the images too, though I suppose you had that dialed in good and even in that low resolution pic the better spec L3 looks way sharper (and brighter/bigger difference between dark & bright, though that may be the camera picking up the WP color better). That said great specs on the green tube with high SNR and low EBI, must've been a great tube!

Interesting difference on the edges and something I've noticed in other pics too - the ITT image has a lot less edge resolution. Most pics through new L3 tubes tend to be pretty damn sharp even right at the edges. Could be it's a coincidence and could be it's most of the times a difference in camera setup or could be different PVS-14 optics too. I don't have nearly enough first hand experience with different 14 optics to know if the mil-spec ones could be that far away from each other. If it's not that, then maybe newish L3 tubes are actually better in that respect.

Someone with a pile of different 14 optics please do us a favor and snap pics through them (or just describe how you subjectively though about them)! It'd take a good while doing that if using the same tube though.. Still, would be (and sure many others too) very interested knowing how much is there any visible difference between the manufacturers. And throw in ANVIS optics too if you got them Seems to be a huge amount of different lenses out there (even from any one manufacturer there's a bunch of different flavors with some visible changes over the years).

Add to that list the DEP optics which I am even more interested in. Still not sure if the new objective lens is out yet, though I remember seeing it somewhere with their Hyper-MUM but not with the Hyper/Vyper -14. I would suppose the DEP eyepiece is more suited to use with WP than legacy 14 eyepices are, and just maybe the DEP objective lens is tuned towards INTENS higher wavelengths. No good info anywhere about them.

You're probably not going to notice a huge difference between pinnacles and filmless super tubes.

From all of the various tube's I've used and owned, anything that is newer Gen 2+ is great and so is anything Gen 3 Omni II or better. Anything better is just a slight increase in crazy dark environments (tree covered forests, no moonlight, indoors). For the hunter or casual user there is typically ample moonlight or starlight to where the filmless aren't going to make you appreciate much performance increase - at least not in terms of the cost increase for the tubes. In fact, in most cases where Filmless outperforms - you would likely want to add supplemental IR for a positive ID, anyhow.

I have a really night Filmless MOD3 with 34+ SNR 72lp/mm tubes and my go to is typically a pinnacle Sentinel simply because there isn't much of a real world increase in performance through my eyeballs. I mean its there, but we're talking 1080p vs 4k type differences - because both are pretty awesome.

I also prefer green filmless over white. However, I do have a photonis white phos tube and I prefer that over the color of the blue-ish L3 white phos tubes I had.

I wonder if that high EBI is also hindering the performance of your filmless tube, but again... it would be fairly marginal against a nice pinnacle tube in my experience.

I find a huge difference between 4k and 1080p, but most people sitting 12 ft away from the TV can't tell much of a difference.

I don't notice a huge difference - there's no "wow" factor like there is going from Gen 2 to Gen 3. or Gen 1 to Gen 3. I've done quite a bit of side by sides, I've mixed tube pods on my MOD3's, etc. Maybe your super tubes are more super than mine.

Do you see a difference in your L3 versus ITT in edge resolution?

And then steering slightly off topic:
Regarding slight increases in crazy dark performance when going from Omni II tubes towards the newest, Photonis had filed a patent with an idea of putting a certain type of thin film (GaAs was one of the suggestions) between the MCP & phosphor to eat out most/any radial velocity from electrons exiting the MCP, leaving them at a more straight trajectory toward the output, and in theory upping the MTF of the whole tube at 64lp/mm to around 3x of what it is now (edit, misunderstood something: and much more in also in lower spatial frequencies which as far as I understand are more of importance under low light). 3x+ more contrast to the image would be pretty dramatic as a step up from previous "gen", would crisp it up quite a bit. I hope they/L3 manage to pull that off in one way or another. It could mean a step in performance over all lightning conditions bigger than what's usually seen. My guess is spec sheets would state a good increase in resolution, but the sharpness of the image should go up much more than what the lp/mm numbers tell.

An image of MTF over whole tube and only in the MCP  phosphor gap (blue with film, considerable increase in MTF):


Edit: in general terms that'd mean the "image" in form of a electron "spray" coming out of the MCP would be focused better on the phosphor screen, less spread, thus less blur & more contrast (and higher lp/mm ratings on spec sheets, but, as far as I understand this, not 3x more as then it would be limited by the MCP and not by MTF, just because how limiting resolution lp/mm is measured). Though at the same time, it could mean the honeycomb pattern becomes more easily visible.

I think there is a decent difference there, but I think it’s spec related and not color related.  The other question is what are you doing with these tubes?  Stationary viewing would make me the think the higher spec tube would show a decent improvement.  Much moving where focus isn’t perfect all the time and the differences fade into the near meaningless realm.  I don’t think I’d pay a premium for the white but I may for the higher spec.  I’m not sure how big or little the difference looks in person and everyone’s eyes are different so it may not show at all for some and may be a huge for others.  You are right though that it isn’t like stepping up to a new generation of tube.  It’s an improvement but it’s far from the WOW factor when jumping generations.

I tried and tried to like the early white tubes, this was several years ago, but they were too blue and specs were too close to the green for me. I got green because it was easier for my brain to report to me whether I was seeing through the unaided eye or the NV.

If I were buying today, I would jump on filmless white without hesitation.

I bet if you tried to test them through a DSLR or other camera system behind the ocular lens you would pretty quickly be able to tell that the white phosphor with higher screen resolution infact has superior resolution.

Yeah, I just had a thread on this: https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/Do-specs-matter-as-much-as-we-think-they-do-/18-488166/

After a few months I can honestly say the tubes are almost indistinguishable from one another, and I bought my original monocular over a decade ago. People will pull the 'warfighter' card stating that the difference may not matter to me personally, but I've used NVGs for a significant portion of my time overseas as well so I'm not a stranger to the concept. Hate to say it, but it didn't matter there either - it was good enough. Most of the time someone had thermal anyway.

Don't stress over the specs. I have WP only because I like it better than the F'in green I'm tired of looking through.

I do see a difference; the L3 WP tubed PVS-14 does have slightly better edge resolution.

Just want to point out that I'm not bashing the L3 WP tube.  On the contrary, I actually like it A LOT and that's why I'm keeping it and selling the green ITT.  I only posted this up because it kind of surprised me that when the color was removed from each pic, the difference is somewhat negligible between the two.  In actual use to my eyes and my wife's eyes, the WP tube looks better but it's more of a contrast thing rather than resolution.  $1000 better?  Still not totally sure about that but I currently have no regrets spending the extra for the WP.  

Ive had a chance to look through both and felt the WP was brighter and more crisp. Then again I was comparing it with my GP pvs-14 which is a bit older.

if youre on a tight budget go green, if you can spare the few hundred extra dollars grab WP

Thank you for the pictures. They do seem close but careful inspection, especially looking at the individual branches, shows the WP tube does have the advantage.

How much real world advantage will it yield?  I’m not sure.

From what I’ve been reading I’m more interested in you guys with both of these setups posting pics in very very dark conditions.

That’s where the higher spec WP are suppose to really separate themselves and I’m really interested to see the difference.

I recently found the difference in my two omni7 tubes and when’s it’s almost pitch black one you can’t make out anything and one you can, barely, but you can.

Sam what (number) would you consider a "higher EBI" when it comes to WP tubes?

Heres the deal with WP. The only real advantage of WP over green is that WP has a lower luminous efficiency than green. Luminous efficiency means how well a phosphor type outputs light in the visible spectrum or to put it another way how well the light output by the tube's screen fits human eye. the human eye is the most sensitive to and contrast greens the best. So P-45 white phosphor, because it has multiple peaks within the visible spectrum and allows use of the eyes rod cells, can appear/be percieved as brighter in low light conditions while really being being a darker image due to its low luminous efficiency. The whole argument about white contrasting better than green is not correct and stems from alot of marketing hype(notice you will always see "may" or "may or may not" used to talk about white contrasting better than green.). The reason that WP was developed and produced was to give SF operators a tube that they could wear for very long periods of time and be less susceptable to eye strain and fatigue from using NODs for long durations, much longer than most anyone else would even come close to when using night vision equipment. Since green tubes have luminous efficiencies that are very close to the human eyes they can cause eyestrain and fatigue much faster than white. However unless you are using an eyepiece that is able to take advantage of the White phosphors bandwidth then you really arent going to getting the most out of yout WP tube. And almost no one has an eyepiece that is matched for WP. If you did your WP -14 would have cost way more than $4500 for sure. Most everyone with WP tubes are using eyepieces designed to make use of green phosphor and so when used with WP can cause chromatic abberations(distortion) within the image. dont  be fooled by all the marketing that gets thrown around. Try both if possible and see which one you prefer before making the decision to buy. Some like whte some like green. It just depends on the person is guess.

There have been some tactical studies into WP vs Green, and two clear factors came out.

1) Visual identification of detailed objects improved under WP at photopic and mesopic eye illumination levels and it was a fairly significant increase. Quite a few percent better.
2) This advantage was primarily in brighter conditions. As it got darker, approaching scotopic eye illumination, the advantage was lost.

The study didn't continue into the scotopic (linear region of tube operation) any further than this - it's as far as it went, but the ultra-low light performance is something I have a personal interest it, however I still need to design and build some equipment to make the measurements I need to get to the bottom of that question, as to which is better at the point where the tubes are struggling with the ambient light.

So at the moment, 1) and 2) still hold, at least in the field.

I think that the main reasons are that during photopic and mesopic lighting conditions ( screen to eye, not ambient ) is that our brain really needs color as much as possible to arrive at it's conclusions, though my personal suspicions are that those who use green a lot more have probably already trained their brain to counter this effect - but for people who don't use NV a lot, I think the difference between White and Green is far more pronounced.

David

So is there any truth to what dts-blckout25 said in his post above, pasted below?

However unless you are using an eyepiece that is able to take advantage of the White phosphors bandwidth then you really arent going to getting the most out of yout WP tube. And almost no one has an eyepiece that is matched for WP. If you did your WP -14 would have cost way more than $4500 for sure.

Yes. The PVS-14 oculars were designed and optimized to deal with the relatively narrow spectral range of the green P-43 phosphor. Optics are always designed to work with the spectral range they'll see and making relatively narrowband glass is substantially easier and cheaper than broadband glass. Chromatic aberration is visible with a P-45 phosphor (WP). Whether it's actually objectionable is a different matter. At a minimum, I would expect the performance hit to degrade resolution slightly. Running a 72lp/mm WP tube would be equivalent to running a 64lp/mm green tube. Slight difference when the overall resolution of a monocular (after including the effects of optics on each side of the tube) is typically in the mid-40lp/mm range (and that's with good glass).

This much is correct, though I've yet to measure the standard loss of resolution due to aberration.

Also, I can't say specifically for any one tube model or manufacturer, and the research I saw was and probably still is secret and was provided to me specifically to give me a head start in further research at the other end of the scale so I can't discuss exactly what it said and what tests were performed. There may have been some slight color temperature variations in the WPs under test as well, but I suspect chromatic aberration would have much the same affect in both cases even though their color temperature varies slightly.

Vic also knows more about glass than his comments are letting on, so I doubt he has missed this point - he too would be including this in his considerations and the effect is still present. Irrespective, all the current tactical research was performed with current glass, and the advantages really did stack up under most lighting conditions and across multiple test subjects and the result were pretty strong, and further it indicated clear biases in usage patterns that were consistent from test subject to test subject. Following the research, I attempted to verify it, and it was fairly apparent even with standard PVS-14 ocular glass and the same performance tube in both WP and Green. I've even gone as far as checking different green phosphors and the effect is noticeable when performed correctly. Perhaps then the extent of aberration is ignored by the brain similar to the losses with foveated optics, which don't seem such a big deal in practice?

Regardless of technical issues on this topic, Vic is correct. It's not marketing that is driving this - it's operators. That much I've confirmed also, even outside of the US.

David.

The millions spent on research and development was to get a filmless MCP that didnt reflect a ton of positive ions back on to the GaAs photocathode. Litton(L-3) first attempt at a filmless MCP/GaAs tube didnt turn out the way they would have liked it to. potted with an autogated PSU and introduced in OMNI 5, the MX-10160B was the only tube to be classed as Gen 4. It was bought under contract for use in ANVIS systems. However due to the high number of premature failures experienced in the field, all mx-10160B tubes were pulled from service and the apparently sold off to companies like ATN and the like. Not sure of the details of the sell off, but in the end such companies as ATN and others used these ex mil 10160B tubes in their units that are labeled as GEN 4. L-3 Has been refining their filmless technology ever since. That is a lot of time and, yes of course, money spent to get it right. No one isa arguing that. However making a tube output white instead of green is something that xan be done cery easily and them having to spend any more money to do that likey would only be if the white phosphor material cost more than the green(I have no idea of the cost of such materials so I dont know if white costs considerably more or less than green). L-3 could just deposit one type rather than the other on the inside optical surface of the fiber optic output. And its not like the properties of P-45 were just discovered yesterday. On page 182 of the reference book "Image Tubes" by Illes P. Csorba, there is a table of standard phosphor screens and it lists the details and the the the applications best suited for P-45 and P-43 phosphor types. The applications for which P-43 is best suited are Bright high-contrast displays, while P-45 is best suited for high-brightbess white displays. "Image Tubes" was published in 1985 and the data pertaining to the phosphor types is probably a good bit older than that. so the phrase "White MAY contrast better than green" that is seen everywhere one looks on the internet was seemingly thought up at some point and is widely used as marketing to sell tubes because the properties of phosphors dont change from one decade to the next. If white truely did contrast to the human eye better than green then why even throw the word "MAY" into the phrase. Why not just say "White contrasts better than green."? perhaps,  just like alot of other products out there that are marketed and sold, the word "MAY" is thrown in for the purpose of covering the product manufacturers own ass by not stating something outright, howeverr incorrect, false, or unproven any particular claim would otherwise be without "MAY" added into the claim. White does allow for "easier on the eyes" viewng and staves off eye strain and fatigue during long periods of use without a doubt. however contrasting to the human eye better while having a lower luminous efficiency than green has? Im not sold. My thoughts are that people will percieve things based largely on expectations created by product claims that are plastered everywhere they look as well as hearing and reading the biases and opinions of others. Most of the time the facts are out in the wild and can be discovered with a bit of effort. Unfortunately most people wont put in that effort and they instead soak up all the stuff that makes up the sea in which those facts are drowning. And anyone marketing a product is aware of that. And it seems to be taken advantage of quite often.

I don't think it's that simple... There is a dissonance between technical accuracy of machine measurable facts and the function of the human vision system in play here, which is actually very poorly understood. I suspect a lot of what is going on with WP will be answered within this area of science that most people are still figuring out. IMO, this is one area in which the NVESD and early researchers failed - they all thought of the eye and vision as just another camera system.

Except it's not that at all.

We don't see what our eyes see. Our eyes are not cameras. They don't process shapes. They don't process linear information like we think they do. Even just the interplay between rods and cones is kind of crazy, and most of the world we see isn't real. It's made up my our heads. Just think about it - would you notice a hole in reality sitting just in front of your face? Think you would? Well, touch it, because it's there. It's the blind spot in your eye and you probably learnt about it in school. Beyond that, vision gets really weird. Everything from how our brains process threats to how we reprogram the neurons in our eyes so our brains don't even think... It's complicated and very counterintuitive and most colors don't even exist!

But everyday life trains our eyes to see color, or when not color, to see any object as multiple spectral signals. We expect to get certain signals from our cones and rods that don't occur when we're using green which can affect our spatial senses. I don't think for a minute that white is technically superior to green in terms of what we can see, but somehow this is what all the latest research is showing. From eyestrain to causing our brains to misregister what they see, there's something there that is still not fully researched.

Sure, WP has been around forever. Like me, you probably remember a time when it was all we saw - how "green" screens were considered far more advanced and useful in our early monitors. How coveted they were amongst those of us who only had white screens.

So no one questioned this for years. Green was superior and we all just accepted it. I don't know why someone tried white or what they were trying to do, but it made a difference in the field.

There is more than enough evidence supporting the benefits of WP. What is not necessarily clear is why this is better and what are the limitations of the benefit.

David

That is an incredible price if you get to keep the old tubes. Was that the case or did they eant to keep your old tubes?

Well then here's my question.  If it really makes a difference to match the glass to the tube, which appears to be the case, then why buy a WP tube if you can't have the matching glass?  It sounds like you're just getting half of the upgrade.  To truly see what the .mil guys have, you would need the right glass, as well as the high-spec WP tubes, which sounds like would put you in the 4500+ range.

I mean I get the long hour/ less fatigue thing with WP, but are you giving up some performance with a WP tube and GP lens?  It sounds like, for us slimy civilians, getting a filmless GP tube, with GP glass would actually be a better choice.  According to these arguments here.  Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

So the sixty four dollar question is: are you really getting better performance/less eye fatigue with a WP tube and GP lenses, or would it be a wash?  We know the high speed WP tube and lens units kick ass, granted.  But what about what is being sold on civvy street?

The funny thing is, with zero time under WP tubes, most every pic comparing this stuff, I prefer the GP.  Granted, it's pictures, etc.  But my eyes still like the green better.  The arguments being presented here make me wonder if my eyes are trying to tell me something.  Or I could be completely FOS.  

Are the DEP Ether eyepieces suited for wider spectrum than just green? I am guessing if you are able to speak about 31 eyepieces this too might be in the open.

My guess is they are, but not yet heard anyone compare them properly other than saying they are not that sensitive for distorting the image depending on how you set them up in front of your eyes.

CJ, Vic thanks for the additional input. Interesting that research has shown a clear slant towards WP. I've only seen older papers (90s, I think) that hinted at it and the difference was not dramatic. Emphasis was mainly on ANVIS systems as I recall. I'm sure a lot more has been learned since then with a lot more test subjects.

Glad to hear there's some WP optimized glass floating around and at least someone got some eyeball time behind it. A more noticeable improvement in image quality under brighter conditions would be the expected result as well.

A test I've been meaning to do involves imaging the output of an NVD with a high quality camera lens coupled to a high resolution monochrome camera. Something tells me that the loss in resolution with WP would be measurable. Something also tells me that same WP system may still be more pleasing to the eye. Getting a strong impression this is a human factors situation. The human eye and the human visual processing system is definitely very complex and it may (does) take input from secondary and tertiary cues.

While not exactly related, taking a pic of a green tube with a color camera set to monochrome improved the image quality the few times I tried it. Just more to it all than a first order overview of the situation. I'm also pretty sure some people can get the same (or better) experience with green. For example, I don't notice the green if I'm not thinking about it.

I don't think this has been covered and I could be wrong but I would think the battery life would be less with the WP tubes as it requires more energy to make WP as bright as green as perceive by the eye.

Lots of variables come into play and many of our testing criteria are hard, if not impossible, to quantify.

No tube is the same.
Different packaging matters.
Atmospherics are seldom the same.
Every single person has a different ratio of rods vs cones. This likely has much more to do with things than we currently realize.
Experience level varies so vastly that my input doesn't really compare to that of others.
For WP pvs-14 type optics, so few people know how to actually properly adjust them to their eyes that it's hard to take those comparisons objectively.

There's a lot more to it than picking up a white tube your friend has and instantly being a convert.

Yes, I like white tubes but never minded green unless I had a shitty set.