Night Vision It's here...VooDoo-M

Capt_Right

Capt_Right

Private
Supporter
Minuteman
May 28, 2010
99
167
USA
#1
Ever since the PoT VooDoo line was announced I have been interested in the M. From the recent reviews it sounds like the VooDoo-S does a good job at balancing hand held and clip on functionality if you are looking for a dual role device. However the downside it is you are compromising both in order to achieve both. I figured there are a lot of helmet mounted solutions which are becoming reasonably priced, so instead of getting a jack of all, but master of none, I would look into a dedicated clip on.

I have been wanting to pick up a UTC-Xii for a while now, but they have been hard to come by. Enter the VooDoo-M which on paper seems to rival the UTC-Xii specs in a smaller form factor, newer technology, and maintains TracIR compatibility. The TracIR is also interesting because PoT claims it can maintain zero through digital magnification. We will see how much of that is true. It may also have a leg up over the TigIR due to its focus adjustment.

Here are some of the specs:

Sensor: 640x480 BAE core
Spectral Range: 7.5-13.5um
Pixel Pitch: 12um
Sensitivity: <50mK
Digital Zoom: 0.5x/1x/2x/4x
FOV: 6.4deg x 4.8deg
Scope compatibility: 15x

It literally showed up today, so my time with it is limited. Initial impressions are that it is super solid and damn its got a lot of rear end de-mag. I can barely make out the text in the menu with my naked eye! Over the next few weeks I'll work to get some more photos through it at various ranges and magnifications. Unfortunately I don't have a SkeetIRX, UTC, etc. to compare it with. However I do have a buddy with a 320 FLIR HISS, so we will get to see that. In the meantime here are some pictures of the device with a few friends for size comparison. The image I took was using a mirrorless camera at 105mm and significantly cropped! The house is about 130 yards away.
 

Attachments

  • VooDoo M.jpg
    VooDoo M.jpg
    327.6 KB · Views: 970
  • VooDoo Compare.jpg
    VooDoo Compare.jpg
    702.5 KB · Views: 1,281
  • VooDoo 130y.jpg
    VooDoo 130y.jpg
    416.6 KB · Views: 995
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Snapper314, camocorvette, J1A and 9 others
#3
I took some videos and images this afternoon of my kids at 100y. I am pretty impressed, but have little to compare it to. I attached one image at 1x so you can get an idea of the amount of de-mag. Just before 3x is when the image fills up the entire scope, 10x is also no issue.

Note: VooDoo and Razor are mounted on a stand alone rail, not a firearm...

 

Attachments

  • VooDoo 100y 1x.jpg
    VooDoo 100y 1x.jpg
    223.7 KB · Views: 517
  • VooDoo 100y 3x.jpg
    VooDoo 100y 3x.jpg
    280.7 KB · Views: 505
  • VooDoo 100y 10x.jpg
    VooDoo 100y 10x.jpg
    340.7 KB · Views: 754
  • Like
Reactions: Stugots, LSUbeatUby40, Rusted Nut and 12 others
#12
EWS6 said:
There is a sharpness setting in the menu which controls pixelation. The gain controls contrast.

It seems that to have a like image to the oasys units the sharpness should be turned all the way down
Click to expand...
Here is a video going through the sharpness settings. I accidentally over exposed the first part of the video, but I think it still gives you a good idea.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Snapper314, Rusted Nut, TheHorta and 6 others
#13
Finally got a chance to stretch out the VooDoo-M and so far I am really impressed. My buddy has a 320 SkeetIR and it is really no comparison, but no surprise there. I didn't get videos of the FLIR 320 HISS, essentially detection was similar, but the VooDoo-M won on resolution (again no surprise). I put together a video showing cows from 350y to 700y and I ran through the various settings. On my spotting scope with 15x min, it can easily handle that power and even more, just depends on what you are doing.

Later that day when we put it on my rifle we noticed that we can detect cows at 1,482y! Pixels on Target claims you can identify up to 840y away and recognize up to 1,530y and seems pretty realistic to me. Images were taken by my buddy Nick.

 

Attachments

  • SkeetIR compare to VooDoo-M.jpeg
    SkeetIR compare to VooDoo-M.jpeg
    729.1 KB · Views: 930
  • Cows at 1482y 15x.jpeg
    Cows at 1482y 15x.jpeg
    311.6 KB · Views: 558
  • Raptar 1482y.jpeg
    Raptar 1482y.jpeg
    277.9 KB · Views: 481
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Love
Reactions: Snapper314, LSUbeatUby40, deersniper and 6 others
#15
I talked to the guys at POT.... and apparently when I asked about 1280 HD display thermals, they said they are working on it and look towards the end of the year... so that's promising. And that being said, I might actually be patient and wait for a newer, high display res thermal from them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Snapper314, jwramp and rlsmith1
#16
It is funny how they basically copied the Oasys/BAE stuff down to the buttons and battery cover. It’s not surprising, since the PoT engineers are former Oasys peeps, but they really didn’t even try to redesign the package at all.

I guess it’s a testament to how advanced the Oasys stuff really was nearly a decade ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHebrewHammer, Capt_Right and jstokes1
#17
jstokes1 said:
I talked to the guys at POT.... and apparently when I asked about 1280 HD display thermals, they said they are working on it and look towards the end of the year... so that's promising. And that being said, I might actually be patient and wait for a newer, high display res thermal from them.
Click to expand...
That is interesting and good news. As it is now the M isn’t really that useful as a stand alone weapon sight or handheld as it has so much de-mag. If they doubled the display size that would make it so much more useful in those situations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHorta
#18
Capt_Right said:
That is interesting and good news. As it is now the M isn’t really that useful as a stand alone weapon sight or handheld as it has so much de-mag. If they doubled the display size that would make it so much more useful in those situations.
Click to expand...
Would be ideal if their next “M” iteration has an HD screen at 1.0x mag and reduces for clipon, like others do. Would be much more effective as a standalone and monocular then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBDR
#19
I feel like anyone who has the coin to drop on an M, probably can afford a thermal monocular and bought the M because they didn't want a dedicated scope. The only dedicated thermal scope I have is an S35 on my loaner hog gun.
 
#26
Capt_Right said:
Actually this weekend we are going to put it up against 2x UTC Xii. Apparently there are two different versions of the Xii, does anyone know the history behind this? They are both definitely the Xii, one BAE and one Trijicon branded.
Click to expand...

BAE Oasys licensed their product line to Trijicon to fulfill awarded contracts and the commercial market received the leftovers. They are the same but manufactured 3-4 years apart by two different entities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhereNow&How and TheHorta
#28
SkyScrapin said:
BAE Oasys licensed their product line to Trijicon to fulfill awarded contracts and the commercial market received the leftovers. They are the same but manufactured 3-4 years apart by two different entities.
Click to expand...
Sorry I should have been more specific. I am aware of the licensing deal, I was asking about the functional difference between the two. I was told they are functionally slightly different, it might have to do with the pixel size of the internal screen, but I didn’t get the whole story and wondered if anyone knew the details. I mentioned the labeling difference to give some context of vintage, but to be more specific one was made in 2017 while the other was 2019.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHorta
#29
I’ve had both, closely side-by-side using two of the same SB 3-27x scopes, and we could not discern any practical visual difference that we couldn’t chalk-up to our eyes playing tricks on us. We also had a non-“ii” X as well and even that was virtually impossible to see any difference.

The only difference we could see was in the firmware revision number.

ETA: I’d be interested in knowing the FW revision number in both of your Xii’s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rlsmith1
#31
Yes, we were able to compare the VooDoo-M to two different UTC Xii as well as a Super Yoter C and 320 FLIR HISS. I took a ton of compassion videos at ranges from 100y to 2,200y and I hope to have the videos put together later this week. The short version of the take away was that both units had very similar detection capability, but the VooDoo had much better contrast. We went through the gain settings on both and there was a lot more detail on the VooDoo, at least at those distances.

Size wise, I couldn't believe how small the UTC Xii was in person. Besides being shorter, the focus ring is closer to the rear so from an ergonomic sense, it definitely wins. The throw lever on the UTC Xii is more convenient for swapping it around, but the Wilcox dovetail with flit-to-side mount definitely has its advantages. However the Wilcox isn't as rigid, so if I turn the reticle on I can get it to move a little in relation to my day optic. For a clip-on this doesn't matter unless I want to use the distributed reticle. I still need to do some more testing as most of it could have been rail flex on my spotting scope mount.

Lastly, the hardware differences between the BAE and Trijicon units was a defect in the LCD screen on the Trijicon. They both performed similar, but I found the Trijicon one had a little more detail. You can make your own conclusions when I get the video out as it is slight. Their firmware versions were:

BAE: 5.3.1
Trijicon: 5.6C
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9628.jpg
    IMG_9628.jpg
    327.3 KB · Views: 393
  • IMG_9621.jpg
    IMG_9621.jpg
    298.9 KB · Views: 438
  • tempImageI7jf71.png
    tempImageI7jf71.png
    3.4 MB · Views: 435
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: jwramp, rlsmith1, Ksracer and 4 others
#36
TheHebrewHammer said:
Yoter C takes it for the win.
Click to expand...
Well the Yoter C is a good unit, but I think it is outclassed in that roundup.

Yoter C is putting out 1 FPA Pixel per 0.795 Sq. Inch at 100 yards
Voodoo M is putting out 1 FPA Pixel per 0.396 Sq. Inch at 100 yards
Triji UTCX II is putting out 1 FPA Pixel per 0.376 Sq. Inch at 100 yards

So unless there is some super magic in the Yoter C algorithms and output display screen (1024 x 768), the Yoter C is significantly outgunned all things being considered equal due to FPA pixel density.

For additional consideration, a Flir Thermosight PTS 736 is putting out 1 FPA Pixel per 0.363 Sq. Inch at 100 yards with a 320 X 256 FPA on a 1280 x 960 FLCOS display screen, albeit with a narrower FOV. But it is an excellent long range thermal. Dollar for Dollar it is hard to beat for long range performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ksracer
#38
I also have
TheHebrewHammer said:
Still would like to see side by side.
Click to expand...
I also have the Flir PTS 536. It is putting out 1 FPA Pixel per 0.763 Sq. Inch at 100 yards. Which is very close to the Yoter C at 0.795.

I am able to set it beside my Flir PTS 736 for comparison. Everything is exactly the same on those units except the lens size. 50 mm vs 75 mm.

At longer ranges that 75 mm Germanium lens on the PTS 736 at 0.363 per Sq. Inch (at 100 yards) just provides more data to form a better image that the PTS 536. Up to a certain distance (say 300 yards) they are pretty much what for what, but at extended ranges is where the PTS 736 simply pulls ahead because of FPA pixel density per Sq. Inch.
 
#39
WhereNow&How said:
Yoter C is putting out 1 FPA Pixel per 0.795 Sq. Inch at 100 yards
Voodoo M is putting out 1 FPA Pixel per 0.396 Sq. Inch at 100 yards
Triji UTCX II is putting out 1 FPA Pixel per 0.376 Sq. Inch at 100 yards

So unless there is some super magic in the Yoter C algorithms and output display screen (1024 x 768), the Yoter C is significantly outgunned all things being considered equal due to FPA pixel density.
Click to expand...
Is the formula to figure that HFOV in feet@100yds x 12 divided by the horizontal pixel count? Just curious because I want to make some of my own comparisons.

Also, for what it's worth. The Yoter display is 1024 in only scan mode. I suspect it's 640 for a 1-1 ratio in clip-on, but I'm not sure of the exact count.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WhereNow&How
#40
Ksracer said:
Is the formula to figure that HFOV in feet@100yds x 12 divided by the horizontal pixel count? Just curious because I want to make some of my own comparisons.

Also, for what it's worth. The Yoter display is only 1024 in scan mode. I suspect it's 640 for a 1-1 ratio in clip-on, but I'm not sure of the exact count.
Click to expand...

The way I perform those calculations is as follows.

1. Take the Horizontal FOV in Degrees x 52.5 (52.5 feet is the width of 1 degree at 1,000 yards). So that calculation gives you the Horizontal Width in feet of the FOV at 1,000 yards. Then divide that number by 10 to get the width in feet at 100 yards. Then take that number and multiply times 12 to get the Horizontal FOV width in inches at 100 yards.

2. Do the same for the Vertical FOV to arrive at how many inches of Vertical FOV you have at 100 yards.

3. Take the Horizontal FOV Inches x Vertical FOV Inches and multiply them to come up with the total Sq. Inches FOV at 100 yards.

4. Then take the FPA size say (640 x 480) or whatever it is and multiply those with each other to come up with the total number of pixels in the FPA for that unit.

5. Final step now is to take the total Sq. Inch's at 100 yards per Step 3 and divide by the total FPA pixels calculated in Step 4.

You now have the calculation to present the output of a units FPA pixel density per Sq Inch using 100 yards as a baseline. You could use any distance as a baseline. Just adjust your calculations to suit the distance you want.

You can also do the same type calculation for FPA Pixel count to output screen pixel availability. Theoretically, more screen pixels available to form and image for each FPA pixel the better.

But algorithms and how processing power is assigned also play an important part in the forming of any image. In my mind it is very similar to what I call Cogo Geometry. But my mind can be a nutty thing sometimes. There are way more informed people right here than me that can teach us all a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ksracer
#41
WhereNow&How said:
The way I perform those calculations is as follows.

1. Take the Horizontal FOV in Degrees x 52.5 (52.5 feet is the width of 1 degree at 1,000 yards). So that calculation gives you the Horizontal Width in feet of the FOV at 1,000 yards. Then divide that number by 10 to get the width in feet at 100 yards. Then take that number and multiply times 12 to get the Horizontal FOV width in inches at 100 yards.

2. Do the same for the Vertical FOV to arrive at how many inches of Vertical FOV you have at 100 yards.

3. Take the Horizontal FOV Inches x Vertical FOV Inches and multiply them to come up with the total Sq. Inches FOV at 100 yards.

4. Then take the FPA size say (640 x 480) or whatever it is and multiply those with each other to come up with the total number of pixels in the FPA for that unit.

5. Final step now is to take the total Sq. Inch's at 100 yards per Step 3 and divide by the total FPA pixels calculated in Step 4.

You now have the calculation to present the output of a units FPA pixel density per Sq Inch using 100 yards as a baseline. You could use any distance as a baseline. Just adjust your calculations to suit the distance you want.

You can also do the same type calculation for FPA Pixel count to output screen pixel availability. Theoretically, more screen pixels available to form and image for each FPA pixel the better.

But algorithms and how processing power is assigned also play an important part in the forming of any image. In my mind it is very similar to what I call Cogo Geometry. But my mind can be a nutty thing sometimes. There are way more informed people right here than me that can teach us all a lot.
Click to expand...
Thankyou sir.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhereNow&How
#42
For the money, the Yoter C is an excellent value and great performer. It will exceed most people night time ability to shoot critters at distance.

And in all honesty, those super long shots are best saved for targets instead of critters. Simply because of loss of bullet killing energy and shot placement at longer distance on live critters.
 
#43
WhereNow&How said:
For the money, the Yoter C is an excellent value and great performer. It will exceed most people night time ability to shoot critters at distance.

And in all honesty, those super long shots are best saved for targets instead of critters. Simply because of loss of bullet killing energy and shot placement at longer distance on live critters.
Click to expand...

take your slow ass low energy cartridge elsewhere. ****laughs in 6x284****
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: Edgecrusher, Conqueror, Ksracer and 2 others
#44
Killswitch Engage said:
take your slow ass low energy cartridge elsewhere. ****laughs in 6x284****
Click to expand...
The reality is that most people do not possess the capability for consistent long range on live critters either in shooting skill or cartridge horsepower especially if the critter is moving which most live critters are. Especially after shot no 1.

There are a few select that can pull it off. You may be one of them.

The long range target shooters who shoot fixed non moving targets are typically not worth a shit at moving live critters. There is but one way to get good on live critters and that is to have shot many, thousands and thousands.

A person that has done extensive pest control with very high kill counts are hard to find, let alone at long distances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killswitch Engage
#45
WhereNow&How said:
Well the Yoter C is a good unit, but I think it is outclassed in that roundup.

Yoter C is putting out 1 FPA Pixel per 0.795 Sq. Inch at 100 yards
Voodoo M is putting out 1 FPA Pixel per 0.396 Sq. Inch at 100 yards
Triji UTCX II is putting out 1 FPA Pixel per 0.376 Sq. Inch at 100 yards

So unless there is some super magic in the Yoter C algorithms and output display screen (1024 x 768), the Yoter C is significantly outgunned all things being considered equal due to FPA pixel density.

For additional consideration, a Flir Thermosight PTS 736 is putting out 1 FPA Pixel per 0.363 Sq. Inch at 100 yards with a 320 X 256 FPA on a 1280 x 960 FLCOS display screen, albeit with a narrower FOV. But it is an excellent long range thermal. Dollar for Dollar it is hard to beat for long range performance.
Click to expand...
Its funny, I put the 736 up against the 60mm trijicon patrol spotter a few yrs back and I could discern more from the 736 at 2000m. FOV is 90% of the equation for going the distance.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Laser1, TheHebrewHammer and WhereNow&How
#46
DownRangeThermal said:
Its funny, I put the 736 up against the 60mm trijicon patrol spotter a few yrs back and I could discern more from the 736 at 2000m. FOV is 90% of the equation for going the distance.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

I have a buddy that is big into the Trijicons and it is funny when we go pig hunting, if I bring my 736, he always wants to look through it.

It is a very good unit if you are ok with dealing with a narrow FOV, which I am. In fact for me, I do much better on running shots as I am able to judge my leads much more precisely.
 
#50
WhereNow&How said:
The reality is that most people do not possess the capability for consistent long range on live critters either in shooting skill or cartridge horsepower especially if the critter is moving which most live critters are. Especially after shot no 1.

There are a few select that can pull it off. You may be one of them.

The long range target shooters who shoot fixed non moving targets are typically not worth a shit at moving live critters. There is but one way to get good on live critters and that is to have shot many, thousands and thousands.

A person that has done extensive pest control with very high kill counts are hard to find, let alone at long distances.
Click to expand...

cant argue that either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhereNow&How
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DownRangeThermal
Night Vision Excelitas Thermal Optics!
Replies
50
Views
3K
JackOfAllTrades
J
TheHorta
SOLD Pixels on Target (PoT) Voodoo-S EPIC Do-It-All Thermal
Replies
16
Views
3K
TheHorta
TheHorta
TheHorta
Night Vision The Mother of All Night Vision and Thermal Private Sales!
Replies
102
Views
11K
BurtG
BurtG
Maggot
The Dark Mile
Replies
9
Views
1K
Solscud007
S
gr8fuldoug
Optics Pulsar Helion 2 XP50 Pro 2.5-20x50 Thermal Monocular on sale for $3,699.99
Replies
0
Views
427
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts