OK who's got the info on em? I've seen it teased on multiple IG accounts lately.
Night Vision Theon Thermis Thermal Clip-On
- Thread starter upSLIDEdown
- Start date
OK who's got the info on em? I've seen it teased on multiple IG accounts lately.
Nice looking unit.
Horta probably has a 1/2 dozen laying around.
Horta probably has a 1/2 dozen laying around.
We will be carrying all variants and look forward to testing. My assumption is they will be of huge value, share some of the most important features a clipon needs, and have an image that is very respectable. US based support too!
Call if you’re interested in details.
Call if you’re interested in details.
Well, they are gaining some serious traction it appears.
defensereview.com
Theon Sensors Thermis CS Thermal Clip-On Sight (TCS) Thermal Imaging System Wins UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) Contract for Sniper In-Line Low Light System (SILLS) – Long Wave InfraRed (LWIR) Thermal Sight ‘Weapon Sight 2’
By David Crane david (at) defensereview (dot) com October 21, 2021 Theon Sensors recently won a UK MOD (Ministry of Defence) contract for 500 of its Thermis CS Thermal Clip-On Sight (TCS) (12um) Thermal Imaging Systems for the MOD's Sniper In-Line Low Light System (SILLS) – Long Wave InfraRed...
defensereview.com
DRT will be distributing them in Q1 2022.
They are serious players. Legit UTM/UTC competitors at a much lower price. Just no TracIR, sadly.
They are serious players. Legit UTM/UTC competitors at a much lower price. Just no TracIR, sadly.
Some of their units are. They have a range to choose from.
That is huge. Greatly looking forward to these coming out.
Of course I'm interested. That's the point of this thread. Lmao
Do you have any real details yet other than what I can scrounge up online? Seems like everyone is trying to keep this thing hush hush for some reason. I just want some deets maaaaan.
Of courseOf course I'm interested. That's the point of this thread. Lmao
Do you have any real details yet other than what I can scrounge up online? Seems like everyone is trying to keep this thing hush hush for some reason. I just want some deets maaaaan.
We are all eager to see how they perform, and that they will as a clipon.
My intention is to post a comparative video of each model relative to what is currently commercially available. Videos should flesh this out pretty easily
Of course
We are all eager to see how they perform, and that they will as a clipon.
My intention is to post a comparative video of each model relative to what is currently commercially available. Videos should flesh this out pretty easily
Any idea when you'll have them in hand yet?
I will step in and share more info when I get the green light. Looking more like late 2nd quarter at best on these. Did great in testing.
Here's a little teaser. (Cell phone pics)
Here's a little teaser. (Cell phone pics)
That is the "LR" 17 micron 75mm lens. 8 degree fov. Remember if looking at those pics on a laptop or desk top. ...... that is through a cell phone on a tiny display. Your large monitor will make it look much more pixelated than reality.
boat was around 175 and the tree near deer was 380 or so. Having used the LWTS-LR ( in clip on mode)
and the UTC xii extensively I can say with confidence this optic lands squarely between the 2 in mag support and image quality. There's more.........just be patient with me.
boat was around 175 and the tree near deer was 380 or so. Having used the LWTS-LR ( in clip on mode)
and the UTC xii extensively I can say with confidence this optic lands squarely between the 2 in mag support and image quality. There's more.........just be patient with me.
There ain't no thermal season ends in my part of the world. Its 24/7 if you got the time.
So are you saying that this is better than the LWTS-LR but not the UTCXii??
It’s a 17 micron so not sure how that plays into everything but it also has a 75mm objective. I do know generally smaller micron pitch is better but there’s other factors I won’t pretend to understand
I think the only reason 12 micron is better is that it allows the use of a smaller Germanium objective. Smaller device ~~ lower cost because of less Germanium etc (in theory).
As far as image quality, it is my understanding that the micron size does not make much of a difference, all other components being sized and matched correctly.
An expert will hopefully come along and elaborate.
As far as image quality, it is my understanding that the micron size does not make much of a difference, all other components being sized and matched correctly.
An expert will hopefully come along and elaborate.
Smaller pixel pitch is not always better, especially from responsivity and noise performance. You do get narrower FOV with the same focal length, so better resolution or same FOV with a smaller lens, but there are other compromises.
On top of that, as the pixel pitch gets smaller, you can have other odd effects, but we do not yet see them at 12 microns. As we get to 10 and 8 micron pixels, I am beginning to see them a good bit more. Clever processing can mitigate some of that, but overall I can make a pretty good case that when not looking for the smallest form factor there is a lot to be said about how good modern 12 and 17 micron imagers are.
Either way, Theon makes nice stuff and it should do some damage once it gets here.
ILya
Last edited:
Said more eloquently than I could have even if I understood.
My question then is, why do smaller 1x scanners (NVision NOX18 for example) use 12 micron processors? It seems like they could use a slightly larger lens and shorten the focal length to have the same resolution as long as they are using a 640 core. Many do love that there is very little detail lost on the 2x digital zoom and I'm sure the 12 pitch sensor allows for that.
Excite to see how these devices work and I'm definitely not against the 75mm objective as long as the overall length isn't excessive (looking at you, PVS30)
Nox is indeed very nice. I visited N-Vision last month and really liked Nox35. Nox18 is impressively small, but for my use, I do not need 1x.
Either way, I am not sure exactly what you mean with the focal length. To get the same FOV, you need shorter focal length with 12um pixel pitch core than with 17um pixel pitch core.
PVS30 is an IIT, not a thermal, so the overall device size will be quite different. The lens on the PVS-30 is 120mm focal length and all the components behind the lens also add size.
I really should do a video on how IITs work vs thermal and stuff like that.
ILya
I had it backwards then. I thought a smaller pitch core would require a longer focal length to Abe the same FOV as a 17. Makes sense now why the smaller pitch allows for a smaller package. I’m sure something is inverted somewhere in my brain.
I was more referencing the PVS30 on size but would love a video on differences between I2 and thermal (any commentary on SWIR/MWIR/LWIR would be interesting as well).
As noted above... ( for long wave thermal)smaller pixel pitch allows for reducing focal length to keep same fov specs...in turn reducing germanium cost and unit size. When you get into the new 1280 HD sensors you're going to see the need for the 10 micron stuff a bit more to keep size down at usable FOV specs. 8 will be reserved for specific UAV applications for the immediate future.
The pixel spacing has everything to do with weight and size. It don't mean much relative to performance. Smaller pitch sensors can use smaller diameter lenses. Lenses are Germanium so smaller sensor pitch, smaller and cheaper lens and less weight
That is not entirely true. Lenses for larger pixel pitch microbolometers are often-times cheaper, although larger in diameter. With smaller pixel pitch, to get similar noise performance you usually need a lower F/# lens. To get that lower F/# lens properly worked out sometimes requires an extra lens element. On top of that, the alignment and centering requirements are also more stringent.
Now that 12um sensors have been around for a while, it is reasonably well supported by the industry, but it is really more nuanced than simply "everything is smaller and better". There is no free lunch.
ILya
Thanks for the explanation Ilya. It makes sense much like all of your optical writing
Thermal sensors operate just like image sensors in digital cameras. Smaller pitch allows more in the same area or allows the same number in a smaller area. This would typically decrease sensitivity and increase noise, but technology also progresses coincident to well size reductions, which normally (but not always) tips the scale in favor of the newer technology. However, theoretically at least, if everything else was equal, a 17um would be superior to a 12um sensor and a 25um would be superior to a 17um sensor.
This is the same reason why “full frame” flagship digital cameras typically have lower resolution and much larger photosites, because they perform much better in low light environments — again, all other variable being similar or equal (which they rarely are).
I don’t know how much the noise floor on thermals plays into it, but I do know BAE employs some mojo in their latest 12um .MIL sensors that is not applied to their commercial line.
This is the same reason why “full frame” flagship digital cameras typically have lower resolution and much larger photosites, because they perform much better in low light environments — again, all other variable being similar or equal (which they rarely are).
I don’t know how much the noise floor on thermals plays into it, but I do know BAE employs some mojo in their latest 12um .MIL sensors that is not applied to their commercial line.
I don't have much experience in thermal sensor design but in the world of SoCs employing many processors integrated onto one piece of silicon, smaller means cheaper sell cost per chip but hellishly higher design cost. A reticle set employing the latest (smallest in terms of microns) photolithographic process can cost tens of millions of dollars. Ask ARM what they charge for their latest processor IP on 9 micron technology....close to 10 million plus royalties. A new telecom SoC can cost hundreds of millions to design and bring to market. I am sure it is not much different here other than it is just a sensor versus a multi-faceted processor doing a million different tasks.
To all of the experts on the Hide. You guys are a rare gem wealth of knowledge. Thanks for passing some of it on to us. It truly is appreciated.
Now keep it coming please. I'm soaking it up like a sponge.
Now keep it coming please. I'm soaking it up like a sponge.
A lot of things are similar, but some are really very different. The most fundamental problem is that an image sensor is a combination of both analog and digital design elements and they are very hard to combine in one chip. The analog part is what interacts with incoming light and that is where some very fundamental laws of optics interfere with the drive to miniaturization. On top of that, some of the same characteristics that make digital circuitry really excellent, tend to really fubar the analog stuff. That is one of the reasons we are seeing stacked chips all the time: high quality analog and high quality digital require different processes.
The situation with microbolometers is even more different since they work differently form every other kind of image sensor out there. There are several excellent efforts under way to firmly decouple the ROIC from the limitations by the sensor layer in microbolometer imagers. Hopefully, it will bear fruit in the foreseeable future.
My field of expertise is more with this stuff: electro-optics, than with classical optomechanical systems. I used to work on cooled image sensors for space programs, then worked on early microbolometer imaging systems and means of calibrating and characterizing them, then spent some time developing CMOS image sensors, dabbled with movie cameras, then transitioned to working with test systems for all of the above and a bunch of other electro-optical devices.
ILya
I understand for certain. I have done a number of RFICs which are mixed signal digital and analog RF in both transmit and receive paths...lots of processing...lots of magic in the A/D and D/A conversion
I am a bit too drunk to discuss it at this point though...LOL
Stupid question.....
Even with Risley style prisms in play, these style thermal clip-ons will optically raise your LOS roughly 1.5" further above the bore than your day sight. Similar to but different than the old school Simrads.
Now your LOS is passing through your ballistic curve at different points than your original day scope LOS, where as most IIT clip-ons interact within the same LOS and can be true plug and play across your normal come-ups.
It seems to me you would need to dial in a different offset for your day scope dope.
What am I missing here?
./
Even with Risley style prisms in play, these style thermal clip-ons will optically raise your LOS roughly 1.5" further above the bore than your day sight. Similar to but different than the old school Simrads.
Now your LOS is passing through your ballistic curve at different points than your original day scope LOS, where as most IIT clip-ons interact within the same LOS and can be true plug and play across your normal come-ups.
It seems to me you would need to dial in a different offset for your day scope dope.
What am I missing here?
./
There’s some digital legerdemain happening in the scope itself to help offset the offset — since it’s consistent it really isn’t difficult to compensate for. However, most are straight pass-through. Notice in the thermal clipon (with a prism) in this image the optical path is physically / optically passed through.
I’ve wondered about this also. Even if there is no poi shift at 0 range it seems the new functional objective height over bore would be like changing sight height.
The curved line on the housing appears to be centered on both the objective and ocular lens. The fact that it’s angled/curved tells us your thermal’s objective lens is centered higher than the ocular lens and your day scope’s centerline.
How this is or isn’t compensated for isn’t discernible from looking at the outside of the unit.
Any info on the unit or what you know about how this was addressed would be appreciated.
How this is or isn’t compensated for isn’t discernible from looking at the outside of the unit.
Any info on the unit or what you know about how this was addressed would be appreciated.
Even with digital magic, I am not tracking on how the unit could change the way the elevated LOS is interacting with the flight path.
I am aware it would be consistent and not hard to compensate for but it would certainly introduce error in the offset that would have to be compensated for on each gun it would be moved to. To me, any time I have do dial corrective dope into the normal day scope dope, I am losing one of the best features of a true clip-on.
I can see where this may not be too big a deal when working with crude holds and body size targets. I also understand that the differences would minimize at longer target distances. My concern is that the biggest offset error would be noticeable at short distance and on precision aiming points.
I am aware that some units are configured in a straight line/linear mechanical/optical format and would not have this issue but my question was aimed at this specific unit.
./
Night Vision - EOTECH CLIP ON THERMALS ( Full details)
As many of you know, EOTECH has released a new line of thermal optics in the US. They are working with Theon Optics out of Europe and the clip ons are being rebranded under the EOTECH name and imported into the US market. All three of the optics share the following: Ruggedized/50 cal rated 10...
www.snipershide.com
Similar threads
