This is SO german! ... :)

(Not offensive, was just surprised to find such in this corner of the Interverse)


THIS is the spirit! ... :)


Fig.3 says: row #1 is done with release-firmware, row #2 is done with 1.34-firmware.

So the only difference and reason for the better results in row #2 is supposed to be the updated firmware. But don´t you think that the 80% cloud-cover in #2 vs the only starlight condition in #1 does help significantly with that improvement? Because according to my nv-practice i have learned to be happy with cloud cover because it is a great reflector for light (vis and ir) coming from random sources somewhere "nearby" on earth but then not being able to escape into space, instead bouncing back to earth ... (?)

Well if if you're > 20km from the nearest small town (1500 people)............................................where is the "light" coming from..................................................................

Read the SiOnyx thread and many of the others on this forum, and  you're blocked.

How is it better, put up a graph of wavelength versus quantum efficiency........................please post data or specs, something substantive.

This area is for the technical discussion of various pieces of NV gear not marketing.  If you stick with technical data there are many here that can comment, but if its marketing .........we can't.  

BTW the sensor is made by Sony and is similar in performance to the redline shown in the previously presented figure (see below for refresh).  In other words, its a camera with the IR filter removed.  



QE and wavelength range are incredibly important to the understanding of digital technology capability.

Very cool on both fronts my friend, thanks.

Yea, the unit to helmet interface is standard dove tail, It's the Bridging for HMT that I'd be interested in. I assume it'll work with a RINO II with Dovetail plate as well.  SOTAC G24s work for me.

So row #1 + #2 had been produced with this "parameter"-collection?

1.) > 20km from the nearest

2.) small town

3.) 1500 people

Can you translate this story into a standard short-form with a unit at the end?


No one knows. In your "experiment", 2 parameters have been modified.

Well, you can debate analog vs digital all day long; I've seen good points on both sides of this.  But.  Two things to consider.  Number first is ITAR.  There are many folks that are hamstrung buying US-made kit (including a lot of us), so having something available you can legally own is a definite plus.  Secondly is the increasing restrictions on civilian-owned gear.  More stuff is being price so high to preclude many from buying, or being discontinued outright.  So within the context of our present-day sit, digital NV does, or will, make sense, as far as pricing and availability.  At the present time, we have a robust secondary market of analog stuff out there.  But this may not always be.  And current mfg's may bow to the whims of politicians and increase the prices of, or withdraw more things from the mkt.  Therefore having a secondary source of supply, from overseas, might not be a bad idea.  I know this flies in the face of those who say buy US-made only, but quite frankly, that doesn't mean much to me these days.

It's funny but "analog" night vision is just so damn amazing it will probably be around for a very long time.  Certainly for my life time.   But that being said, there is absolutely no doubt that one day, digital will be there, probably with thermal fusion.  With a Wilcox-compatible dove tail, and a USGI-compatible batt system.  

Until that day, we will see incremental improvements, such as the Pro, and OPSIN,  and whatever is next.  It is up to you where you want to jump in-right now.  In the near future you may not have the options you have now.  Who knows.

Props to GHOZ, Mick, and the rest of you mob for testing out this stuff and posting findings.

Indeed, Diz. When that MCP plate was added I am sure the guys where like "holy cow, this thing is amazing"... and we are here now.

Not sure what the "german" comment is supposed to mean...

That camera I posted uses a Sony STARVIS 2 sensor, so the specs are available.

With that said, until I don't try one of those, the specs don't mean much, even the reviews on YT, that something is automatically good or better, in the end its up to the person using to decide. Some people here think they can use it just fine, I didn't.

G.

FWIW, the specs on the newer XQE1350 silicon in the Opsin state 0.5 mlux capability.

MINIMUM ILLUMINATION 0.5mLux @ 30 fps and F1.28

Good discussion, can't wait to read some reviews of the Opsin!

Yes, overcast starlight is around 1mlux and less (NL5) - perhaps a bit less.  

A similar, but not quite the same claim was also made for the XQE1310 e.g. Capable of sub 1mLux imaging at 30fps and F1.4 and the short answer is it is - but the image quality isn't great and certainly not at higher frame rates.  For the OPSIN e.g. <1 MLX MOONLESS STARLIGHT sensitivity allows you to see well beyond human eyesight & detect a man-sized object at 150 meters.

Link to SiOnyx XQE1310 data sheet

OPSIN blurb

Ultimately, thats where the discussion sits - what is genuinely useable Vs what is technically correct.  Thats why, from an effectiveness point of view, its fair to say the Pro approaches 1mlux for helmet mounted use (roughly ~3 mlux to 1mlux = starlight NL4). However, to generate good images at around 1 mlux or less you have to use the camera and increase the exposure time e.g. 1/7.5 (7.5fps).  

My strong suspicion (but don't know as yet) is the OPSIN will be able to sustain a frame rate of 30fps at 1mlux and a bit less (Pro in the same range 7.5fps).  

If this proves to be the case it puts its operating level close to a modest G2 unit.  



Night levels and illumination mlux



Detectors, QE and wavelength

Some footage of Nightwave device in use at end of video. (9/16/22)

Note:  captured from the preceding youtube video.

GHOZ I really appreciate you quantifying this shit, complete with graphs n so forth.  Having viewed G1-3 myself, I can think back to the visuals and compare it to the percentages shown.  Starting with that heavy POS "Starlight" scope, the 5% juice wasn't worth the squeeze.  In comparison, Gen 2 looked pretty damn good to me, however, when Gen 3 hit the street, it was literally lights out motherfucker.

So for sure, when looking at digital goodness, it IS pretty good, (and actually very good, if that's all you have available), but akin to a Gen 2 performance.  When will it surpass Gen 3?  Who knows but it looks like it is approaching it in price.  Which might be defeating the whole purpose of this exercise, IF you live in the US.  If you don't, then you'd be rooting for this like a motherfucker.  

We are just so fortunate that we can sit here and argue about what tech we want to buy, and/or recommend to others.  This might not always be the case.

I myself am rooting for digital to hit good performance at NL5, so a lot of folks will have access to unrestricted NV capability. Which again might include us.  

That said what am I running right now?  A -14 with a Breach.  What would I recommend to a newbie?  Pretty much the same.  But I still applaud those guys pushing the T&E out there.  It is unfortunate that by the time you achieve "parity" as it were, you might not be saving any money, which was sorta the whole point of this exercise to begin with, but then again, if analog NV becomes increasingly restricted, then it still serves a purpose.

If the budget allows (and in the NV world $750 is roughly a LAM, or two $ureCloudMods ) - have both. Somebody said something similar, earlier, but in the 'Burn, Loot, Murder' "mostly peaceful" riots, I'd personally want an Aurora (pref HMT if possible). The light levels could probably even support 1080p/60, Full Color, recording evidence (or not recording your activities - up to you, LOL), but 720p/30 is perfectly fine. A powered city in a riot, screams for digital - zero chance of tube damage, less affected by photonic barriers, Color IFF, Out-Of-Band to see what the .fed's are doing, etc... one click ISR for later viewing/planning/use. Even after OPSIN is out, the Aurora still fills a need if .JPG and .MOV data could help the mission.  

In a city riot, if you have to be there, and depending where you are, then you want to use two eyes + thermal handheld scope (FLIR Breach) + a chest/body cam + eye laser protection. That seems like a better alternative to headmounting any devices.... less attention drawn to yourself.

720 is workable in high light, sure, but just like a dash cam, there are a lot of times in which it won't be. You want the best resolution/fps you can muster so you can id plates, and id faces so these don't look like a pixel salad when replaying the footage...

G.

That would be me recommendation to a newbie as well: PVS14 + FLIR Breach.

When digital becomes as good as Gen3 it will cost as much, that is how things have been since forever.

G.

@diz and @mickdonaldson

What got me into buying an Aurora and then the Pro was (1) wavelength range (2) form factor (3) price.  This is a device you can use anywhere and its completely unobtrusive.  The value of the last two points is very significant.  

Its a shame SiOnyx didn't deliver on the device connection part of the equation (budget ATAK) which would show and locate other friends with similar devices on screen (or rather they did and it was killed for the civilian market place by DoD - probably).  The old fashioned solution is for friends to wear disposable IR beacons (top of hat or touristy day pack), you can then guide them through a tricky crowd to where they need to be (either through low powered comms or through IR designator) - could be first world, second world or third world.  It is done in all three.  

Like many on here I have got all sorts of gear covering ~ 30 years of adventures in the worlds sh!t holes.  I still have an old G1+ cascade tube device plus a 1000FOM G2 + 1600FOM + ~2100FOM and ~2700FOM BNVD.  Add in the various thermal options and you could say I have it covered.   The more salient point is, the device I use the most is the Pro, why, because you can use it anywhere in any circumstances.  

Like all things, night vision gear based outcomes are dependant on the quality of the user (cardio, fitness, training and experience) and the number of people working with the user.  A man alone is basically a statistic waiting to happen - as an individual in a hostile environment, even if fit, well trained and with a lot of experience  - you only buy time.  Of course that time might be precious.  

In regard to the OPSIN (IMHO) it will be a success or failure based largely on price point.

We shall see. I don't have my hopes that high tho... I understand the additional spectral response argument quite well, but the other two points I just don't see... IMO, the battery runtime will be the biggest deal breaker, which is fine if you are not in SHTF or in any other situation where power source isn't readily available.

G.

(I feel like Al Pacino)

I feel we are being trolled - but it's like crack, I can't resist. I was in Iraq as a PMC, and always had numerous sources of power.  

#1 A 3 Panel Solar, 38,000mAh power bank, is like $40. If you even type "SHTF", there's no way there isn't also a Solar Bluetti, EcoFlow, or Jackery, in your gear too (then again....LOL)

#2 My BNVD-SGs have a claimed 50 hours, or ~Six 8 hour Nights on one AA. A 15K Anker, that fits in your palm, powering one Aurora Monocular, can last for about Four (maybe even Five without recording) 8 hour nights. Yes, long lasting power is a bit more involved than a Ruck full of AA's, but waaaay doable. Which brings...

#3: From a technology implementation standpoint, most of your alleged negatives for Digital NV, apply to Digital Thermal. I guess iRay MH25's are useless in this powerless "SHTF" scenario too: Runs *Only* on a 16340 for 90 minutes, a 16650 for 3 hours or "OMG we're all gonna die" a USB Power Bank. States in manual CAN'T use CR123's. Even if you could, like my Super-Yoter C... you'll exhaust your "SHTF" supply of disposables in weeks. Thermal is just as, if not more power hungry, than digital NV. So scratch Thermals too, I guess?

The OPSIN battery pack probably has Two, maybe Three 18650's in there (but who knows, maybe a mold-able LiPo?), and trimmed down (less features)/improved power draw. But that's a guess, since not even Jesus knows what it can do yet.

@GroundhogOZ While not as elegant, check out Meshtastic - built in Team-mate location, optional ATAC Forwarder available. DIY with minimal Soldering. Stuck mine in a Pelican 1010 Case with a TrueRC 915mHz antenna (older antennas in pic), getting 1Km in heavily wooded, rolling terrain.



Agree on price - should be about $250 off MSRP at U.S. places like ExpertVoice or Guidefitter. I forget what the initial MSRP was though.

I am not trying to troll. I am sorry if you feel that way but I was genuinely disappointed with it.

#1 Yes, I understand, its doable... but for some people the benefits-to-hassles ratio its just not there.

#2 Recharging a large power bank can take a long time with only solar panels. If you have access to power that is certainly a plus, I just think that it is adding more complexity and stuff to haul around.

#3 Absolutely, I never said anything about thermal here b/c this is a thread for a digital visible light scope soon to be released... but battery runtime on a lot of thermals its just crap, compared to a PVS7/14 two AA housing. I carry a few rechargeable CR123 with me when I use the Breach, which is annoying, and x2 CR123 provide about 3 1/2 hours of runtime which is total crap, and there is even a battery extender to mount a 18650 on it, which extends battery, but still won't do an entire long winter night without being hooked up via external USB. Means I still have to carry bulkier 18650 packs and have to worry about how to recharge them.

The difference I see between thermal digital and visible digital is that thermal is not my primary navigation means, so I can switch it off for periods of time to conserve power. Then, using thermal really provides a huge advantage vs digital visible, which makes the hassle of poor runtime a bit more palatable... not much, tho, as I still abhor having to change the battery on the darn thing every 90 minutes... and lastly, there wasn't anything else as small and lightweight as the FLIR Breach for the money I spent. Maybe the COTI 29A would've been a better choice... unsure, but at some point I'll get one just to see how well it works...

The iRay MH25 I can't say how good or bad it is b/c I have never tried one... but given its a 640 sensor it sure looks like a step up from the Breach, even though it might not be as compact as the Breach.... and the battery runtime you posted its just as bad as the Breach on a CR123...

G.

I'd be surprised if people still buy breach when there's mh25, rh25, and nox18.

Thank you, Sir.

Appreciated, Sir.

G.

Well, I bought mine when the Breach first came out. Its "workable" given all of its shortcomings, and it fills a void that no other device I own could fill (a compact thermal), and with some tweaks and a green filter it fulfills my current needs. Eventually, when money grows on trees the next step is ECOTI/fusion, but that is a subject for a different thread altogether.

G.

Ugh.  I hate my breach personally and have found it pretty useless for my needs.   Detection ability goes to shit with any distance and I can't successfully use it simultaneously with my 14.   Definitely going to sell it.


Kind of tempted by those c35 clipons for 2450...   But I suspect it will just sit in a safe since I don't hunt.

I can see the digital delay making it quite hard to use with a -14 in a bridge, I do have the same issue... I don't think anything short of sensor fusion will work if you can't fuse the 2 images. The green filter did help a lot, but still not perfect.

As for long range detection, not sure what the issue might be for you, but for me it was a matter of focusing it correctly, b/c it sucked bad at anything far away, after that it seems to work like every other 320 sensor I've had in the past. Also, wrong settings will make a noticeable difference IMO.

I hear you, it is what it is... when I get another thermal it will be some sort of COTI, as it is a major hassle to have to switch between thermal/I2 all the time...

G.

Meshtastic is cool, I've been a user since it got started. This guy sells decent 3d printed Meshtastic units for $120 which are great for anyone looking to getting started. It's a poor mans open source Gotenna, although I'd argue the open source software is evolving faster than the commercial units.

I don't think integrating a full AR type display for ATAK is feasible for the Opsin, I doubt it has the compute capability necessary to render that. Sionyx was working with the DoD on the IVAS project which is a Hololens type device with night vision etc.

Microsoft just delivered the first IVAS to the Army this week. I bet those units have the same sensor silicon as the Opsin.

@mickdonaldson

Great idea - looks very interesting and very doable for most, what output do you have 0.1w, 0.5w, 1w, 5w? are there more options with antenna choice?.  If the meshtastic units can be configured to short burst secure mode - it becomes a bit of a game changer.  e.g. much harder to detect signal source - particularly with low wattage units and good RX/TX antenna.  

In the past I have generally gone with Gotenna.  The Gotenna Pro has come along way and their deployment style system is pretty good - options for short secure burst communication and also tuning to blend units in with AO RF signals.  But a full pro system and admin case gets pretty pricey.  The meshtastic system looks great for family unit, group of likeminded guys who enjoy being outdoors thru to remote emergency services on limited budgets.  

This type of stuff is developing very quickly and is adapting quickly to detection methods.  Really interesting area.  Also its the type of information that can be readily ported to digital devices.  It doesn't need to be all singing and dancing - it can just be friendlies and wpt/tgt/rv1/rv2 etc.

@tnvc
The NV forum is always fascinating lots of good people here - I wonder if it would be worthwhile for TNVC to run a course entitled "an introduction to night vision equipment: AM theory - IIT, thermal, digital, other.  PM hands on use - observation, movement, communication and live firing.  Basically AM to show capability, slay myths and outline limitations and PM to run end users through different simple scenarios.  

I raise this because its becoming more and more common for people to say thermal is as good as IIT these days due to XYZ - also note the debate here.  The reality is a 72lp/mm unit has a pixel equivalent resolution size of 3.5~um, the best pixel pitch in modern commercially available thermals is 12um.  In other words a reasonable IIT has resolution ~ 3.5x better than the best civilian commercially available weapon mountable/hand held thermal device.  

Looks like they removed my post ..if you're interested in c2 coti thermal coupon code send me pm. Oct 1st it might go active.

Thanks Bud, greatly appreciated. PM'sent.

G.

IVAS - Very mixed report for many reasons.

I think this discussion is interesting because I think GHOZ, Mick, and the G-man all bring up good points, even if they don't entirely agree.  And just like guys that still like/hate the Breach, there is room in here for individual requirements, not to mention opinions.

I hope this here OPSIN is a significant improvement over the Pro.  And one day this fucker will have a Wilcox-compatible dovetail, or at least a MUM-style mount.  And be able to take an Anker up the ass.  

I am not necessarily tied to either tech.  I'm all about what is available for me to use.  I am all for alternative sources of supply, regardless of tech or what country they come from.  I think we can all agree "that is a good thing" regardless of what is superior in performance, or has better batt life.

Retake of earlier photos (as promised)
(1) left panel = Pro with original firmware, moon waxing crescent 1.6% - NL4
(2) Centre panel = Pro with latest firmware, moon - new moon 0.1% - NL4
(3) Right panel = Flir Breach, 12um pp, 9mm focal length, FOV ~ 24x19
(4) X & Y = reference points between images

I can't emphasise enough the importance of FOV in urban, para-urban and woodland environments.

Large FOV = shorter focal length for observation movement, communication and elimination in closed environments
Small FOV = longer focal length for distance based overwatch and hunting in open environments

why is the FLIR Breach among these pictures?

G.

Another layer of information, could have used a 50mm focal length thermal but there's little point because of the lack of field of view in this environment.

My interpretation of the pictures after reading your last post is as follows: by emphasizing the words field-of-view, and then showing a smaller field of view device, that BTW isn't even a digital visible light NV device, the uninformed reader/potential first time buyer who stumbles upon this thread will draw to the conclusion that a barely NL4 capable toy is better than a perfectly usable 60hz 320x200 device... b/c it has a larger field of view?

Again, this is the same thing as stating that a good airsoft AR15 is better b/c it can hold 330 rounds in a hi-cap magazine vs. only 30 rounds on a real-steel AR15...  

Also, that new FW image seems artificially brightened (via fw probably, with an area denoiser), but the dynamic range is the same on both. Both images lack contrast and are washed out, one is just brighter with less grain due to the denoiser.

G.

There's no need for interpretation.  

Photos are in starlight with 1.6% and 0.1% moon.  There hasn't been any enhancement - other than the first image was generated using the release firmware and the second image was generated with the latest firmware.  

The Pro works exactly as described - operates in no moon and with starlight.  

The thermal is described as "Flir Breach, 12um pp, thermal" - it also has a solid state detector - however, its wavelength sensitive range is from ~9,000nm to 14,000nm as opposed to ~300nm to 1,200nm (Si black).  All thermal imagers are digital devices - they just happen to operate in the LWIR spectrum.  

IIT - VIS(partial) - NIR
Pro - VIS - NIR - SWIR(partial)
Thermal - LWIR

I'm sure readers can drawer their own conclusions.  

If you personally can't tell the difference between those images, you probably need an eyesight check.  

End of discussion.

Well, I can start by telling you that ALL my Gen3 devices can see fine all the way down to, at least, the 385nm mark which is black light UV... and that is yet another misleading claim from you, so of course you want to "End the Discussion", b/c all your information is half truths... you claim it can see NL4, but you don't tell its at a snail pace 7.5 frames per second, that is a frigging slide show... even @ 30 fps its a slide show compared to an I2 device, heck, I already complain of delay and choppiness with 60hz thermals... my old L3 thermal eye @ 30hz was unbearable after getting my first 60hz thermal... and a 9hz thermal like the Seek Thermal? forget it.... Then you post a picture of digital NV side by side with a thermal with a smaller sensor, to give the impression that the image is better than it looks, but what you don't tell is that a person hiding in the bushes in the FLIR Breach will stick out like a sore thumb... but on the Sionyx it will go unnoticed due to the lack of contrast, and slow framerate.

There is an old proverb about half truths...

So, to set the record straight:
IITs can see UV-VIS-NIR and some IITs can even see well into the low portion of SWIR too... like Photonis 4G, if their website is to be believed.

There wasn't any NL conditions where my old Gen2 scope couldn't outperform the Sionyx... and when it was bright enough for my eyes to see then I didn't need it at all... so I returned it. Simple as that. I see a crap ton of those things on the EE... geez, I wonder why... sounds to me like the person realized they've been conned... that was 750 bucks (or 1500 if you got conned twice into buying bino-pro) towards a fancy L3 filmless PVS-14... which will not disappoint.

So when I find out about this thread, them coming up with yet another digital camcorder con, so of course I come in here in hopes of steering unsuspecting customers away from wasting their hard earned money, money that can be spent buying something a lot better that will not disappoint, and have a battery runtime that is not measured in seconds... but hey, you bring your anker brick with you...

This is the same kind of nonsense that ATN, Moonlight, and all those Russian Gen0 device importers/resellers that plagued the NV world in the early 90s did: misleading pictures and making claims that when you actually got the device where all just that, a con.

If you can live with the device, good for you; but let me tell you, I can live with my LOMO ELF-1 Gen0 scope as well, (good for me), the difference is that no matter how good I think it is, or what the specs say it is... I don't go around recommending one to anyone, let alone as their first scope... b/c it will disappoint, no matter how you slice it.

EDIT: Yet another personal attack: this time about my eyesight needing an exam... I keep my opinions about you to myself, bud, b/c nobody cares what I think about you, but I am sure the feeling is rather mutual after reading your comment. This is about a device that costs a lot and underperforms, not about my eyesight needing an exam.

Bring it on...

G.

LOL you need your eyes checked.

(1) If you can't tell the difference between those images - you need them checked.  
(2) Look at the sensitivity range of G3/2/1.  



You haven't posted a fact or a photo.

And QE



The Echo and 4G have good OOB performance as does the Pro.  Most competent people are well aware of this.  

"Bring it on" are you still at HS.  Grow up.

Tech forums are for technical information.  Post some.

LOL, LOL?

How do you make this stuff up?, do you get paid to do so? or are you really that naive to believe that a Gen3 scope can't see blue light? well, I guess if you get your info from a chart that that would be expected, wouldn't it?

Just grab your Gen3 scope and look at a black light LED, then look at blue LED, then a green LED, and then a red LED, all of those will light up the tube.. and last time I checked a blue light, green light and red light where all part of the visible spectrum.

So, to reiterate:
IIT can see UV-VIS-NIR-(SWIR 4G) which is rather different than what you stated that it can only see NIR...

BTW, I've seen that chart already in previous posts, and it looks like propaganda to me... don't you have a better one? one that reflects reality a bit better?

I don't need any assurances from you to know that a Photonis 4G, or an Echo tube are just fine, the Sionyx OOTH, however, its not. The term 4G and Sionyx don't belong in the same sentence, at least not in the real world.

We both agree the 4G and Echo are great tubes, but personally, given the choice, I'd lean towards an L3 filmless, but with that said I would be happy with either one of those 2, and none of those 3 tubes, the Echo, 4G or L3 unfilmed will disappoint... now, a Sionyx? yeah, that will disappoint...

G.

Grow up? so, how does telling me to grow up or checking my eyesight help in this discussion?

You see, all I hear here is "you do you, booboo" or "grow up" or "check your vision", it really feels like perhaps its not me the one who needs to do the growing up after all...

I strongly disagree with your opinions about a substandard device... and anyone here is free to try what I claim: A Gen3 will see all the way down to black light.

The Sionyx device that is described in this thread seems poised to disappoint like its predecessors before it, especially given the extra cost and based on their track record.

Now, if I am wrong after trying one I'll be the first person to admit I was wrong, but I have a gut feeling it won't...

until then, there is only one way to find out... wait until its released.

G.

Are you sure your gen3 devices are seeing UV-A, and not just the violet visible light leaking out of the blacklight filter layer? Why is UV-A even a concern? Using your goggles for some ectoplasm hunting?


I for one find GroundhogOZ's image comparisons quite useful and in no way misleading. He's showing his work in an extremely repeatable fashion. Why add a breach to the shot? Oh I dunno, maybe because you brought it up earlier in one of your other rants. If you can't comprehend the point being made about FoV then maybe more than your eyes need to be checked. It's been a bit laughable you having zero hands-on experience with the device being discussed (OPSIN), yet calling it a con.

Sorry, I'm Gen-X, didn't realize "Boo-boo" was so insulting - I blame too much John Dufresne. Please accept my most humble apology.

You've been proven wrong numerous times already, you just can't acknowledge it. Sionyx, LLC patents vs "Sony or knockoff sensors" is but one of a ton of examples.

Enough talk - post your pics and vids of when you allegedly "owned" (which model?) the product.  EIS off? Scene Ring set to 'Night'?...wouldn't be the first time, LOL. Post the historical Weather data, Moon Phase, and general location, so others can verify. All you had to do, is press one button. On second thought, never mind...faking the data would be too easy, and, well...

I say everybody take a breath here for a sec.  Everyone has made their points; no need to take any further.  I think it's a good idea to look at different tech, if just from a standpoint of what's out there, where is it at, and would it be a good alternative for me, especially if I cannot acquire ITAR items through free trade.  That is a valid POV.  But I also hear it stated that guys should be cautious when approaching this tech, especially if you live in a country where you have other options.  That is also a very valid POV.  But these two thoughts can live in the same universe.

We can argue about how these two technologies stack up against each other, and there is obvious disagreement there, but I don't think we can argue that there are many folks in different countries that don't have access to all the stuff we do (right now) and for them, this stuff may be all they can get access to.  So why wouldn't you be testing it out and seeing what it can do.

It's sort of like saying Panos are better than binos.  And yeah, no shit, but if I can't get Panos then I have to leverage the binos to the best of my ability.  But if you're saying stick to binos even if T.Dunn gave you his panos, well, yeah no shit, that might not be what you'd want to do.  Those two statements are equally valid and sorta similar to what's going on here...  

I said it could be a knockoff Sony sensor, then you showed me some patents, but that doesn't prove me wrong, b/c without looking at the underlying tech, how its built, etc, neither you nor I can tell if its a knock off sensor or not. Or are you so sure to claim its not a knockoff? I don't know and I am certain that you don't know either.

The bottom line is that when I tried to use mine, I quickly realized that it wasn't as good as my Gen2 I2 that costed less. Now, you can pretend its as good as Gen2, throw all the graphs and propaganda, patents, whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy that its just as good, but the device was not as good as I2 which costs less.

Sadly, and for as much as I would love to post a video just to prove the device is as useless as I claim it is, I no longer have mine to do it, well... for a reason, right? and then there is the whole "faking the data is easy." Whether you said it or you were sarcastic, the fact is that data can be easily manufactured, so you can imagine why I don't trust pamphlets, pictures and nothing else I see in the internet from some random guy in a public forum... unless its an Omnibus contract spec sheet on a I2 tube with an NSN contract number on it... and likewise, no matter what I do, there will always be someone who disagrees, like some folk in YT who claimed their Gen0 scope was brighter than mine... but dim and distortion are the realities of Gen0, they suck... yet they still felt I somehow cheated to make Gen0 look worse than what it really is... That is why I always buy the stuff before plunging in this kind of threads, I try it on my own $$$ so I can make my own decision without having to take anyone's word for it.

G.

The standard UV-pass Filters also peak in the IR-range. It´s a known problem for these types.

For testing purpose i tried this 1.000nm-longpass. Tubes are XW3040B (4G). Tubehousing is MUM. With the filter mounted you need the fully opened lens-aperture and sunlight to just see some useful picture. But as long as i do not have any idea regarding the transmission capabilities or incapabilities of the MUM-lens, this cannot be taken as a proof for anything (aka 4G not being usefull in ranges above 1.000nm).

Well, not sure about that UV-pass filter, but just add two 720 nm IR blocking filters on the objective lens of your Gen3.. and you'll see it is still perfectly usable; sure, you lose the NIR stuff, so leaves and green vegetation now looks pretty dark (instead of bright green), since the IR reflected from vegetation is all gone... but it will see regular light just fine. Gen2 is even more sensitive to UV light...

AFAIK there are a bunch of different lenses for the PVS14s and the MUMs, all with different coatings and probably different transmission figures that nobody really knows about...  With that said, Photonis states that their 4G tubes can see above 1000nm, so given they are a trusted I2 military supplier I see no reason to call BS on this claim. I think you can try one of those Alibaba 1046 nm flashlights to test if these work... I wouldn't expose the tube to sunlight...

Even if the 4G couldn't see above 1k nm, I still don't recommend running ANY illuminators, laser, etc, no matter how "safe your secret wavelength it is" especially if the situation involves 2-legged varmint hunting you down...

G.

Sure. But NV-users, not being aware of the two-peak-"quality" of the standard (for example photographic) 365nm UV-shortpasses, can get tricked badly regarding the interpretation of the results their NV-oculars are presenting them because not knowing of the hidden IR-peak they believe the effects they are watching (for example botanic experimentation) are UV-light only based, instead their NV-device (additionally being much more sensitive for IR than for UV) shows them more the effects of the "secret" IR-part of the filtered light than that of the actual UV-light. In the ocular it is not distinguishable wether IR or UV is the actor on the scene because it´s a monochrome, one color-salad.

Here, fullspectrum devices like the Sionyx maybe the better tool because such devices should give you a warning by the typical purple ir-glow, that your believed UV-only-device is actually emitting telltale IR-light which can be picked up by securtity cams (or other even more sensitive nv-devices) alerting some watchdog in the backrooms.

UV-light for example (but UV-only and preferably with a tight focus (best would be a defocused uv-diodelaser)) is a very helpful tool for scanning for the standard PIR-sensors with the whitish opaque multilens covers in front of the sensor, because these usually glow bright when hit with UV and give away their position by doing so. You then can try to activate that sensor from a distance by a short hit with an ir-laser to see which area the connected vis- or nir-lightsource is covering, so you can decide how to move.