Blr243 wrote:Snakes are another problem walking in the dark. Die to the lack of colour in my thermal scope a fox at a distance is close to the same shape as a kelpie I deal with that by ensuring working dogs are kept strictly close to home base and I only shoot a hell of a long way from home base
xDom wrote:My clip on is a digital. I’d be surprised if any of the NV’s under $2k weren’t digital.
Digital Night Vision
These units do not use an intensifier tube, so it won’t be damaged when used during the day. These devices us a charge-coupled device (CCD) or complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) and a micro display. Light that is projected onto the CCD or CMOS array from the objective lens is converted to an electronic signal. This signal is then processed and sent to the micro display to be viewed by the user. Digital night vision devices can be compared to Gen 2 traditional night vision in quality, but are much more effective, due to an infrared illuminator. Some digital night vision devices are also able to record, zoom, and change reticles. This versatility, plus the affordability, makes digital a popular choice for hunters.
wanneroo wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFDNEjJ0cME
Good video about digital vs. analog night vision.
ramshackle wrote:Actually the evolution of night vision is much more complex than I'd think
on_one_wheel wrote:ramshackle wrote:Actually the evolution of night vision is much more complex than I'd think
They're definitely over thinking it.
I'm in the late R&D stages of developing my own night vision goggles, scope attachments, binoculars and monocular.
In layman's terms, they simply block out all light bouncing off objects that you aren't looking at, effectively intensifying light from objects you are looking. That also adjust your pupils maximising the light / Image area projected onto the back of your eyeballs.
At this stage they can be mass produced far cheaper than all current NV on the market.
ramshackle wrote:wanneroo wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFDNEjJ0cME
Good video about digital vs. analog night vision.
Makes Gen 3 seem superior to the best digital, but I was thinking that even a little IR source would have put them on a par, plus the digital is much cheaper and more durable.
ramshackle wrote:Sightmark Wraith HD 50mm, another digital contender: https://youtu.be/0SQEf3MlYWU
wanneroo wrote:It's like with cars, speed costs money how fast do you want to go. I think a lot of this stuff will work for folks at that lower price point, it just comes down to the extra weight, size and battery life you've got to deal with.
Stix wrote:Lol...
Ive tried that model before...on_one_wheel wrote:ramshackle wrote:Actually the evolution of night vision is much more complex than I'd think
They're definitely over thinking it.
I'm in the late R&D stages of developing my own night vision goggles, scope attachments, binoculars and monocular.
In layman's terms, they simply block out all light bouncing off objects that you aren't looking at, effectively intensifying light from objects you are looking. That also adjust your pupils maximising the light / Image area projected onto the back of your eyeballs.
At this stage they can be mass produced far cheaper than all current NV on the market.
they're on the money for having the most versatile exit pupil... ... but i found a completely non-reflective matt black inner tube along with using them under an umbrella in the rain a better alternative...
BTW...i expect some royalty payments for improving your prototype...!!
ramshackle wrote:My impression is that the cheapest way of getting into thermal is to combine a thermal monocular (such as the $1000 Flir or $1200 Leupold below), which is much cheaper than a thermal rifle scope, and a Gen 2 or Gen 3 IR scope. Correct me if I am wrong.
Note: bear in mind I am a max. 150 metres rimfire shooter.
Also, is there such a thing as an entry level thermal scope? I'm seeing a lot of scopes that do everything for you except pull the trigger. I don't want to take pictures or movies, have a GPS reading, a wifi, a rangefinder, a picture-in-picture, etc.
marksman wrote:it may be worth your time to read this post ramshackle and when you get to the end research the pard nv007 that Pete and xdom have bought viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11976
xDom wrote:I looked into the 008, ended up going for the 007 to allow me to swap between rifles.
xDom wrote:the ATN is heavy and has that many bells and whistles on it that it’s too complicated. It’s also said that it freezes up and needs to be rebooted on occasion. The Pard is simple and light.
ramshackle wrote:From Pulsar video on Gen 1 Gen2 etcxDom wrote:the ATN is heavy and has that many bells and whistles on it that it’s too complicated. It’s also said that it freezes up and needs to be rebooted on occasion. The Pard is simple and light.
marksman wrote:I cant talk about the new ATN x-sight 4k pro but I did but one of there older x-sight 2's after reading all the hype about there cheaper digital night vision. I fried mine before being able to get it on a rifle and had a fair bit of trouble getting a refund, had to go to the maker to get an exchange
I had it sold before I received it, I would not buy another, the product was full of false promises