User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 10:47:29 PM EDT
Since I have two very similar spec'd tubes, I wanted to throw up some comparison pictures. I'm using an iPhone 11 Pro Max - so they won't be the highest quality photos, but they do capture a decent portrayal of the differences between the tube. Especially against the white wall, the color is nearly dead on. I threw both tubes on a Mod Armory LW bridge and took each picture back to back (by hand) so excuse any imperfections with the photo taking. That being said, it's clear the filmless tube is absolutely superior here. Hopefully this helps some of you decide where to spend your money or if it's worth it to throw more money at a filmless tube or not. If I didn't have them to compare back to back, I'd probably be more than happy with the Elbit.
Tube 1 - Elbit XLSH (Night Vision Guys) Resolution - 76lp/mm SNR - 35.5 FOM - 2698 Halo - 0.71 EBI - 1.92 (only spec that I wasn't impressed with) Gain - 69,341 Photocathode Sensitivity - 2,375 This tube is extremely clean. No blems to speak of.  Tube 2 - L3 Filmless WP (1701) (N-Vision Optics Zone 3 Blem) Resolution - 72 lp/mm SNR - 37.9 FOM - 2728 Halo - 0.7 EBI - 0.9 Gain - 63,036 Photocathode Sensitivity - 2,675 This tube is decently clean with a zone 3 blem and notable fixed pattern noise.  Here are a few shots of what I'll be looking at during the daytime. The large barn is 83 yards from my porch. The far tree line is 273 yards.    Now we'll get to it. Of the images, the first image will be the Elbit and it will be followed by the L3.              Elbit Thin Filmed 2  L3 Filmless 2  Elbit Thin Filmed 1  L3 Filmless 1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 11:06:23 PM EDT
[#1]
Great write up and pics/vids ??
It’s very “clear” in these that filmless is not just hype even against a high spec thin filmed tube. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 11:22:29 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 11:23:43 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By will-1: Great write up and pics/vids ?? It’s very “clear” in these that filmless is not just hype even against a high spec thin filmed tube. Yep I agree. I was really wondering how one of the high spec thin films would hold up - but I’m glad I had the L3 to compare to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 11:27:55 PM EDT
[#4]
Both look very nice and I'm sure you're happy with either for the price you paid. I would be lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 11:31:05 PM EDT
[#5]
I wonder how much of that difference is the ebi vs the film. Probably both.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 11:31:11 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By will-1: Great write up and pics/vids ?? It’s very “clear” in these that filmless is not just hype even against a high spec thin filmed tube. I’m not so sure I agree based on these however once you take cost into account I’d say they’re at least too close to call. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 11:33:54 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By westernhaikus1: I’m not so sure I agree based on these however once you take cost into account I’d say they’re at least too close to call. Ironically these cost me the exact same amount. Right at $3350 each |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 11:43:54 PM EDT
[#8]
The differences is darkness of trees in the distance is what stands out to me when I'm comparing things, like photonis vs L3uf. Pretty clear in your photos which is which in those areas. Otherwise tough to spot other things right now in the pictures. That FPN would bug me though - dunno why it seems to be so acceptable in the L3 tubes :(
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 11:49:18 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jwramp: The differences is darkness of trees in the distance is what stands out to me when I'm comparing things, like photonis vs L3uf. Pretty clear in your photos which is which in those areas. Otherwise tough to spot other things right now in the pictures. That FPN would bug me though - dunno why it seems to be so acceptable in the L3 tubes :( It would bug me too. Hopefully mine doesn’t have it when it comes in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 11:49:40 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jwramp: The differences is darkness of trees in the distance is what stands out to me when I'm comparing things, like photonis vs L3uf. Pretty clear in your photos which is which in those areas. Otherwise tough to spot other things right now in the pictures. That FPN would bug me though - dunno why it seems to be so acceptable in the L3 tubes :( Yeah FPN plus a blem vs a clean tube that is slightly noisier. Tough call. Considering OP paid the same for each then it’s a toss up to me, end of the day congrats OP you got two awesome tubes! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 11:57:38 PM EDT
[#11]
Nice comparison. Thanks for doing this. Both excellent tubes. The filmless definitely is sharper. Would you say the FPN is very noticeable in actual use?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 12:51:48 AM EDT
[#12]
Wow, interesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 1:50:23 AM EDT
[#13]
Great comparison.
This is actually making me think that I got a really good deal on my Omni VII. I know the view is better with a naked eye but I now have experience with using a high end smartphone (Pixel 3 XL in my case) with a tube, so I sort of understand the translation. My takeaway is that you’re not going to experience an OMFG epiphany, if you are coming from a very good OMNi VII and I’m not sure I agree with the value proposition of paying 2x the price to go up that last 5-7%. Of course this is all coming A’la keyboard commando so take anything I say with a large grain of salt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 6:48:19 AM EDT
[#14]
Do you mind taking some photos in low Light conditions to see the difference?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 7:48:41 AM EDT
[#15]
awesome photos!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 7:51:47 AM EDT
[#16]
Having looked through enough tubes and taken pics/vids trying to match the image to my eye, I feel I have a good idea of what I'm looking at. They are the same differences I've seen with my own eyes with gen 3 thin filmed tube and Photonis Echos. From these pics/vids and others I've seen online, the higher specs don't perform the same as filmless. I don't know Synyster06Gates but from what I gather he's an end user and not a reseller or industry guy. Which I hope he is because every comparison I've seen so far of Elbit thin filmed higher spec WP vs L3Harris filmless WP has not been done by a regular end user. An end user's comparison & opinion holds more weight in my eyes.
I'm not taking a dump on the higher spec Elbit XLSH tubes (they look like very nice tubes) but the performance is obviously not the same. If that matters to you. It's the details, such as in the 3rd set of pics with the fencing in background, 4th set behind the propane tank, and 5th set the detail of the T posts & background. These differences might not matter to some but if you want the highest performance you can get it's obvious which one to choose. People make a big deal about the red glow from IR sources, passive shooting, and the seriousness of using NV, etc. for tactical advantage, etc. This isn't any different and I'd argue is even more critical because it affects how well you see in the dark to do all of those things. ETA: Ruling out the higher EBI, the closer shots with the truck and small tree (with a light source nearby) you can clearly see the difference. Just to clarify, I have zero interest (financial or personal) as to which tube is better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 8:16:24 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TNVC_Sam: Do you mind taking some photos in low Light conditions to see the difference? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 8:25:42 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: Gladly. I’ll get some indoors in a closet with no light this morning. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: Originally Posted By TNVC_Sam: Do you mind taking some photos in low Light conditions to see the difference? No do an outside shot with some distance, closet shots never do it justice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 8:46:36 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TNVC_Sam: No do an outside shot with some distance, closet shots never do it justice. I'll see what I can do tonight, but I'll post some of these up in the mean time. It's supposed to rain tonight, but if I get a chance I'll go out and turn the barn light off as well as the garage light off. We're far enough away from everyone that we don't get much in the way of light pollution where I live. We're on 90 acres, but most of it is open so I can't get much in the way of wooded areas. I find that videos are a lot more telling when comparing these tubes because a still really doesn't capture how much noise is/isn't there. Here's a simple shot (control with IR first) in a room that has zero light coming in aside from what's coming through the curtains of the bedroom on a cloudy morning then coming under the closet door. I couldn't see my hand 6'' from my face. Elbit first, followed by L3 then a video of each. L3 is clearly producing a brighter image with less noise.     |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 8:53:53 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By will-1: Having looked through enough tubes and taken pics/vids trying to match the image to my eye, I feel I have a good idea of what I'm looking at. They are the same differences I've seen with my own eyes with gen 3 thin filmed tube and Photonis Echos. From these pics/vids and others I've seen online, the higher specs don't perform the same as filmless. I don't know Synyster06Gates but from what I gather he's an end user and not a reseller or industry guy. Which I hope he is because every comparison I've seen so far of Elbit thin filmed higher spec WP vs L3Harris filmless WP has not been done by a regular end user. An end user's comparison & opinion holds more weight in my eyes. I'm not taking a dump on the higher spec Elbit XLSH tubes (they look like very nice tubes) but the performance is obviously not the same. If that matters to you. It's the details, such as in the 3rd set of pics with the fencing in background, 4th set behind the propane tank, and last set the detail of the T posts & background. These differences might not matter to some but if you want the highest performance you can get it's obvious which one to choose. People make a big deal about the red glow from IR sources, passive shooting, and the seriousness of using NV, etc. for tactical advantage, etc. This isn't any different and I'd argue is even more critical because it affects how well you see in the dark to do all of those things. Just to clarify, I have zero interest (financial or personal) as to which tube is better. That is correct. I'm just a regular dude. I have no credentials. I'm not military, law enforcement, or someone who relies on these to save or take lives. I've been around NV since October and I've already gone through an Omni VII PVS-7, two PVS-14s with L3s exportable 10160 tubes, two Omni VIII PVS14s I ran as duals, a 57 res 35 SNR filmless WP, and now these two. I've looked through a good number of tubes and just wanted to see for myself how thin filmed vs unfilmed do when their specs are similar. They're both awesome tubes IMO, there's just a clear difference. if I didn't have the L3 on hand, I'd probably be in love with the thin filmed. I'm going to end up selling or returning the Elbit though, so I'm trying to knock this comparison out before it goes away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 9:06:41 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: That is correct. I'm just a regular dude. I have no credentials. I'm not military, law enforcement, or someone who relies on these to save or take lives. I've been around NV since October and I've already gone through an Omni VII PVS-7, two PVS-14s with L3s exportable 10160 tubes, two Omni VIII PVS14s I ran as duals, a 57 res 35 SNR filmless WP, and now these two. I've looked through a good number of tubes and just wanted to see for myself how thin filmed vs filmed do when their specs are similar. They're both awesome tubes IMO, there's just a clear difference. if I didn't have the L3 on hand, I'd probably be in love with the thin filmed. I'm going to end up selling or returning the Elbit though, so I'm trying to knock this comparison out before it goes away. That's what i figured  Good stuff - NV fever! lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 10:26:33 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: I'll see what I can do tonight, but I'll post some of these up in the mean time. It's supposed to rain tonight, but if I get a chance I'll go out and turn the barn light off as well as the garage light off. We're far enough away from everyone that we don't get much in the way of light pollution where I live. We're on 90 acres, but most of it is open so I can't get much in the way of wooded areas. I find that videos are a lot more telling when comparing these tubes because a still really doesn't capture how much noise is/isn't there. Here's a simple shot (control with IR first) in a room that has zero light coming in aside from what's coming through the curtains of the bedroom on a cloudy morning then coming under the closet door. I couldn't see my hand 6'' from my face. Elbit first, followed by L3 then a video of each. L3 is clearly producing a brighter image with less noise. https://i.imgur.com/wwj4219.jpg https://i.imgur.com/0fWXnlC.jpg https://i.imgur.com/503RLdn.jpg https://i.imgur.com/8yt4pTf.jpg  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v31R4qQiJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbxAP8Ex_ZwBest indoor test scenario yet. If truly viewed with 99.95% absence of light w/ no IR, the filmless L3 kicks the snot out of my OMNI VII. Be honest though, if you spent 10 minutes in the closet acclimating to the darkness, would you still not be able to see your hand 6 inches from your face? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 10:33:58 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: That is correct. I'm just a regular dude. I have no credentials. I'm not military, law enforcement, or someone who relies on these to save or take lives. I've been around NV since October and I've already gone through an Omni VII PVS-7, two PVS-14s with L3s exportable 10160 tubes, two Omni VIII PVS14s I ran as duals, a 57 res 35 SNR filmless WP, and now these two. I've looked through a good number of tubes and just wanted to see for myself how thin filmed vs unfilmed do when their specs are similar. They're both awesome tubes IMO, there's just a clear difference. if I didn't have the L3 on hand, I'd probably be in love with the thin filmed. I'm going to end up selling or returning the Elbit though, so I'm trying to knock this comparison out before it goes away. Given your experience... In the same lack of light conditions as the two "label" videos, and using a scale of 1-100 (with the filmless L3 being given a score of 100), what numbers would you assign the OMNI VII and OMNI VIII? 0 = I literally can't see ANYTHING 100 = I can see as well as the filmless L3 will allow Hope that makes sense. I've got a number in my head and I want to see how far off I am. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 10:42:38 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PFran42: Best test indoor test scenario yet. If truly viewed with 99.95% absence of light w/ no IR, the filmless L3 kicks the snot out of my OMNI VII. Be honest though, if you spent 10 minutes in the closet acclimating to the darkness, would you still not be able to see your hand 6 inches from your face? 100%. I actually went in again for a couple minutes with a box to block ANY light from entering the room. It was dark enough that I couldn't get a usable picture through either tube. After spending maybe 5 minutes in the room with the box, I could only see a faint line of light at the bottom of the door. But even then I couldn't make out anything, including my hand directly in front of my eyes. Using a 3 second exposure on the iphone and ISO cranked, I couldn't pick anything up on camera, either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 10:44:06 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: That is correct. I'm just a regular dude. I have no credentials. I'm not military, law enforcement, or someone who relies on these to save or take lives Reminds me of how most people think that all cops are firearms experts. You don’t need any of that, and this post proves it. Nice job! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 10:46:26 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PFran42: Given your experience... In the same lack of light conditions as the two "label" videos, and using a scale of 1-100 (with the filmless L3 being given a score of 100), what numbers would you assign the OMNI VII and OMNI VIII? 0 = I literally can't see ANYTHING 100 = I can see as well as the filmless L3 will allow Hope that makes sense. I've got a number in my head and I want to see how far off I am. I'd say the Omni VII tube was probably close to a 55-60. I could make out faint shapes, but definitely no positive identification. I'd say that the elbit is 80-85, so it's still a significant improvement over the Omni VII/VIII. The SNR is really what I think helps, the Omni tubes I had made a lot more noise that distorted the image. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 10:48:12 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: 100%. I actually went in again for a couple minutes with a box to block ANY light from entering the room. It was dark enough that I couldn't get a usable picture through either tube. After spending maybe 5 minutes in the room with the box, I could only see a faint line of light at the bottom of the door. But even then I couldn't make out anything, including my hand directly in front of my eyes. Using a 3 second exposure on the iphone and ISO cranked, I couldn't pick anything up on camera, either. Awesome! Thanks for the ultra-detailed answer. You're providing me with some very good data (that will no doubt end up benefiting JRH in the near future). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 10:50:03 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: I'd say the Omni VII tube was probably close to a 55-60. I could make out faint shapes, but definitely no positive identification. I'd say that the elbit is 80-85, so it's still a significant improvement over the Omni VII/VIII. The SNR is really what I think helps, the Omni tubes I had made a lot more noise that distorted the image. Again... Thanks for "painting the picture". This thread delivers! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 10:54:38 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PFran42: Again... Thanks for "painting the picture". This thread delivers! To add, the number I had in my head for the OMNI VII was a 92. I was also thinking that the Elbit would come in at 96. I was way off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 10:59:26 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PFran42: To add, the number I had in my head for the OMNI VII was a 92. I was also thinking that the Elbit would come in at 96. I was way off. yeah, the Elbit may be a little bit higher than I rated it, but the my Omni tubes were both minimum spec, and the VIIIs were pretty bad. Noisy and poor performers in low light. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 11:08:09 AM EDT
[#31]
For comparison sake, here was my min spec Omni VIII next to a 57 lp/mm 35 SNR filmless L3. Even the relatively lower FOM filmless was leaps and bounds better (1995 L3 vs the Elbit Omni VIII at 1600). the difference is obvious here.
ETA - here is a link, I don't want to confuse people with the pics here  Omvi VIII vs low(ish) spec filmless WP |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 11:32:55 AM EDT
[#32]
Just tried to replicate your test with what I believe is an OMNI VII PVS-14.
Room had all lights off, shutters drawn and curtains closed. Pics taken in closet with pillow placed along bottom edge of closet door. I could see a very faint line of vertical light when looking at closet door but I could not see my hand 6 inches in front of my face. If I passed my hand between my eyes and the vertical faint white line, I could detect movement. Control pic:  Attached FileTest pic:  Attached FileMy testing is inconclusive b/c I have a feeling my phone is contributing to some "light pollution" while the pic is being taken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 11:40:20 AM EDT
[#33]
For the same price id go with filmless every time. The thin film tubes only make sense when there is a price differential.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 11:41:10 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PFran42: Just tried to replicate your test with what I believe is an OMNI VII PVS-14. Room had all lights off, shutters drawn and curtains closed. Pics taken in closet with pillow placed along bottom edge of closet door. I could see a very faint line of vertical line of light when looking at closet door but I could not see my hand 6 inches in front of my face. If I passed my hand between my eyes and the vertical faint white line, I could detect movement. Control pic: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/309598/IMG_20200512_110555_control_jpg-1412503.JPG Test pic: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/309598/MVIMG_20200512_111226_Test_jpg-1412504.JPG My testing is inconclusive b/c I have a feeling my phone is contributing to some "light pollution" while the pic is being taken. That actually looks very good. Too bad I can't test it in the exact same conditions I did mine in! I did notice that as my watch screen would come on, I'd get the same "extra light" so I would have to wait between pics occasionally. With the phone I didn't really notice it much since most of the camera screen was black |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 11:43:56 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By texassooner: For the same price id go with filmless every time. The thin film tubes only make sense when there is a price differential. To be fair, the only reason I got the L3 with these specs for that price was I waited and they're marked as large zone 3 blems. Apparently N-Vision isn't doing that any more, so you basically get what you get which kinda sucks because resolution ranges from 57-72 on those. The salesman I worked with before is no longer there and the guy yesterday straight up said place an order, we'll get to it when we get to it and we don't let you hand select any more. Some people also can't stand the blems on the side or the FPN. I actually don't mind it TOO much. I gotta say having an extremely clean screen is very nice - and there's ZERO noise on startup Oh well, I'm sticking with the filmless and through the Elbit up on the EE. They're both awesome tubes, but I gotta stick with the L3. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 12:07:34 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: To be fair, the only reason I got the L3 with these specs for that price was I waited and they're marked as large zone 3 blems. Apparently N-Vision isn't doing that any more, so you basically get what you get which kinda sucks because resolution ranges from 57-72 on those. The salesman I worked with before is no longer there and the guy yesterday straight up said place an order, we'll get to it when we get to it and we don't let you hand select any more. Some people also can't stand the blems on the side or the FPN. I actually don't mind it TOO much. I gotta say having an extremely clean screen is very nice - and there's ZERO noise on startup Oh well, I'm sticking with the filmless and through the Elbit up on the EE. They're both awesome tubes, but I gotta stick with the L3. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: Originally Posted By texassooner: For the same price id go with filmless every time. The thin film tubes only make sense when there is a price differential. To be fair, the only reason I got the L3 with these specs for that price was I waited and they're marked as large zone 3 blems. Apparently N-Vision isn't doing that any more, so you basically get what you get which kinda sucks because resolution ranges from 57-72 on those. The salesman I worked with before is no longer there and the guy yesterday straight up said place an order, we'll get to it when we get to it and we don't let you hand select any more. Some people also can't stand the blems on the side or the FPN. I actually don't mind it TOO much. I gotta say having an extremely clean screen is very nice - and there's ZERO noise on startup Oh well, I'm sticking with the filmless and through the Elbit up on the EE. They're both awesome tubes, but I gotta stick with the L3. The Pvs14 with the elbit tube, does it have the questionable uncoated glass? ETA: and is it the same glass that’s in the unfilmed pvs? I don’t think it would make a huge difference but it’s pertinent information IMHO |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 12:14:21 PM EDT
[#37]
Unfortunately, there's only so much you can do to show what these look like and the differences between them. If you question what people have to say (nothing wrong with that!), well then the only way you can really know for yourself is to see it with your own eyes.
The best way to do it (if you can) is like Synyster06Gates did by having both at the same time for a thorough side by side. Looking through someone else's device may work but IMO it's better to be able to spend the time comparing at your discretion. Especially in multiple lighting conditions because ambient lighting makes a huge difference. The pics/vids would look vastly different with a decent Moon overhead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 12:17:02 PM EDT
[#38]
If I had to chose 1 of the OPs tubes, it would be the filmless, even with the blem and FPN, the difference in performance in low light and the shadows is significant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 12:19:43 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By will-1: Unfortunately, there's only so much you can do to show what these look like and the differences between them. If you question what people have to say (nothing wrong with that!), well then the only way you can really know for yourself is to see it with your own eyes. The best way to do it (if you can) is like Synyster06Gates did by having both at the same time for a thorough side by side. Looking through someone else's device may work but IMO it's better to be able to spend the time comparing at your discretion. Especially in multiple lighting conditions because ambient lighting makes a huge difference. The pics/vids would look vastly different with a decent Moon overhead. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By will-1: Unfortunately, there's only so much you can do to show what these look like and the differences between them. If you question what people have to say (nothing wrong with that!), well then the only way you can really know for yourself is to see it with your own eyes. The best way to do it (if you can) is like Synyster06Gates did by having both at the same time for a thorough side by side. Looking through someone else's device may work but IMO it's better to be able to spend the time comparing at your discretion. Especially in multiple lighting conditions because ambient lighting makes a huge difference. The pics/vids would look vastly different with a decent Moon overhead. Exactly. I got lucky and got to do this with no moon/heavy overcast. I’ll attempt more tonight focusing more on distance and I’ll see what I can capture down my half mile driveway. Depending on where the cows are, I could get some of them too. Originally Posted By Honda4828: The Pvs14 with the elbit tube, does it have the questionable uncoated glass? ETA: and is it the same glass that’s in the unfilmed pvs? I honestly don’t know. It looks like it, but I don’t have any of the edge distortion or cosmetic defects that were mentioned in that thread. It also feels like glass rather than plastic as he mentioned. No flashing marks either. The diopter is also set correctly. The unfilmed tube has what I would consider “normal” mil spec and appears to have the normal coatings |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 12:31:47 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: To be fair, the only reason I got the L3 with these specs for that price was I waited and they're marked as large zone 3 blems. Apparently N-Vision isn't doing that any more, so you basically get what you get which kinda sucks because resolution ranges from 57-72 on those. The salesman I worked with before is no longer there and the guy yesterday straight up said place an order, we'll get to it when we get to it and we don't let you hand select any more. Some people also can't stand the blems on the side or the FPN. I actually don't mind it TOO much. I gotta say having an extremely clean screen is very nice - and there's ZERO noise on startup Oh well, I'm sticking with the filmless and through the Elbit up on the EE. They're both awesome tubes, but I gotta stick with the L3. I couldn’t care less about a zone 2/3 spot or two like you have. In use they disappear and they are cheaper. Clean tubes are important to some people but not me. That filmless tube you have looks good. The 2 biggest things I noticed when comparing in person was in low light the thin film had more scintillation than the filmless even though the snr was pretty much the same, and the filmless would allow you to pick up more detail in shadows. The difference wasn’t as drastic as your pictures but I’m suspecting that has something to do with the ebi on your thin film tube as the thin film tube I was comparing with was +-.5 ebi. IMO some things don’t translate from paper to actual use and the whole thin filmed vs filmless is one of those things. All specs equal, filmless is going to give you better detail in low light. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 12:32:20 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: Apparently N-Vision isn't doing that any more, so you basically get what you get which kinda sucks because resolution ranges from 57-72 on those. The salesman I worked with before is no longer there and the guy yesterday straight up said place an order, we'll get to it when we get to it and we don't let you hand select any more. Dang, that sucks, they're like everybody else now. Well, it was good while it lasted and I know some of us scored pretty good being able to hand select their own. Thanks for passing that info along. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 12:34:04 PM EDT
[#42]
Not knocking anyone in particular (and certainly not OP) but I think where a lot of people fail when doing these comparisons is that they post pics of trees/bushes/etc.. Knowing the shallow depth of focus for these devices, we're seemingly always left with a somewhat blurry representation of what the tube offers. Trees/bushes are phenomenal for showing how deep a tube can pierce into shadows but I would really like to see images of man-made objects that we instantly recognize and have a good frame of reference for how the same object would look in a smartphone pic.
It would be cool if everyone had a standardized PDF of the USAF tri-bar resolution chart saved off on the computers and the norm was to post a pic of your NV device at something like 10 ft. just spitballin'  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 12:44:05 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: Exactly. I got lucky and got to do this with no moon/heavy overcast. I’ll attempt more tonight focusing more on distance and I’ll see what I can capture down my half mile driveway. Depending on where the cows are, I could get some of them too. I honestly don’t know. It looks like it, but I don’t have any of the edge distortion or cosmetic defects that were mentioned in that thread. It also feels like glass rather than plastic as he mentioned. No flashing marks either. The diopter is also set correctly. The unfilmed tube has what I would consider “normal” mil spec and appears to have the normal coatings Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: Originally Posted By will-1: Unfortunately, there's only so much you can do to show what these look like and the differences between them. If you question what people have to say (nothing wrong with that!), well then the only way you can really know for yourself is to see it with your own eyes. The best way to do it (if you can) is like Synyster06Gates did by having both at the same time for a thorough side by side. Looking through someone else's device may work but IMO it's better to be able to spend the time comparing at your discretion. Especially in multiple lighting conditions because ambient lighting makes a huge difference. The pics/vids would look vastly different with a decent Moon overhead. Exactly. I got lucky and got to do this with no moon/heavy overcast. I’ll attempt more tonight focusing more on distance and I’ll see what I can capture down my half mile driveway. Depending on where the cows are, I could get some of them too. Originally Posted By Honda4828: The Pvs14 with the elbit tube, does it have the questionable uncoated glass? ETA: and is it the same glass that’s in the unfilmed pvs? I honestly don’t know. It looks like it, but I don’t have any of the edge distortion or cosmetic defects that were mentioned in that thread. It also feels like glass rather than plastic as he mentioned. No flashing marks either. The diopter is also set correctly. The unfilmed tube has what I would consider “normal” mil spec and appears to have the normal coatings Just to be clear the glass is visibly different when comparing the two correct. Meaning the 14 with the elbit tube shows either a much different or no coating when compared to the filmless 14? Also I much appreciate the comparison. For those of us who cannot purchase tubes just to compare with other tubes this is nice. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 12:52:15 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Honda4828: Just to be clear the glass is visibly different when comparing the two correct. Meaning the 14 with the elbit tube shows either a much different or no coating when compared to the filmless 14? Also I much appreciate the comparison. For those of us who cannot purchase tubes just to compare with other tubes this is nice. Thanks! Correct as seen here - to be fair there is a hint of blue suggesting some coating, but it looks different from the filmless unit on the left  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 12:54:31 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: Correct as seen here - to be fair there is a hint of blue suggesting some coating, but it looks different from the filmless unit on the left https://i.imgur.com/6UUUTBa.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: Originally Posted By Honda4828: Just to be clear the glass is visibly different when comparing the two correct. Meaning the 14 with the elbit tube shows either a much different or no coating when compared to the filmless 14? Also I much appreciate the comparison. For those of us who cannot purchase tubes just to compare with other tubes this is nice. Thanks! Correct as seen here - to be fair there is a hint of blue suggesting some coating, but it looks different from the filmless unit on the left https://i.imgur.com/6UUUTBa.jpg Thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 1:06:39 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PFran42: Not knocking anyone in particular (and certainly not OP) but I think where a lot of people fail when doing these comparisons is that they post pics of trees/bushes/etc.. Knowing the shallow depth of focus for these devices, we're seemingly always left with a somewhat blurry representation of what the tube offers. Trees/bushes are phenomenal for showing how deep a tube can pierce into shadows but I would really like to see images of man-made objects that we instantly recognize and have a good frame of reference for how the same object would look in a smartphone pic. It would be cool if everyone had a standardized PDF of the USAF tri-bar resolution chart saved off on the computers and the norm was to post a pic of your NV device at something like 10 ft. just spitballin' https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/309598/Q_RANGER__5-12-2020_12_31_27_PM_png-1412555.JPG I don't think a res chart would be the best for comparison. People can better relate to objects in real world environments with foregrounds/backgrounds/etc. You make a good point about trees/bushes/etc. versus man made objects. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 5:21:31 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By will-1: I don't think a res chart would be the best for comparison. People can better relate to objects in real world environments with foregrounds/backgrounds/etc. You make a good point about trees/bushes/etc. versus man made objects. I'll see what I can get for yall tonight! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 11:30:26 PM EDT
[#48]
So I went out and grabbed some more pics. Some down my driveway which about 1/4 mile is visible, the rest is over the hill top, some more just out in the fields, some cattle, and some man made objects, as well as one close up of a tree. Again, hope this helps some of you who are trying to decide which tubes to get. There was less light from "artificial" sources, but more starlight. No visible moon, though.
      Here is where it was the darkest. @TNVC here are a few distance shots.        Some man made objects     |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2020 12:02:46 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By will-1: I don't think a res chart would be the best for comparison. People can better relate to objects in real world environments with foregrounds/backgrounds/etc. You make a good point about trees/bushes/etc. versus man made objects. Are you NightWalker? If so, I’ve learned a good deal from your videos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2020 12:06:51 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Synyster06Gates: So I went out and grabbed some more pics. Some down my driveway which about 1/4 mile is visible, the rest is over the hill top, some more just out in the fields, some cattle, and some man made objects, as well as one close up of a tree. Again, hope this helps some of you who are trying to decide which tubes to get. There was less light from "artificial" sources, but more starlight. No visible moon, though. https://i.imgur.com/Ova3luJ.jpg https://i.imgur.com/Qja6C59.jpg https://i.imgur.com/tvoCwJY.jpg https://i.imgur.com/aWofYLq.jpg https://i.imgur.com/TlPCqNR.jpg https://i.imgur.com/cRGTH7D.jpg Here is where it was the darkest. @TNVC here are a few distance shots. https://i.imgur.com/pfBNEs3.jpg https://i.imgur.com/XqSgMYF.jpg https://i.imgur.com/mIDexyO.jpg https://i.imgur.com/vsnFwJw.jpg https://i.imgur.com/iaDjWYi.jpg https://i.imgur.com/pjeYSD9.jpg https://i.imgur.com/Je9guBd.jpg Some man made objects https://i.imgur.com/QXjs1x9.jpg https://i.imgur.com/jHZi1IU.jpg https://i.imgur.com/XtUN2Cw.jpg https://i.imgur.com/GHJqM2A.jpg Excellent photo shoot! Filmless almost looks 3D in a couple of those pics. |
|
|
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.
