Bill, David has an Aussie night vision forum. Just click on the projects tab in the upper left hand corner of the page. Under projects you will find the information. Any question, just ask in this forum and many guys can help you out. Fun project to do.

http://aunv.blackice.com.au/cgi-bin/nightvision/forum?index=main

He is on Western AU time so keep that in mind while waiting for answers to any questions from him.

 

Thanks!  I'd like to make a cascade device as you described and have some questions.

1. Where can I buy the cascade tubes for 100 dollars?
2. Some information on the site is only availble to registered accounts but I see no place to register.  How does one sign up?

- Here's the thread for it - :)
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_18/359614_DIY_Cascade_Tube_Thread___.html

 

Thank you so much!  This is going to be awesome.

Comparison was fantastic! I really enjoyed seeing the photos. Where would y'all rank the NVM-14 White Phosphorous in comparison to regular Gen's? I have seen different people argue different placement of them (gen-wise) and was curious is the white phosphorous models have any area of specific use or if they have been phased out?

I guess thats Ekran Gen2+. The phosphorous itself does not matter that much to the specs. With L3 WP tubes it's been said they usually have very high specs, but I doubt that means anything for anyone else's tubes.

Guess I am very confused. I'm a new member and have been dealing with night vision  and thermal imaging for the better part of five years or so.  I am looking at these comparison pictures, and honestly, they are not even close to being accurate.  The thing is, as I have been following from the outside, I know there to be some of the best experts around on this site when it comes to night vision. So confusing that nobody has called this out by now or said anything about it?

But the comparison that TVNC did and posting the pictures they did is a total misjustice to Gen1 and Gen2  technology.  The problem is the camera, which will always be darker than reality. I have a dozen or so Gen1 night vision toys. And every single one of them, with IR, will produce an extremely visual and bright picture. I agree with their non-IR photos in the basement.. But to say there is still total darkness with IR  is absolutely, 100%, totally incorrect.

I have about 30 different night vision devices, ranging from Gen1 to Gen3 pinnacle in a Mod-3, as well as several thermal imaging scopes.  I do not claim to be an expert, but I know much more than the common man. And I am absolutely confused why the individuals that possess so much knowledge on this forum, have not said anything about this comparison?  My absolute cheapest Gen1 device cost $75 that with IR on in the basement, it will light up the entire area and things can be clearly seen.

So to show pictures claiming that Gen1 with IR is producing no picture in the basement is just not factually correct, I know no other more diplomatic way to say that better.  Not trying to be a new member and start anything negative, but this comparison is so bad it should be taken down, as it's very misleading to new people looking to get into NV. From what I have learned about this site, it is anything but misleading and is the foremost authority on just about everything. So why this?

Good question.

The Gen2 images are not representative of real Gen2 performance either, at least comparing to the different Gen2 that I have seen. The smearyness is odd.
My Gen1 devices show a superb picture under IR light in whatever close range conditions, so if you ask me you are correct in this one too.

There have been plenty of other comparison threads though that have much more realistic photos, but I haven't bookmarked them so cannot link to.

Could be part of the problem really was the camera setup as it makes a huge difference to the quality. If you wanted the best of the best photos, representing how your eye sees, I guess from reasonably priced cameras only the Sony A7S will do the job.

Your reply helped, as I was starting to think I was insane TVNC is a long-standing member and vendor of this community and I have purchased things from them myself, though they are not my source for the actual equipment, they are for accessories.

That's why I was so shocked to see that this comparison did not come from an individual, but a vendor whose line of business is night vision. Another words, they should know better than anyone that this comparison was very inaccurate and should've never been posted.

It could only possibly hurt their own sales of night vision equipment in anything below a GEN 3..

I am limited to 2000 words per post, so I must break this post up.

Update: TVNC doesn't sell gen 1. Based on that, I can only come up with one conclusion and must state the following.  Reluctantly yes, but only in regards that it is definitely not my intention to get a fire storm brewing here or invite a heated argument.  But I feel it is my duty to help others who are possibly using this comparison to help decide with their  purchase. IMO, this comparison is being used by TVNC, for the sole intent to purposefully steer potential buyers away from Gen 1 and and lower Gen 2 technology, by posting what could only be described at its very best, extremely misleading photographs in an attempt to have them purchase the more higher quality, much more expensive night vision equipment that TVNC only sells.

I'm sorry to say that, but there is nobody out there that can dispute what I'm saying. The facts are clear. Gen 1 with IR illumination, will produce a very bright and noticeable view of your surroundings, whether it be in a dark basement or outside.

To show photographs that the IR did absolutely no good at all, well, I think TVNC knows better. The question is, why have all the experts on this site, that know 100 times more than I do, not said anything about it?  Why has TVNC not been called out prior that their comparison was a complete joke?

Bill Wallace, another member took exception with the comparison like I did, but he was led astray by TVNC as they started throwing out information about cascade tubes and things like that. Actually, Bill was 100% correct.

The simple, undisputed truth is that generation 1 NV with IR illumination, WILL produce a view in a dark basement that would be more than sufficient to be able to clearly see that basement, and it will not in fact, as this comparison shows, produce nothing but black as if it was never on.

I did not see AR 15.com as being a politically run site, to say they would allow a vendor to show something that was fraudulent in nature so that they could increase sales of their own units. So either this comparison has been missed for many moons because it was not a popular thread or everyone sealed their lips and knew what was going on but cuz this is a very popular vendor, could not or did not want to say anything.

But one thing I do know for sure. This comparison should be thrown out with the trash, because there's nothing in it that even vaguely represents what generation one and two technology will do with IR illumination.  So if the photographs are not being representative, than why show a photograph?

Gen 2 and 2+ are completely usable - especially with IR light. Also, so is a large cascade gen 1 system with or without IR light, but its also incredibly massive, heavy, and awkward. Gen 1 non cascade is pretty lousy and I haven't found anything really usable. However as a general comparison, none of those really compare to Gen 3, especially if you add in the same IR light you were using with the Gen 2 or 1 stuff...

I think a reason why you don't see a lot of comparisons is because once you move beyond Gen 1 or Gen 2, you don't really bother comparing it to your new gear. I did some photos when I built my own cascade setup, and it wasn't horrible, but the edge distortion sucks and I felt like I was looking through a bubble. Gen 2 and Gen 2+ are fairly tolerable though - especially with IR light.

If you have these types of devices, why not just submit your own comparison?

I would say even a Gen1 (single stage) with good enough IR light is usable for closer ranges. Actually when I first bought my first Gen2 unit after having owned a Gen1 I was surprised to see how bad the Gen2 image looked. Gen1 image is very stable and great to look at (the ones that have almost none distortions in the image). Obviously it was immediately clear how much better the Gen2 actually was and how I could use it passively.

Though, the point Richard was making was not about how his comparisons are better, but how it's odd nobody has said anything about the original pictures. I guess the reason is we don't use anything but Gen3 and don't really care how the others look. Perhaps with the exception now with the cheaper Photonis tubes from NG.


If I had to guess, I'd say they accidentally left the Gen1 unit unpowered when taking the basement pictures.
Edit: I have to say I have no idea how the Gen1 unit tested here is, but I would guess they all pretty much use the same Russian cheap tubes.


PS. I would post my own comparison if I owned enough stuff, but at the moment I have only 1x Gen1 and 2x Gen3.

You guys sure you used the right wavelength IR?

You are kidding, right?

And with that post you've just earned the ignore click.

It really comes down to what's your purpose for needing night vision and what you want to settle with.

Do you want to hunt hogs and coyotes <30 yards away with an IR illuminator that gives a very obvious red glow? Then "Gen 1" may work...but be aware that you'd be really lucky to ID a coyote from the neighbors dog past 60 yards and won't really be able to see much past that unless you have a rediculously powerful illuminator and your device has good glass like 1.2 or 1.4 aperture.
Most of what people think as Gen 1 night vision is actually active night vision, meaning you have to have an IR illuminator to see anything, Starlight won't work, a very bright full moon wont work, and honestly, you'd probably be able to see more with your eyeball than using this "gen1" with moon light.

I believe real Gen 1 is the starlight scopes from Vietnam era or cascade scopes, I've never played with them but I'm not aware of any new cascade type NV devices on the market. Some old farts say it's like looking though a Heineken bottle, it's green, distorted and kinda clear near the center but you can't see very far with it.

I've used a Gen 2 device (PVS5) and they're ok and they don't completely depend on an IR illuminator but it just isn't very crisp at all.

I mostly used Gen 3 PVS7 and PVS14s in addition to some redonkulous night vision and thermal devices mounted on vehicles and outpost towers.
These devices are simply awesome and you really don't need an supplemental IR illumination unless it's really really really dark. I got spoiled using them.

Use of any active night vision device is completely obvious to anyone else in the dark that has any generation of night vision device.
And cheaper IR illuminators have a very obvious red glow that the naked eye can see. Hogs, yotes and deer get spooked all the time with my 850nm LED illuminator.

Soooo, if you're hunting very short range and don't mind depending on illuminators that your game will probably notice, then Gen 1 maaaaaaay work.
Just remember that the best (barely useable) gen 1 "active" night vision for sale still costs hundreds of dollars...and don't forget to add another hundred or more for an IR illuminator with a visible red glow.
Gen 2 may be ok for hunting, especially with good moon conditions but I don't know.
Used Gen 3 devices pop up on the EE in the low-mid $1k range...I would rather save up and get one of these than spending hundreds of dollars on an active gen 1 device that is not even in the same league.

Finally, If there's bad guy in my basement, I'd lock the door and call 911.
But if I'm going into the dark basement to get a case of beans for a pot of chili, I'll turn on the light bulb.

This has all been said many times before in the reference sections.

<edited to remind that the point of this thread is for "Practical Application of Night Vision for Domestic Law Enforcement & Homeland Security", not for hunting prey that doesnt shoot back", they're completely on point for the topic of this thread.>

TVNC,  I am not trying to "bait" anybody. I am simply stating facts. There's no need for me to do a comparison because absolutely anyone who owns Gen1 night vision can tell you that with IR illumination you will indeed see all you need to see in that basement.

If you call the statement that GEN 1 technology with IR will produce a picture in a dark basement as a "wild accusation" well I guess that says it all right there..

Everybody has to have a first post, and this was my first post. Because I joined the forum for Night Vision, not for my rifles.  So even though it may seem that I joined for the particular reason to critique a review, let's just say that I joined for the particular reason of being interested in night vision and this was the first thing that drew my attention.

And so based upon TVNC's response, I can only assume they still think that Gen1 with IR illumination will produce a completely black picture? Then when exactly does it work according to your review? According to you, Gen1 would never ever produces a picture of any type in any terrain in any category. Therefore why did they make them?   I thought maybe that years ago you didn't give it much thought because you were concentrating on your Gen three. But based on your recent response just now, you STILL believe that Gen1 with IR will produce a black picture in a basement?

You're kidding me right? You can't possibly be saying that Night Vision with or without IR light is the exact same thing, because that's what you're saying???   So I take it back, you can be possibly saying that. So the only question I have to ask myself, is why you are persisting in claiming something thats 100% inaccurate?

Generation one is not heavy or massive and is very light. I think it's been a long while since some have purchased $100 Gen one device is all I can say. Because that statement is just not.  Go on Amazon and purchase almost any generation one device. Go to a dark basement and turn on the IR. You will see everything you need to see in that basement or garage. Now if anybody disagrees with that statement, I do not know what to say, because that statement is 100% true.

TVNC  did not address anything that I said, but instead tried to make it look like I was trying to start trouble, and two, that they got compliments and praise on the comparison. But who is doing the complimenting and the praising? People with or without experience in night vision? Because nobody with experience in night vision like myself could possibly praise a review that showed inaccurate information and  photographs.

Because I have been following from the outside for so long, I highly suspect that already, I will probably be booted from this forum for going against a paid advertiser. In fact most of my posts will probably be stricken, once again taking away valuable information from those who do not know anything about Night Vision. For that reason I am making a copy of all of these for the future.

And I make a claim right now. I will bet TVNC any amount of money they want, you name the amount it doesn't matter to me, that I can take anyone of a dozen generation one night vision devices that I own, going to a dark basement, turn on my IR, and I will light it up like a Christmas tree!

You don't have to know me, you just have to know that the information I am saying is correct. Others above have already agreed with me that Gen one will indeed produce a picture in a dark basement with IR, so do you know them also?

If I say the sun rises in the east, do you disagree with that because you don't know me? This is a common body of knowledge. This is not speculation, or accusations.  And the fact that you could possibly disagree that Gen one with IR would not produce any visual image in a dark basement just goes to show me that you do not own a generation one device and are simply going by what somebody tells you. That is a scary thing my friend.

I think this is getting more confusing than it's needs to be.  Let's simplify.

1) TVNC  is making the claim that a generation one night vision device in a dark basement, will produce no picture, even with IR and more absurd, even with an IR flashlight.

2)  A generation one device, with IR and especially true with an IR flashlight, will light up that basement as  if someone turned on the light bulb.  This is 100%, accurate and there is no way at all that absolutely anyone could disagree with what I just said. It's a fact. There's no need to do a comparison to show something that everybody knows is true. The only ones who wouldn't know it, are the ones that don't own it and know nothing about night vision.  This is the entire purpose of IR. To produce artificial light when none is available. So according to them, the device doesn't work at all in any condition.  Let me repeat, according to them, it does not work in any condition. Do you really have to "know me" to find that statement a bit absurd?

3) TVNC doesn't sell generation one devices.. You don't have to "know me" to connect the dots on this one.

Now that's all I am saying and nothing more. A generation one device with IR illumination will indeed produce a very vivid and bright image in a dark basement. According to TVNC, there is no difference whether you use one or not. Anyone can simply Google or look at the hundreds of photographs online and can tell that I am absolutely 100% correct and that TVNC is 100%, incorrect.

So I ask you, what other reason possibly could one come up with, why a company that sells night vision devices, show images of something that is absolutely false, unless they were trying to convince you not to buy that hundred dollar generation one night vision device, because you won't see anything with it. So you have to buy one of our more expensive units if you hope to see at night.

The thing is this, this was not misworded or slightly misrepresented. This is an all out fantasy. They have posted pictures showing the public that with IR illumination the generation one device shows a black image. This is not something that's even debatable, and the only people who could possibly fall for this, would be people that have absolutely no idea how NV works.  And surely, do not own a generation night vision device.

So they look at this comparison and say "wow, generation one is a waste of money isn't it. Guess I have to buy that nice generation three unit at TVNC. Thanks TVNC for Setting me straight and saving me money from that junk generation one device. "

And that's coming from a  highly publicized dealer, so who is this guy Richard to say anything different. That ladies and gentlemen is what exactly is taking place here. Again you don't have to believe me, just go on Google right now and punch in photographs of generation one device. None of them will show a dark pic...

You have been misled with this comparison. TNVC knows you have been misled with this comparison. And nobody has spoken up because they know they will get booted from the site. Well I'm a new member, so I don't really care that much. But what I can tell you all?

You have been totally misled by this comparison and if you want to buy that hundred dollar generation one device on Amazon,  you go right ahead, because you will see all you need to see in that dark basement with IR illumination.

there is a tactful way to interact in the tech forums.

I'm unlocking this, as there is still valuable information in the thread.

[Deleted]

Edited...VA-gunnut




It's probably best for me at this point, to not post any more comments, because I believe that I have said everything that I can possibly say.





Have a great day, and thanks for not booting me :)
 

LOL, yup still the good ol nv forum

You really aren't helping. You are cluttering an old thread. Instead of providing your own images or explanation, you're starting fights over something dumb - the viability of Gen 1...  seriously, of everything to take a stand on... lets not start pushing how awesome gen 1 night vision is, because it really isn't for most practical applications.

At what point does spending $ on a gen1 device become a waste and you should instead spend on Gen2, and then at what point is that a waste? Truthfully, if you don't have at least $500+ to spend on some solid used gen2, you might be better off buying a nice flashlight. Even then, that Gen2 purchase might be a waste if you need to use it indoors where no ambient light is present.

I have no ties or affiliation to any of the vendors, products, etc and I am really budget minded (cheap), so I while I might have TNVC wants, I have more of a cheap/used/diy wallet.

TNVC's images might not be totally accurate in your testing, but they are certainly better than the images you have provided thus far.

Don't forget that TNVC markets primarily to the law enforcement market where "detection" and "identification" ranges are potentially a matter of life and death.

They are never going to come out and reccomend a gen 1 system because none of them offer sufficient resolution or gain to identify a perp, or that they are holding a weapon, or that lethal force is 100% appropriate.

Some of the time you can probably use gen-1 under some starlight or basement conditions... but not with enough confidence to keep innthe trunk to use at a moments notice in order to shoot it out with narco's or tweaker scum.

could discussion about the merits of gen 1 be moved to another thread?





this thread got cluttered up enough and the new poster's rant reflectes poorly on a thread that I have referred many people to in the past, and had been unchanged since 2013 until recently



i.e. leave this thread as a comparison of the tech from 2010 when it was done, and use it as a place for possible new comparison of newer technology and have discussion in other threads so this one doesn't get cluttered?




 

Since it had been more than half a decade on the original post, I would like to request a new comparison that also includes the old american made gen2,  ngi comspec tubes, ngi photonis tubes, wpt gen2+, filmless, and filmless chrome tubes.

I think comparing your newer made gen2 to the older gen 2 american tubes will show the increase in resolution and SNR and even the change in phosphor color.

As it is an informative marketing tool, i wouldnt even bother showing gen1 since tnvc doesnt sell it. I also would NOT hand pick your best tubes, i would just randomly grab a product off the shelf to test it.

A top of the line Photonis would be a great in the mix, but understandably not that relevant as they are not hugely popular anywhere (except in the military world).

Thanks Vic, looking forward to an updated NV Generation comparison test.

 

I think Richard's main point is valid guys, don't dismiss it so easily.


Here's what I think he's getting at:


The average Joe looking at those comparison images will look at the Gen1 stuff and think Gen1 is completely worthless.  Yet we all know it is only mostly worthless.




I understand the IR wavelength might not be right, the ATN unit might be broken, or the camera settings might be such that it just doesn't show up.  But in the end, it doesn't help the average Joe understand the capabilities (or lack thereof) of Gen1 to have the wrong IR, use a broken unit, or have camera settings that show a black screen.




See?  No drama.


 

(Edit, I also realize that camera settings that make for a great picture for Gen3 may not show much at all for Gen 1, and for the sake of a direct comparison you can't fudge the camera settings to make the Gen 1 show up.)

I hope Richard gets some good...ummm..."Karma" headed his way...

Being a genetic engineer, I figured Richard was just a successful Gen I clone of Satchel...

Just to clutter the thread a little bit more, do I remember right seeing a "G." signature in the bottom of his first post? It seems it's edited, but it'd be interesting if that was an alterego of someone here Not throwing accusations, just I remember thinking it's weird to sign "G." if you're Richard.