Night Vision Iray Rico 1280

[Conqueror]

It’s both the “chip” and the lens. Smaller “chips” need smaller lenses with less glass to accomplish the same FOV as a larger chip with larger glass. This is why compact cameras can have bonkers zoom ranges with tiny lenses, because the sensor is so small. You trade-off a myriad of other benefits, but gain convenience and significant cost reductions. This is why a 600/f4 lens is $12,000 and looks like a Javelin missle where a subcompact camera with a tiny sensor can have a 600/f4 lense that fits in your hand. It only needs to project an image circle the size of a pea.

So, a 12um sensor with 1280x1024 pixels is quadruple the size/area of a 12um sensor with 640x512 pixels. To have the same FOV while maintaining the same aperture requires a MUCH larger lens.

This is a very non-technical, but generally accurate description of how sensor size and pixel pitch interact with optics.

The deeper dive includes Circle of Confusion, DoF, MTF, etc.

That makes sense to me. I guess the lens size requirement will improve as we get 10um or even 8um sensors, as they work out the technical difficulties with those that have been documented before. Also, as sensors with better NETD come along, I wonder if we will still need these super fast F/1.0 apertures. Maybe a more sensitive microbolometer can deliver equivalent performance at F/2.0 or something.

 

[wigwamitus]

I see I should've added more detail yesterday - apologies !

If we hope to see a "C75" as a Long Distance Thermal Clipon (LDTC) ... which gets us into the 16x or even 24x world for max day scope magnification (the 2k display and 1280 sensor can get us there) ... then we need lots of focal length - on the front and the rear. To achieve "unity" we need the focal lengths front and rear to match. Another view of that, is to be able to use our day scope reticles at "normal" value, we need the clipon to be 1x net ... from its front to its rear.

To get more magnification capability from the day scope, we need more demagnification on the back end. The 2k display in a 1" format is phenomenal ! But to preserve as much resolution as possible, we want at least 1/4x demag on the back and hopefully even 1/6x demag on the back. The 1/4x would get us to 16x with about 320H pixels in view. Compared to UTC 640s which starting with 640 going to 16x leaves them with 180H pixels in view. The "C75" with 1/6x would leave us with 213H-ish pixels in view. The 1/4 demag means we need 4x optical on the front, the 1/6 means we need 6x on the front. That could mean 6-24x supported magnification range for the day scope behind such a "C75" while still preserving a level of resolution advantage over the UTC.

BUTT ... that means more focal length front and rear ... and that means longer and heavier and more costly.

Now, most LDTC use a "folded" design. If the "C75" did also, that could result in "saving" the extra length ... the longer focal lengths would still be there, but the folded design would "absorb" them from an overall length perspective. But the weight and cost would still be there. And obviously, from a lens (front and rear) and housing perspective, this is a complete redo from the RH75. It could be done. It might cost $25k (total WAG). But it would be a 1280 LDTC.

The 30Hz isn't an issue for me, but it seems like many consider it to be a show stopper. I imagine that's just the designers intent to keep the weight down and/or the battery requirements down. Adding 2 banks of 3xc123 each or even 2 banks of 2x16650s and making these banks individually hot swappable (as per the INOD) would be cool - but more weight - more cost. But that could support 60hz with similar battery life for the unit.

And of course to reengineer the RH75 into this new hypothetical "C75" would take considerable engineering time. Its truly a new product, not just a "lens swap" on the front.
But it could be done.
Will they do it ?
I suppose in part it depends on how the RH75s do. If they "fly off the shelves - I would think "yes". If not, they might "wait and see". But we have definitely seen a pattern of the chinese thermal scopes appearing first and then later their clipon syblings appearing, so I suspect the RH75 designers have some preliminary drawings ready, just in case.

And yes, smaller chips would help, but might drive up the cost further.

Life is full of tradeoffs !!

 

[W54/XM-388]

Not expensive for china to develop, expensive for the companies that actually developed it before china stole it.
From a Foreign Policy 2019 article, "Chinese IP theft has cost the United States $225 billion to $600 billion a year. "

I'm sure the Chinese see it as getting their just reparations from the evil pale face savages

 

[stefan73]

Will it be a challenge? I'm not an optical engineer but I would've thought FOV depends more on your lens/es than it does on your chip. Kinda like how the sensor on a dSLR can see wide, narrow, short, far, etc depending on what lens you put in front of it. If that's true you could make a super telephoto germanium lens and have a 2 deg FOV 1280 clip-on and see through the hogs.

And people are buying up the Theons so clearly the high-end civilian market is OK with "high performance but at the cost of weight" units like this.

The Theons have a military contract, passed testing and are still not as expensive as the Iray is purported to be and that is for the XELR, the LR is even cheaper. The Theon is .50 caliber rated and I think it comes with a pretty substantial warranty. Plus the 30hz thing bothers me a bit. I would rather spend the money once on something that I think will last me a long time and be effective.

 

[Ksracer]

The Theons have a military contract, passed testing and are still not as expensive as the Iray is purported to be and that is for the XELR, the LR is even cheaper. The Theon is .50 caliber rated and I think it comes with a pretty substantial warranty. Plus the 30hz thing bothers me a bit. I would rather spend the money once on something that I think will last me a long time and be effective.

So you're saying my new clip-on won't be obsolete before it even arrives??

 

[cantankerous]

Would the 25 mk sensitivity help produce a more useable image in bad thermal conditions?

Or am I misunderstanding what the sensitivity does?

 

[TheHorta]

Would the 25 mk sensitivity help produce a more useable image in bad thermal conditions?

Or am I misunderstanding what the sensitivity does?

I’d like a real explanation on that too.

 

[wigwamitus]

Well - none of us (except may IR-V who hasn't posted here in years - and @Max_R ) are thermal engineers, but what do we "know" from our experience ??


1 - lower Net-D definitely seems to convert the 2D images I saw in the old FLIR tau2 apollos into 3D images. The contrast in those olde FLIR cores was "stupendous" ... I would let neighbors (inexperienced thermal users) look thru my Armasights and Pulsars side by side ... inevitably they would say that they could detect smaller critters faster with the Armasights, but could see the terrain better with the Pulsars.
How much of that is lower mK ... IDK.
The problem is there are a lot of "layers" in the electro-optical stack from front to rear of a thermal.
The front lens - which has its own "quality" variable and this includes focusing where it is present
The sensor - technically where the net-d lives - more variables here
The core/image processing - where a lot of variables live !
The display - more variables here
The rear len(s) - more variables here

So with all those variables - if one thermal "looks better" for a single given scene, why is that ?? Not super easy to tell. I've heard from former FLIR employee that FLIR purposely optimized "hot spot pop" - with high contrast.
Also, back when we were comparing Armasights to early pulsars, the pulsars were auto nucing and the armasights weren't.
So just turning them on and holding them up, the nucing and the contrast by themselves are going to show a significant difference. By adjusting both thermals and working to make them "look the same" for a given scene - it was possible to get them much closer.
But the 'texturing" we see in thermals like the BAE/OASYS cores or higher end chinese thermals is not present in most of the older armasights, pure FLIR units, and lower end chinese units. So, I do attribute the bulk of that "texturing" to lower mK, but probably some of it is "image processing" also.

2. Bad thermal conditions
Well, these include
Rain, Snow, Ice, wind, mist, frozen mist, fog, etc. Most of these boil down to various flavors of "water in the air". And "water in the air" can be a show stopper.
I've been out in "Noah's Rains" a number of times with a number of thermals. These are heavy heavy rain. And while I can see hot things, like critters or my 4-wheeler which I had just be riding ... out to distances of like 100yds plus or minus - even in Noah's rains ... the only terrain I can see is the "tops of the treelines" ... just barely ... against the sky. And with NV, not much different, the tops of the tree lines only, though with more magnification, I can see the 4-wheeler or buggy farther away.
Same in "mist" or "fog" ... apparently "fog" officially is "heavy mist". In "heavy mist" the critters are "floating in a sea of grey" .. because while we can detect the critters out for some distance (100-ish yards - like for a field full of turkiyes) but can't see the terrain ... even cranking up the UTC gain 3 clicks ... couldn't see fence posts at 100yds).

So, "bad thermal conditions" can be bad enough to effectively shut down all the electronic night viewers. We can actually see about the same with our mk1eb, or maybe even better. And conditions can be bad enough that ALL electronic night viewers get shut down, whether they are UTCs or TPL peep sights.

There must be a "curve" charting thermal usability - say detection distance for a primate - as conditions deteriorate - but measuring "deterioration of conditions" might be tough. X amount of water in the air per cubic meter ? Maybe somebody can measure that - but I can't.
But in theory there is such a curve. And at some point all the thermals are converging to "zero". But it definitely could be that some converge to zero faster than others. And it could be that lower mK in general approach zero more slowly than higher mK units. But can we usually tell the difference ? And how wide is this window where they are different ?
My gut is the window isn't very wide and we can't usually tell much difference. That's based on 8 years of going out avg 10 hours per week, with dozens of different thermals in wide range of conditions - at least wide for my terrain - in "East/Central" KS. Though I've now moved to SW MO.
Summary, I think all thermals "suck" in bad thermal conditions all the ones I've had for sure. TPL peep sights up to UTC or Mk3 60mm.

If I ever get my hands on a 25 mK unit - I'll have to think about taking it out in the rain. If the chinese say it is Noah's rain proof (IP67 ish) then I'd try it. And I'll post about it. In the mean time, maybe @Max_R can summarize what he knows about this !!??

 

[tangloppen]

My logic tells me that a lower value would mean a smaller temperature difference is “observable”, which should equal a better functionality. Hence lower is better.

Buuut, the TigIR is 40mk standard. The data sheet states that a 60mk unit is available for special order, which doesn’t make any sense, unless if it means that you can order a special inferior version of their product.
Logic should be that they offer a specialty product for people with deep pockets. One where the price would scare normal turds like me away.

So yeah, I’m on the “gief answers someone clever, please” team.

 

[Conqueror]

Andres also allows you to special order a Tig with a plastic housing so I think they do indeed let you buy a worse version lol.

 

[Max_R]

In the mean time, maybe @Max_R can summarize what he knows about this !!??

It's hard to comment without seeing the actual unit and how it performs under various conditions. In any case, a 1280 scope with a 75mm objective at an $18k retail price is a very significant achievement that I believe will have long-lasting consequences on the industry. Re: NETD < 25 mK. In general, the lower NETD is a good thing, but, as always, particular implementation details are just as important. There are many ways not to take the full benefit of the lower NETD or completely screw things up. Many Pulsar scopes have a claimed NETD under 25 mK. With those, I did not see much difference in performance under low contrast thermal conditions.

 

[Snapper314]

I'd rather NOT buy Chineism. But unless someone can tell me which AMERICAN Company sells a 1280 resolution Thermal...

 

[shoots100]

I watched a video of a hunter using it for coyote + pig hunting and even with the 30Hz rate it didn't look like there was any lag, but the shooter that is usually dopping hogs reliably on the move wasn't doing so in the video with the 1280.
Was he overwhelmed with the awesomeness of the scope or was it lagging and we can't see it because of it's awesomeness ?
He had no issues with killing static targets though and if you can afford it, it looks like the perfect thermal scope for longer range coyote hunters with deep pockets, although I would like it to have a 3.5 or 4x base mag for that purpose.
I'm happy with my Halo X50, but if the 1280 comes down in price considerably I'd consider looking into buying one.

 

[apcwalinski]

I'm really considering this scope but some of the RS75 specs seem like overkill. For example, range detect is 3,600 yards. Is that even necessary? As far as resolution, the 16x digital zoom seems reasonable with the high resolution to match, which could give it a clearer view at that range.
With $18k to spare are there better thermal scopes out there at this price range? Should I wait for the price to drop or go for an alternative?

 

[rlsmith1]

I'm really considering this scope but some of the RS75 specs seem like overkill. For example, range detect is 3,600 yards. Is that even necessary? As far as resolution, the 16x digital zoom seems reasonable with the high resolution to match, which could give it a clearer view at that range.
With $18k to spare are there better thermal scopes out there at this price range? Should I wait for the price to drop or go for an alternative?

Not sure I've ever heard of someone complaining about too much resolution. Maybe it's overkill, but it is all that's available with the 1280 core at the moment. There is a difference between detection, recognition and identification with thermals as well. I don't know how much experience you have with thermals, but think of it this way. It has twice the FOV of a similar 640 unit. Since this unit has an FOV of 11.7 deg, it should perform very similarly to a 640 unit with ~5.75 deg of FOV. However, the 1280 sensor has twice the FOV so it is much more versatile. Said another way, it should have twice the resolution of a similar 640 unit with a 12 deg FOV.

Just for comparison, everyone seems super pleased with their ~6 deg FOV clip ons with 640 cores in them. The UTC Xii, Eotech Xelr, and POT Voodoo M come to mind here.

Better thermal scopes out there in the price range? Depends what better means. Higher resolution? Nope. More durable? Yes.

At this price point, anyone making a decision should consider the current crop of 640 clip ons too. If you're set on a dedicated thermal scope, there really isn't anything that compares (for now at least). I have zero idea what the future of thermals is except exciting. It's only a matter of time before we have a comparable US based unit (who knows where pricing will land)

 

[Hootiewho]

I'd rather NOT buy Chineism. But unless someone can tell me which AMERICAN Company sells a 1280 resolution Thermal...

 

[W54/XM-388]

I'd rather NOT buy Chineism. But unless someone can tell me which AMERICAN Company sells a 1280 resolution Thermal...

I'm assuming some American company will take that iRay core and put their own housing around it and sell it for 50% more.

 

[Conqueror]

*cough AGM cough*