Nv or thermal

[Blackwood Outdoors]

I use mine with the bellows Clive quite comfortably and I'm no lightweight @ 16 chunky stone

The iRAY tube is horrendous for eye relief you have to be pin point in position to view the screen, so the bellow that screws in have to be used, if not your back and forward to find the screen, iRay must have had issues with the TL35 models as all the bottom corners are cut off on the units I've tried and they later moved to a circular display on other models... in comparison the Thermion/Digex shows the full screen and all the corners and is nowhere near as eye position fussy as that cheap copy...

Read between the lines, we know the score and push, oh yes we do......

 

[Clive Ward]

Getting back on topic...

We were out last week on the foxes and heavy rain was forecast...after a cold damp day and the forecast didn't disappoint.

Even inside the truck with the window open it wasn't exactly a pleasant place to be...but great conditions for catching foxes preoccupied with worms.

You wouldn't have had much luck with a lamp. NV was a bust (we tried). Even one of the chaps thermal spotters wasn't up to it...just a grey out.

The FH35R and T-Ceptor PRO 55 were both imaging fine and we got the foxes down. The performance from the FH35R was very good. Even the LRF pinging a fox at 378 yards. Obviously more detail in the T-Ceptor PRO, but the FH35R was plenty good enough.

Obviously if you have plenty of spare time and can go another day, then thermal spotter and NV combo will work fine for you. However if you have to go or indeed choose to go due to weather, then good thermal is the way to go.


Cheers





Clive

 

[deerly departed]

Hicmicro gryphn is hybrid Optical/NV/Thermal

 

[mealiejimmy]

Hicmicro gryphn is hybrid Optical/NV/Thermal

Many of the HIK thermal products are very good value for money.
I have a Micro Thunder TQ50C and think it's brilliant for the money and a few people I know also have Micro Thunders or lower spec monoculars and all are happy with them.
However, I can't say the same about the Gryphon - compared to other HIK thermal products it is quite frankly, very poor
In fusion mode where the optical image is overlaid on the thermal image, the images are badly misaligned
The optical mode is black and white only and there is nowhere on the unit to attach an IR
The rangefinder does not have a scan mode - a button has to be pressed every time you want to range a target.
I definitely would not spend money on one.

Cheers

Bruce

 

[deerly departed]

Many of the HIK thermal products are very good value for money.
I have a Micro Thunder TQ50C and think it's brilliant for the money and a few people I know also have Micro Thunders or lower spec monoculars and all are happy with them.
However, I can't say the same about the Gryphon - compared to other HIK thermal products it is quite frankly, very poor
In fusion mode where the optical image is overlaid on the thermal image, the images are badly misaligned
The optical mode is black and white only and there is nowhere on the unit to attach an IR
The rangefinder does not have a scan mode - a button has to be pressed every time you want to range a target.
I definitely would not spend money on one.

Cheers

Bruce

Maybe so Bruce but the tec is starting to appear. Like anything, Mk1 of anything is usually a poor choice.
Better for others to pay for ongoing product R&D as I see it.
As you have much wider access to a range of kit then you are able to put a dimension on equipment and see it in use over time to ID the wrinkle etc.
Shame as my mate just bought one and likes it.
Dont worry, I will let him down gently.....

 

[MarinePMI]

Even though we have digressed a bit from the original topic, it's worth mentioning that pretty much all these tube format scopes have much shorter eye relief than an optical scope.

One that I tried had a claimed 50mm eye relief (still 40mm shorter than a stalking scope) but when I tested it, to be able to see the entire display I needed to have my eyebrow almost touching the ocular part...that's without the protective eye bellows.

So you need to factor in that you might need to mount your tube format electro optical scope 40-60mm further back on the rifle than a conventional day scope. Probably fine if you are of slight build and don't mind leaning into it a bit or not seeing the whole display. Failing that you need to order the special reach back mounts to have it mounted properly.


Cheers





Clive

I think you're referring to a "cantilever mount"...

 

[mealiejimmy]

Maybe so Bruce but the tec is starting to appear. Like anything, Mk1 of anything is usually a poor choice.
Better for others to pay for ongoing product R&D as I see it.
As you have much wider access to a range of kit then you are able to put a dimension on equipment and see it in use over time to ID the wrinkle etc.
Shame as my mate just bought one and likes it.
Dont worry, I will let him down gently.....

I remained to be convinced that optical/thermal "fusion" is going to be of any significant benefit in non military applications.
The biggest shortcoming of currently available thermal imagers is their lack of resolution compared to optical systems.
The pixels in thermal sensors are not, and will never be, as small as those in optical systems, so other than having a thermal sensor with a huge, expensive objective lens, thermal imagers will never produce as detailed an image as even current optical sensors are capable of.
However, thermal imagers produce images with far more contrast that the monochrome images produce by optical sensors illuminated by IR and I would argue that the lower resolution of thermal images is more than offset by their higher contrast.
I would also argue that best current thermal imagers, in the hands of experienced users, are good enough at target recognition that an optical image "fused" onto the thermal image would not improve their ability to recognise live animals.
The idea of "fusing" or overlaying an optical image onto a thermal image (or vice versa) is, at first glance, appealing.
It would appear to offer the contrast of the thermal image with the resolution of an optical image.
However, there are some significant practical problems to overcome
If the thermal and optical images are to be overlaid on top of each other, they have to be the same size.
That means the field of view of each sensor/lens must be the same
Field of view depends on lens focal length and sensor physical size and because thermal sensors are much larger than optical sensors, it's the thermal part of the system that sets the field of view (and therefore magnification)
The result is that the focal length of the lens used with the optical sensor is much shorter than needed to get high resolution images.
Once both images are the same size, they have to be synchronised (both images move together at the same speed) and overlaid without any shift in the relative positions.
The Gryphon does this part badly as can be seen from this video (from about 5:50) which clearly shows the presenter as wearing 2 pairs of glass when the Gryphon is in "fusion" mode
Good quality fusion may come some day, but at the moment, it's no more than a gimmick to attract uneducated buyers.

Cheers

Bruce

 

[MarinePMI]

First and foremost, let me state I am not saying this to be argumentative.

Fusion is coming, and a lot quicker than most realize. I give it about 3 years before US civilians will see it, but it will undoubtedly be ITAR controlled/restricted within the US for a substantial time in the future. It will also be fairly expensive. (Like $20-$30k a copy) The reason for it being sold to civilians is simple. Profit. Companies will need to offset investments made into R&D for government work, to create a profit off commercial saleas. Government contracts alone will not keep this industry alive, it's too small. But that is another discussion all together...

As to the differences between resolution and contrast, that's actually a good thing. One's weakness can be offset by the strength of the other. Algorithms can do some pretty interesting things when trying to populate data in voids (nearest neighbor bipolar interpolation comes immediately to mind), to render an image that is easily and comfortably seen by the human eye, where data may be missing or lacking.

Current fusion solutions are limited simply because standard NV is analog I2 technology, and thermal is purely digital (as you already know). And so all of the "fused" solutions available to most civilians is overlaying a thermal sensor image (digital) against the (analog) lens of the NV (ala COTI/eCOTI solution). Hence the name Clip On Thermal Imager (COTI). You can't run algorithms on analog data effectively, to clean up all the deltas. And that is the big stumbling block. Digital NV (near IR) commercially just isn't there yet. Once both (Near IR NV and LWIR/thermal) are digital, well, then the world is your oyster. It'll be just like thermal; a competition of algorithms and cores.

You are correct though, that fused NV/Thermal only really shows it's value in Mil/LEO uses. Transitioning from nighttime (with even a little of ambient light) into a dark room is like turning the NV off. That's where COTI's come in; they allow identifying targets in no ambient light conditions (and also why most thermals have a "outline" mode, since the human brain triggers on shapes faster than colors) and are invaluable in dynamic lighting conditions or ones where photonic barriers may exist. You can't see past a a puddle of light from a street light, and someone can literally be standing on the other side of that puddle, and not be seen by standard NV. Hence why there are demands for high intensity NV illuminators that are eye safe, but can still burn through those photonic barriers. Conversely, thermals (LWIR) can't see through thermal barriers like glass windows and such (and why you can't drive in a vehicle with thermals on, unless the windshield can be dropped like on the MZRs and such). That's why all the SOCOM vehicles typically don't have windshields, or they can be folded down. A fused solution will allow true "night vision" in any conditions by leveraging the strengths of each wave length band. MWIR shows huge potential but is astronomically priced ($60k for single low end unit), since it is the most nascent of technologies at the moment.

But as you stated, the average hunter wouldn't NEED that sort of capability, though they may appreciate some of the increased IR bandwidth that is used.

Fused solutions are coming, and sooner than most think. But I think (and perhaps that is what you meant?) they will largely remain expensive and cost prohibitive to most hunters.

This assumes of course that once the stuff gets out to civilians, it'll eventually leak, and manufacturers outside the US will begin to offer it as well. After all, just proving it can be made and sold at a profit is often the biggest hurdle.

JMTCW...and a bit of rambling.

 

[Blackwood Outdoors]

First and foremost, let me state I am not saying this to be argumentative.

Fusion is coming, and a lot quicker than most realize. I give it about 3 years before US civilians will see it, but it will undoubtedly be ITAR controlled/restricted within the US for a substantial time in the future. It will also be fairly expensive. (Like $20-$30k a copy) The reason for it being sold to civilians is simple. Profit. Companies will need to offset investments made into R&D for government work, to create a profit off commercial saleas. Government contracts alone will not keep this industry alive, it's too small. But that is another discussion all together...

As to the differences between resolution and contrast, that's actually a good thing. One's weakness can be offset by the strength of the other. Algorithms can do some pretty interesting things when trying to populate data in voids (nearest neighbor bipolar interpolation comes immediately to mind), to render an image that is easily and comfortably seen by the human eye, where data may be missing or lacking.

Current fusion solutions are limited simply because standard NV is analog I2 technology, and thermal is purely digital (as you already know). And so all of the "fused" solutions available to most civilians is overlaying a thermal sensor image (digital) against the (analog) lens of the NV (ala COTI/eCOTI solution). Hence the name Clip On Thermal Imager (COTI). You can't run algorithms on analog data effectively, to clean up all the deltas. And that is the big stumbling block. Digital NV (near IR) commercially just isn't there yet. Once both (Near IR NV and LWIR/thermal) are digital, well, then the world is your oyster. It'll be just like thermal; a competition of algorithms and cores.

You are correct though, that fused NV/Thermal only really shows it's value in Mil/LEO uses. Transitioning from nighttime (with even a little of ambient light) into a dark room is like turning the NV off. That's where COTI's come in; they allow identifying targets in no ambient light conditions (and also why most thermals have a "outline" mode, since the human brain triggers on shapes faster than colors) and are invaluable in dynamic lighting conditions or ones where photonic barriers may exist. You can't see past a a puddle of light from a street light, and someone can literally be standing on the other side of that puddle, and not be seen by standard NV. Hence why there are demands for high intensity NV illuminators that are eye safe, but can still burn through those photonic barriers. Conversely, thermals (LWIR) can't see through thermal barriers like glass windows and such (and why you can't drive in a vehicle with thermals on, unless the windshield can be dropped like on the MZRs and such). That's why all the SOCOM vehicles typically don't have windshields, or they can be folded down. A fused solution will allow true "night vision" in any conditions by leveraging the strengths of each wave length band. MWIR shows huge potential but is astronomically priced ($60k for single low end unit), since it is the most nascent of technologies at the moment.

But as you stated, the average hunter wouldn't NEED that sort of capability, though they may appreciate some of the increased IR bandwidth that is used.

Fused solutions are coming, and sooner than most think. But I think (and perhaps that is what you meant?) they will largely remain expensive and cost prohibitive to most hunters.

This assumes of course that once the stuff gets out to civilians, it'll eventually leak, and manufacturers outside the US will begin to offer it as well. After all, just proving it can be made and sold at a profit is often the biggest hurdle.

JMTCW...and a bit of rambling.

The Trijicon was Pulsars first step into the Fusion market, although they only released it into the U.S market, there will without any doubt be more to come in these sort of consumer grade product lines in the future... alignment at near/far distance being a stumbling block with some of these designs..

 

[JTO]

Opinions please I really can’t decide between getting a thermal or nv scope.buying a thermal spotter but am I a few months down the line going to want to upgrade to a thermal scope as well ? What do others use ? Got my eye on a wraith scope

With NV, if you are shooting with a lot of nearby obstructions like vegetation, fences, buildings.... you will find the glare from these, when using IR illumination is a PITA.