Infra Red beam a deterrant ?

[Die Judicii]

Whilst not looking directly into the beam,, I have noticed it is visible for quite some distance out from where I leave the empty rifle after shooting a fox.

I've got quite a few redcoats, and a couple feral cats, and they dont seem to notice it.
Whereas I have noticed the bunnies seem to avoid the areas I scan.

Any thoughts or known facts on whether or not the beam upsets certain game ????

[<<Genesis93>>]

yes, different species are more or less sensitive / blind to different wavelengths in the visible (and non-visible) spectrum... eg deer are less sensitive / blind to blaze orange hence its more effective use in the field...

You may have scientifically proven the higher sensitivity of the Oryctolagus cuniculus to the infra red spectrum!!

[Oldbloke]

You got me. Infrared is invisible to the human eye. Are you talking about a red spot light?

[Die Judicii]

You got me. Infrared is invisible to the human eye. Are you talking about a red spot light?

No Mate,, It is the beam emitted from my NiteSite 200 that I'm yakkin about.
Definately can see it,,,, its like a very dull red torch with almost completely flat batteries,,, if you get my drift.

Check out my response for you in the other thread regarding the Savage Mod 24 U/O combo.

[brett1868]

The NightSite uses an IR illuminator in the 850nm spectrum which is classed as visible so it may spook certain species. If you want true invisibility then the 915nm / 940nm illuminators should be used but the camera must be capable of "seeing" them. The joy of thermal scopes is that they emit nothing but you're paying a lot more for them.

[Title_II]

The NightSite uses an IR illuminator in the 850nm spectrum which is classed as visible so it may spook certain species. If you want true invisibility then the 915nm / 940nm illuminators should be used but the camera must be capable of "seeing" them. The joy of thermal scopes is that they emit nothing but you're paying a lot more for them.

I'm guessing it's not the 850 (that would be invisible), it's simply not monochromatic. This things are pretty cheap and may peak around 850 but are emitting light over a wide wavelength, including a little visible. This is one of the reasons not to use Gen I or CCD digital "NV." Gen II or higher is preferred, or thermal. But some people get by paying less for an active illumination system and I understand that. Just don't try to pull that s**t on people

BTW, it is commercially called IR, it is not. 850, even 940, are termed "Near IR." It's simple light, not radiant heat transfer, such as detectable only with a thermal camera.

Speaking of which, Brett, where is your thermal site hunting vid?

[brett1868]

Here's 12 seconds of a mob of roo's out past 500m on the neighbors wheat paddock. Didn't bother trying to get a shot in as I didn't have tags for his place and hadn't told him I'd be shooting up there. He's more then happy to let me shoot on his place but I always ask permission before hand. I scanned my block a few times whilst out walking of a night but saw nothing. Heading up north again between Christmas & New Years so hopefully some better footage to share.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yul1S03Q11U

[sandgroperbill]

I'm the same. I don't go shooting on a property without letting the farmer know and getting permission first, even though they don't mind, it's just common courtesy (which doesn't seem very common these days)

[becks]

The NightSite uses an IR illuminator in the 850nm spectrum which is classed as visible so it may spook certain species. If you want true invisibility then the 915nm / 940nm illuminators should be used but the camera must be capable of "seeing" them. The joy of thermal scopes is that they emit nothing but you're paying a lot more for them.

Would it be right to say then that once you're into the invisible range that IR gives better visibility?

I mean if thermal emits nothing, and can only see what is already there, but IR emits an invisible (to us) light to reflect and amplify what it's seeing does that mean it can do it better?

[Gwion]

It's just common courtesy to let people know you are on their land shooting; even if you have written consent and they have said, 'come anytime, just leave the gates as you find them'.

[Title_II]

The NightSite uses an IR illuminator in the 850nm spectrum which is classed as visible so it may spook certain species. If you want true invisibility then the 915nm / 940nm illuminators should be used but the camera must be capable of "seeing" them. The joy of thermal scopes is that they emit nothing but you're paying a lot more for them.

Would it be right to say then that once you're into the invisible range that IR gives better visibility?

I mean if thermal emits nothing, and can only see what is already there, but IR emits an invisible (to us) light to reflect and amplify what it's seeing does that mean it can do it better?

His unit uses a near-IR spotlight because it doesn;t do a great job of seeing in the dark. It doesn't suck for the technology, I'm sure it is nice. It is just based on technology that is inferior to Image Intensification ("Tube" Night Vision) and Thermal. Broadly speaking. It does have some major advantages under certain circumstances, which I will get to later.

Tube night vision (Gen II or above) and Thermal do not usually need a spotlight under most conditions. They are passive, as in they can see what is there without sending out a light source. Single stage Gen I night Vision and CCD (digital) simply don't have the photoresponse and signal to noise ratio to see very much in the dark. So they usually add a Near IR light source. It's basically the same thing as hunting with a flashlight, but you can't see MOST of the wavelength of the flashlight, so you have a device added to your scope to convert the light and amplify a little visible light as well.

There are downsides to this. First, the light source is usually visible to some limited extent. It's a mixed bag with animals, it's dangerous with humans, and it's a downright death sentence to humans with night vision. You're the biggest target on the field. Range is limited to what you can illuminate with the "flashlight." With tube night vision and thermal range is unlimited. You can see things dozens of miles, or even lightyears away, I use them for stargazing.

There are great advantages to the spotlight approach. It is cheaper. You can usually also get VERY high resolution and signal to noise ratio at close ranges under dark conditions. It will also work when there is no light at all. This is the reason even military (real) night vision usually has a little lamp as well, to see in complete darkness when necessary. The military diode lamps emit NO visible light, have a narrow wavelength band, and only work at very short range. Like for reading a map or walking through a cave.

I think you sort of stumbled upon something with regard to Near IR light. Only the US produces Gen III night vision. Europe produces a "Supergen" Gen II that meets or exceeds US night vision under 90% of circumstances. But there is that 10%. The main distinction between Gen II and Gen III is that Gen III uses a gallium arsendide photocathode that has its highest sensitivity in the Near IR range. Hmm... Is that so it can be used with a near IR spotlight? No. It's for two other reasons. As you sort of suggested, Near IR light produces higher contrast than visible light. If there's only the tiniest bit of light, and you have to amplify it thousands of times to see anything at all, you are going to want something that is sensitive to the Near IR because it is the best light you are going to get. Second, if there is ZERO visible ambient light from the earth, no skyglow, and complete cloud cover on a moonless night, all night vision (except thermal) will basically fail. Except for Gen III. The Earth is constantly bombarded with Near IR from space and it penetrates cloud cover. This is the condition under which Gen III excels beyond modern Gen II. It actually also applies to jungle warfare.

If this all didn't actually bore you to death and you made it this far, there is an interesting conclusion. Night Vision (tube, not thermal) is generally described as "gathering" and amplifying visible light to see in the dark. American Gen III does not attempt to do this. Recent American Gen III FILTERS OUT VISIBLE LIGHT before it gets to the photocathode (the sensor at the front). Not all of it, mind you, but most of it. Now Gen III is good enough that even filtering out 90% of visible light it could use the last 10% under nearly the darkest conditions. But why filter it out? It filters out visible light so it can crank up the gain and get more of that yummy Near IR. If you crank the gain when the signal is too high, you get too much noise. So we throw out most of the visible light signal so we can crank it up 10x more and get more yummy Near IR.

[Title_II]

Here's 12 seconds of a mob of roo's out past 500m on the neighbors wheat paddock. Didn't bother trying to get a shot in as I didn't have tags for his place and hadn't told him I'd be shooting up there. He's more then happy to let me shoot on his place but I always ask permission before hand. I scanned my block a few times whilst out walking of a night but saw nothing. Heading up north again between Christmas & New Years so hopefully some better footage to share.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yul1S03Q11U

That is amazing uncooled thermal for 500 meters. You really scored a nice piece of kit there. I have thermal but it is nowhere near that good. Not even the same class. I know that stuff has been on the market for a while but the price was $25K at first, and still several K.

[brett1868]

@ Title_II Good info, much appreciated

Here's a pic of my footprints 30 seconds after stepping back...It's surprising how much residual heat tiles trap just by walking on them. Thermal is awesome in pitch black, I can hunt the sons cat just by following her footprints even in the darkest room. This pic is from a FLIR One attached to my iPhone, the thermal Weapon sight I have is B&W and can pick up the Roo's way out past 750m without too much trouble. Cost is currently the biggest drawback with this technology though now that the sensors are being produced in Belarus I expect the prices to fall in coming years where this technology should be affordable for the average hunter.

FLIR One - Different colors show that my left foot as on the tile longer then the right...Pic taken in pitch black room with no outside light.
http://www.flir.com.hk/flirone/content/?id=69369

IMG_2011.JPG (196.6 KiB) Viewed 3988 times

[Title_II]

Yeah, I do the same thing with my thermal. I can also see inside my exterior walls when it is cold or hot outside. Anything in my walls either speeds or slows the rate at which heat either comes into my house or leaves my house, resulting in a localized temperature difference on the surface of my interior drywall. I can see the studs, all kinds of stuff. There is actually something in my ceiling that looks like somebody hid a box there. There is no reason for it, it is in nearly the far corner of my crawl attic, under the insulation. I tried to get to it one day but it is so tight to get to I was afraid and need friends here to help me get it, and in case there is a problem.

The FLIR One is cool but it is a toy compared to your weapon sight. That thing is awesome.

[Rocker]

Expensive way to take photos of your feet Brett

[Title_II]

Expensive way to take photos of your feet Brett

Those aren't his feet. They are his footprints

[Joom]

Nah Brett is a really weird looking guy.

Those actually are his feed