Night Vision It's here...VooDoo-M

[Capt_Right]

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.

 

[mako15]

Congratulations! I am sure you will be pleased with it. Please post some more when you have had time to run it through its paces. Thanks in advance!

 

[Capt_Right]

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...

 

[EWS6]

Can you do another video going through the sharpness settings

 

[TheHebrewHammer]

I want to see this vs the new Theon XELR vs the 320 HISS.

 

[rlsmith1]

That’s awesome, I’d love to see some video at 15x or 20x if possible. Looks like a ton of details at 100y

 

[Capt_Right]

Can you do another video going through the sharpness settings

I assume you are talking about gain?

 

[Capt_Right]

That’s awesome, I’d love to see some video at 15x or 20x if possible. Looks like a ton of details at 100y

I will eventually when I get a chance to stretch it out.

 

[EWS6]

I assume you are talking about gain?

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

 

[jstokes1]

You know I wonder.... the voodoo S is equivalent to the UTM X, now the Voodoo M is about like a UTC Xii but its listed as a Medium/LR unit... that makes me wonder if they are going to release a true LR option next

 

[EWS6]

You know I wonder.... the voodoo S is equivalent to the UTM X, now the Voodoo M is about like a UTC Xii but its listed as a Medium/LR unit... that makes me wonder if they are going to release a true LR option next

that was the plan at one point

 

[Capt_Right]

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

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.

 

[Capt_Right]

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.

 

[rlsmith1]

You gotta be happy with that

 

[jstokes1]

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.

 

[TheHorta]

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.

 

[Capt_Right]

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.

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.

 

[TheHorta]

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.

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.

 

[TheHebrewHammer]

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.

 

[rlsmith1]

Think you’ll get to compare to a UTC Xii sometime? Impressive resolution to 40x

 

[TheHorta]

As soon as my M arrives, it’ll be tested right next to the UTC-Xii, TigIR-6M, FWS-S, and more.

 

[rlsmith1]

As soon as my M arrives, it’ll be tested right next to the UTC-Xii, TigIR-6M, FWS-S, and more.

I didn’t ask the junk collector…

 

[TheHebrewHammer]

Still waiting for some vids behind the FWS-S.

 

[rlsmith1]

Still waiting for some vids behind the FWS-S.

@TheHorta better have a ZCO 8-40 to really take advantage

 

[Capt_Right]

Think you’ll get to compare to a UTC Xii sometime? Impressive resolution to 40x

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.

 

[SkyScrapin]

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.

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.

 

[TheHorta]

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.

Bingoni!

 

[Capt_Right]

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.

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.

 

[TheHorta]

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.

 

[rlsmith1]

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.

Did you get a chance to video the comparison?

 

[Capt_Right]

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

 

[TheHebrewHammer]

Yoter C takes it for the win.

 

[TheHorta]

Ahhhhh… I know who you are! Now it all makes sense.

Your secret is safe with me.

 

[TheHebrewHammer]

I follow you on insta, cool shit.

 

[Capt_Right]

Ahhhhh… I know who you are! Now it all makes sense.

Your secret is safe with me.

I follow you on insta, cool shit.

As long as you don't think I am Nick...

 

[WhereNow&How]

Yoter C takes it for the win.

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.

 

[TheHebrewHammer]

Still would like to see side by side.

 

[WhereNow&How]

I also have

Still would like to see side by side.

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.

 

[Ksracer]

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.

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.

 

[WhereNow&How]

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.

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.

 

[Ksracer]

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.

Thankyou sir.

 

[WhereNow&How]

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.

 

[Killswitch Engage]

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.

take your slow ass low energy cartridge elsewhere. ****laughs in 6x284****

 

[WhereNow&How]

take your slow ass low energy cartridge elsewhere. ****laughs in 6x284****

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.

 

[DownRangeThermal]

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.

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.

 

[WhereNow&How]

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.

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.

 

[Conqueror]

I wanna see the M against the xELR.

 

[Totdoc]

I wanna see the M against the xELR.

This. But honestly, I'd kinda even just like to see them next to each other for size comparison

 

[Capt_Right]

I wanna see the M against the xELR.

This. But honestly, I'd kinda even just like to see them next to each other for size comparison

If someone wants to send me one to test, I can make that happen.

 

[Killswitch Engage]

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.

cant argue that either.