Night Vision Thermals: The Gathering — There can be only one!

I think N-vision strategically selected in-between-trijicon mag ranges for a reason... ultimately assigned use case should be driven more by fov than anything else.

By the way... in for the gathering. Mk2 35mm, pulsar accolade 2... have a pvs27 as well for an i2 benchmark
 
I’ll come with:

SkeetIR-x
ChinaSkeet
UTC-Xii
UTC-X
ReapIR 60
Halo-LR
LWTS-LR
LWTS
CRATOS
PAS-23 MTM w/ 3x Factory Magnifi
ATN Thor HD 640 100mm
Flir/Armasight Command Pro 640 50mm

And, drumroll please...

Flir ONE :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jgunner
I think N-vision strategically selected in-between-trijicon mag ranges for a reason... ultimately assigned use case should be driven more by fov than anything else.

By the way... in for the gathering. Mk2 35mm, pulsar accolade 2... have a pvs27 as well for an i2 benchmark

you may be right on this. I’d actually considered selling the Reap and buying both Halos. I just really prefer the controls on the Reap though now. I’m sure we are all trainable but being left handed the controls on the right work real well for me. Kind of the same as I like right bolt left eject over standard LH or RH setups.
 
I wish there was more user programmability. There's no reason why I can't program my mk2 to NUC when I spin my top knob clockwise in every menu (except for zero) other than the fact that trijicon skimped on software development.
 
I’ll put together a sheet this weekend, getting out of the pasture after a long grind this evening. I remembered to pray to @TheHorta to Shepard me safely through the night as I donned my primitive 2500 fom filmless mod three bravos.
In the name of the SkeetX, the Polaris ranger and the tow truck amen.
 
Last edited:
I’ll put together a sheet this weekend, getting out of the pasture after a long grind this evening. I remembered to pray to @TheHorta to Shepard me safely through the night as I donned my primitive 2500 fom filmless mod three bravos.
In the name of the SkeetX, the Polaris ranger and the tow truck amen.

Remember, if you appear to have more than one skeetIRX, there is a possibily of a black hole opening under your vehicle. Apparently, the casings are made of out the remains of a neutron star...
 
Do I remember that right that “they” turned it on remotely to f with @TheHorta

Nah... “they” didn’t even know I had it until they came to my home for tea and crumpets. Then they’re like “Hey, what’s this?”

And I’m like:

AFC6DA84-D3D5-4DA6-A05F-B5881D633F6D.jpeg
 
Remember, if you appear to have more than one skeetIRX, there is a possibily of a black hole opening under your vehicle. Apparently, the casings are made of out the remains of a neutron star...
It’s Photonies, the Greek goddess of light particles that gets you. Wearing dual thermals on your head angers her so she moves the ditches around.
 
I really hate that bitch.
Dude you use her name in vain on a regular bases, first you call 2500 fom duals lame and then you refuse to see in the dark as the Lord intended. I think to get right with the Gods your gonna have to go on a walk with a single gen2 filmed unit with a blem the size of a pencil eraser in zone 1. The Gods have decreed gen2 to be the NV of the most faithful 2 Corinthians 5:7 "For we walk by faith, not sight", you gotta repent and walk in the Lords chosen sea of questionable green contrast.
 
Dude you use her name in vain on a regular bases, first you call 2500 fom duals lame and then you refuse to see in the dark as the Lord intended. I think to get right with the Gods your gonna have to go on a walk with a single gen2 filmed unit with a blem the size of a pencil eraser in zone 1. The Gods have decreed gen2 to be the NV of the most faithful 2 Corinthians 5:7 "For we walk by faith, not sight", you gotta repent and walk in the Lords chosen sea of questionable green contrast.

Lake of fire, here I come!
 
I think the Horta needs this too...


Comes with a thermal mount!
 
  • Love
Reactions: TheHorta
Not dead, just occupied with work. I think were getting closer here-
1597206935933.png


In all reality how about I make a sheet, lock it and send it out....ya'll can fill it in with your atmospheric conditions and I'll compile the scores per unit. Much arguing and bitching is sure to follow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eliteuas
Had a "thought" while looking at the sheet you made there @NFAJohn

Nobody will agree on the score to rank an image or ruggedness..

But

What if for the immediate future you eliminate the rugged and image columns

Focus on the specs and abilities of each unit.

Then once the items are more easily broken down into categories by the specs you have compiled... I imagine it would be easier for everyone to agree on an order within those shorter lists.

So if you come up with let's say 6 dedicated rifle scopes within a certain fov that use a 640 core... Several guys may be able to say I've had 2 of these and vote X over Y... Statistically the order would work itself out after a bit
But other than a handful of guys most of the world hasn't put hands on a diverse enough group of each list to give an objective score
 
  • Like
Reactions: NFAJohn
My 2 cents ...

The "specs" should be part of the purchasers "requirements" not something we "evaluate" ...

"image" however subjective, must be part of the evaluation, because other than price, "image" (or perception of image) is the primary factor folks use to make a decision. And yes, since only one data point will be taken, the results will not be conclusive (IMHO), but at least the units will be compared in the same conditions, side by side, hopefully by the same set of evaluators. So the data itself will be part of a valid test ... its just scientifically I would not place a lot of weight on the interpretation of the data, because there will only be one data set collected on one night in one location.
So "image" could be totally subjective, or it could be broken down into two parts
(a) Detection Distance (and this not what the spec sheet says, this is what the observers say it is for them at that moment, with those settings)
(b) PID distance (again what the observers say ... PID is way tougher than detection, because ideally there would be critters out there to PID, and the critters might not show up :D ... but if there is a big field with cattle, that might work. I often see yotes around cattle and coons and deer also. So hopefully the critters will cooperate.
A night capable range finder will be required equipment so the distances for Detection and PID can be measured.

So anyway, my vote, is not to evaluate based on the hard data factors like magnification, weight, length, etc. those are facts and should be part of the purchasers requirements. Even "price" is part of the requirements, not an evaluation factor. The purchaser specifies his budget and that is that. It is not right or wrong or good or bad, it is part of the requirements.
The evaluation should be on the soft factors, specifically image. But also egonomics, user interface, those sorts of things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bullseye13
I do want to hear your guys thoughts on image quality even though it is subjective. Not often do you get unbiased opinions on this. Alot of people have something and and push the product to validate their purchase or have skin in the game in regards to the company.

I know it cant happen, but product durability is another aspect I wish could be tested. Maybe we can have @TheHorta continue to roll his UTV with different products on?
 
So anyway, my vote, is not to evaluate based on the hard data factors like magnification, weight, length, etc. those are facts and should be part of the purchasers requirements. Even "price" is part of the requirements, not an evaluation factor. The purchaser specifies his budget and that is that. It is not right or wrong or good or bad, it is part of the requirements.
The evaluation should be on the soft factors, specifically image. But also egonomics, user interface, those sorts of things.
Agreed, building a sheet based on manufacturers specs would just be comparision shopping. Whit that in mind lets grab 10 subjective qualities.
Scoring system is-
0-unusable
1-as expected, but not overly impressed
2-exceeded expectations
3-far exceeds expectations

Topics-
1-Image quality
2-User interface
3-value (for what you spent does it wow or disappoint)
4-customer support from manufacturer
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-

I think gathering all of us in one spot at one time is going to be pretty tough so lets do some standard atmospheric condition reporting with you reviews
Time
Date
Temp
Humidity

What we I can do is aggregate the scores, but have the individual scores/ review compiled by tab so all the individual reviews are viewable as well.
 
Maybe features could be broken down into the value category. Like can videos be taken, or can it be used with an external battery, useable hunting reticles, etc... Those things add alot to value of a product that may cost more up front, but a better buy.
 
I don't think any image-centric (subjective or objective) data points are worth anything without stratifying FOV

Good one, copy and paste the list to add what you would like to see evaluated, we can go more or less no problem.

Topics-
1-Image quality
2-User interface
3-value (for what you spent does it wow or disappoint)
4-customer support from manufacturer
5-fov
6-
7-
8-
9-
 
Good one, copy and paste the list to add what you would like to see evaluated, we can go more or less no problem.

Topics-
1-Image quality
2-User interface
3-value (for what you spent does it wow or disappoint)
4-customer support from manufacturer
5-fov
6-
7-
8-
9-
I'll do a sit down later, but for now, I meant like different FOV's are in different divisions entirely.

Ie all 6-8 degree FOV's are competing against each other in all the above categories
all 8-10 degree FOV's are against each other in all above categories
all 10-12 degree FOV's are against each other in all above categories

etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: NFAJohn
My 2 cents ...

The "specs" should be part of the purchasers "requirements" not something we "evaluate" ...

"image" however subjective, must be part of the evaluation, because other than price, "image" (or perception of image) is the primary factor folks use to make a decision. And yes, since only one data point will be taken, the results will not be conclusive (IMHO), but at least the units will be compared in the same conditions, side by side, hopefully by the same set of evaluators. So the data itself will be part of a valid test ... its just scientifically I would not place a lot of weight on the interpretation of the data, because there will only be one data set collected on one night in one location.
So "image" could be totally subjective, or it could be broken down into two parts
(a) Detection Distance (and this not what the spec sheet says, this is what the observers say it is for them at that moment, with those settings)
(b) PID distance (again what the observers say ... PID is way tougher than detection, because ideally there would be critters out there to PID, and the critters might not show up :D ... but if there is a big field with cattle, that might work. I often see yotes around cattle and coons and deer also. So hopefully the critters will cooperate.
A night capable range finder will be required equipment so the distances for Detection and PID can be measured.

So anyway, my vote, is not to evaluate based on the hard data factors like magnification, weight, length, etc. those are facts and should be part of the purchasers requirements. Even "price" is part of the requirements, not an evaluation factor. The purchaser specifies his budget and that is that. It is not right or wrong or good or bad, it is part of the requirements.
The evaluation should be on the soft factors, specifically image. But also egonomics, user interface, those sorts of things.
I think you could remove the objectivity of image. Use something like an eye chart and run it at different distances. Thoughts?
 
For me, there are 3 high level variables on image and they matter in the order listed below

1 - Conditions
Thermal conditions matter the most. One night I might have a beautiful crystal clear image with the UTC-x. The next night, in a Noah's rain, I can't see sh^t except maybe the top of the tree line. The night after that, everything is fuzzy sea of grey, etc. Thermal conditions matter the most.

2 - Operation Experience.
Most thermals have various knobs and levers and such that affect thermal image. I've got quite a few years with the BAE cores and almost as much with the Pulsar cores and Armasight cores.
And I'd split operator experience up into two sub-categories
2a - Operator experience with thermal in general
2b - Operator experience with the thermal in question
I know people don't want to hear this. They don't want themselves to be part of the problem/solution. I can only go by my experience. Several years after going out with thermals, stuff just clicked and my images got a lot better.
101 - Nuc the sh^t out of it. I do a lot of 360s as critters can come from any direction at any time. I catch some sky in part of my 360s typically. It is COLD up there and that throws off the heat map. I have to nuc. Some nights I literally nuc twice for each 360. Often at least once. In my first few years I didn't.
102 - Adjust the brightness
103 - Adjust the gain
104 - Focus
All that matters and on some thermals there are other knobs that matter. A lot of people I speak with "set their thermal up and leave it" ... well I probably did that also in the first few years, but not anymore. If I want optimal thermal image I am continuously banging those buttons. I've finally learned which ones to bang to make it better right now. I learned that by banging the sh^t out of them for years.
The Operator matters a lot.

3 - The Widget matters
Yes, the device actually does matter, but not as much as those first two ^^ ... :D
So if you want to get scientific about it, IMHO, you have two remove the first two variables to get down to the third one.
 
Last edited:
For me, there are 3 high level variables on image and they matter in the order listed below

1 - Conditions
Thermal conditions matter the most. One night I might have a beautiful crystal clear image with the UTC-x. The next night, in a Noah's rain, I can't see sh^t except maybe the top of the tree line. The night after that, everything is fuzzy sea of grey, etc. Thermal conditions matter the most.

2 - Operation Experience.
Most thermals have various knobs and levers and such that affect thermal image. I've got quite a few years with the BAE cores and almost as much with the Pulsar cores and Armasight cores.
And I'd split operator experience up into two sub-categories
2a - Operator experience with thermal in general
2b - Operator experience with the thermal in question
I know people don't want to hear this. They don't want themselves to be part of the problem/solution. I can only go by my experience. Several years after going out with thermals, stuff just clicked and my images got a lot better.
101 - Nuc the sh^t out of it. I do a lot of 360s as critters can come from any direction at any time. I catch some sky in part of my 360s typically. It is COLD up there and that throws off the heat map. I have to nuc. Some nights I literally nuc twice for each 360. Often at least once. In my first few years I didn't.
102 - Adjust the brightness
103 - Adjust the gain
104 - Focus
All that matters and on some thermals there are other knobs that matter. A lot of people I speak with "set their thermal up and leave it" ... well I probably did that also in the first few years, but not anymore. If I want optical thermal image I am continuously banging those buttons. I've finally learned which ones to bang to make in better right now. I learned that by banged the sh^t out of them for years.
The Operator matters a lot

3 - The Widget matters
Yes, the device actually does matter, but not as much as those first two ^^ ... :D
So if you want to get scientific about it, IMHO, you have two remove the first two variables to get down to the third one.
True, a large horse arena or warehouse might be an option to test those systems and keep it an even playing field/reduce the variables that mother nature throws at you.

Experience part? Maybe a method is to keep a small pool of testers that handle each system. You would also have to identify which testers had prior experience with which systems because it is relevant. Each rates/grades and level of experience is noted under the testers parameters? Get a couple of newbs and some pros. Both rating would be pertinent.

I think part of this is not over complicating it. Making it a relevant document that someone can get some ideas with and research further i.e. enough to make them dangerous.

It would require deciding on some specific evaluation criteria, defining the criteria and evaluation process and then doing it. It can be as complicated or simple as you want to make it, imo.
 
One tester per core ... and yes the PROCESS matters a lot ... and should be written down, agreed to by the testers and followed to the letter. Each specific test should probably be done in synchronized fashion. Then if there is a guy who is really good at thru lens pics (there are a tiny few such guys, I am not among them!) then that guy could walk down the line and snap the pics for each thermal after each thermal finished a given test.

I would test at multiple distances and multiple magnifications, outside.

When to nuc, how to focus, how to set brightness, how to set gain (contrast), etc. all needs to be part of the process. I've compared thermals like this before ... and it definitely takes makin the process across the thermals as much the same as possible - and understand where it can't be the same and deciding how to handle.

==
All that said, my impression is the goal of this gathering would be perhaps more social than science. In which case, I'd skip all the above and break out the food and beverages and have a great time looking through a lot of great gear for several hours !! :D
 
One tester per core ... and yes the PROCESS matters a lot ... and should be written down, agreed to by the testers and followed to the letter. Each specific test should probably be done in synchronized fashion. Then if there is a guy who is really good at thru lens pics (there are a tiny few such guys, I am not among them!) then that guy could walk down the line and snap the pics for each thermal after each thermal finished a given test.

I would test at multiple distances and multiple magnifications, outside.

When to nuc, how to focus, how to set brightness, how to set gain (contrast), etc. all needs to be part of the process. I've compared thermals like this before ... and it definitely takes makin the process across the thermals as much the same as possible - and understand where it can't be the same and deciding how to handle.

==
All that said, my impression is the goal of this gathering would be perhaps more social than science. In which case, I'd skip all the above and break out the food and beverages and have a great time looking through a lot of great gear for several hours !! :D

I believe it was Leupold that made some camera adapters for their optics. I used to run my D700 through my Leupold M4 spotter. I wonder if there is a like type threading with some of these systems. I need to find that stuff.