Night Vision Thin filmed vs Filmless white phosphorous.

[WhereNow&How]

We are a a direct distributor of Elbit as well and the numbers of ultra high specs out of 100 tubes is approx 10% or less.

So I know "ultra" high specs is a somewhat time related moving target. 2010 vs 2020 "ultra" high would be completely different.

However, as of May 2020 it would be nice to see what your current mindset is of exactly where the minimum threshold is for where "ultra" high specs as referenced above begins for the current Elbit tubes you are seeing.

The above being stated, would you mind filling in the blanks for the following categories so we could have a baseline on where the current minimum line is for entering the "ultra" high specs is in your opinion.

Photocathode Response: _________
EBI: _________
Center Resolution: _________
Signal To Noise: _________
Halo: _________
FOM: _________


Given that you see so many of these tubes, it would be an important data point on what your current assessment of where "ultra" specs begins.

Thanks

 

[5RWill]

Well I messed up and looked at a buddies unfilmed WP Mod 3s last night....it was gorgeous. That'll be one of my first purchases out of dental school. Probably keep the OMNI VIII for backup or another helmet but man on man those tubes were sensational.

 

[WhereNow&How]

Well I messed up and looked at a buddies unfilmed WP Mod 3s last night....it was gorgeous. That'll be one of my first purchases out of dental school. Probably keep the OMNI VIII for backup or another helmet but man on man those tubes were sensational.

Almost anything would have looked gorgeous last night with almost 75% of the Big Flashlight in the sky shining last night. LOL

I was out with some old Omni 7 GP (in the Great State of Mississippi) and Yes Sir, the scenery was nice. The real test comes in no moon, 100% cloud cover, under heavy canopy way out in the country. That is where the rubber meets the road.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure they were nice tubes, but last night just did not put much of a load on any intensifier tube if you were outside and not in a dark basement.

 

[RyanScott]

What are you guys tracking with regards to 16mm tubes?

And when will the PVS-30LW be available for civilians and at what price point?

 

[Hard_ware]

Almost anything would have looked gorgeous last night with almost 75% of the Big Flashlight in the sky shining last night. LOL

I was out with some old Omni 7 GP (in the Great State of Mississippi) and Yes Sir, the scenery was nice. The real test comes in no moon, 100% cloud cover, under heavy canopy way out in the country. That is where the rubber meets the road.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure they were nice tubes, but last night just did not put much of a load on any intensifier tube if you were outside and not in a dark basement.

My Filmless unit performs under extreme dark conditions. ~38snr 72lp
vs my older vii pinnacle +27snr 72lp
With any moon light or IR light older unit was gtg. But filmless is a big step up, in extreme darkness if you hunt on moonless nights.

 

[WhereNow&How]

My Filmless unit performs under extreme dark conditions. ~38snr 72lp
vs my older vii pinnacle +27snr 72lp
With any moon light or IR light older unit was gtg. But filmless is a big step up, in extreme darkness if you hunt on moonless nights.

Your older 7 pinnacle is pretty much same as mine on the SN & LP.

So in your opinion, in a no moon, 100% cloud cover, under heavy canopy, how much better do you estimate your filmless SN38 72LP units performs.

Can you give a percentage better estimate?

Thanks

 

[Shreddingaxes]

Your older 7 pinnacle is pretty much same as mine on the SN & LP.

So in your opinion, in a no moon, 100% cloud cover, under heavy canopy, how much better do you estimate your filmless SN38 72LP units performs.

Can you give a percentage better estimate?

Thanks

My Elbit tubes are the same way compared to my L3 Omni 8 green tubes. My green tubes are nice, but in extreme dark when my Omni 8s are a noisy mess, my Elbits have a calmer, and brighter image. That’s really the only time there’s a significant difference, besides the resolution increase.
Edit: I replied to the wrong person. Anyway, I don’t know of an exact percentage, but it’s significant.

 

[TimmyTime]

Good morning gents! Recently, I've been upgrade my equipment and selling all my extra and loaner gear. I do more hog hunting than training right now. I've found myself driving a jeep blacked out, no moon, with cloud cover, under a heavy canopy looking for those little bastards. Ive got a pair of ANVIS googles with a warranty expiration date of 05'. I'm looking at RNVG housings and tube upgrades. @Victor-TNVC What could I expect to pay for a matched pair of L3 vs Elbit filmless WP tubes only? Thanks in advance!

 

[sheepdog697]

Good morning gents! Recently, I've been upgrade my equipment and selling all my extra and loaner gear. I do more hog hunting than training right now. I've found myself driving a jeep blacked out, no moon, with cloud cover, under a heavy canopy looking for those little bastards. Ive got a pair of ANVIS googles with a warranty expiration date of 05'. I'm looking at RNVG housings and tube upgrades. @Victor-TNVC What could I expect to pay for a matched pair of L3 vs Elbit filmless WP tubes only? Thanks in advance!

At this time i believe L3 is the only one producing filmless technology. Atleast, commercially available.

 

[MarinePMI]

At this time i believe L3 is the only one producing filmless technology. Atleast, commercially available.

I believe this is correct. It has to do with their proprietary process that prevents the photons from bouncing off the front of the channel plate, and back into the photocathod (negating the need for a film to protect it). Sorry if I'm restating the obvious...

 

[SkyScrapin]

I believe this is correct. It has to do with their proprietary process that prevents the photons from bouncing off the front of the channel plate, and back into the photocathod (negating the need for a film to protect it). Sorry if I'm restating the obvious...

Nerd

 

[TimmyTime]

Awesome information here.

 

[Ironman8]

So for you guys with experience with the Filmless, couple of questions (all pertaining to WP):

It seems like filmless is recommended more for rural (no ambient lighting) conditions while thin filmed is suggested for urban mixed lighting. How does filmless perform in that urban setting? Does it completely wash out? Can that be adjusted with gain control?

Second, if you could have a ~2000FOM filmless WP vs a ~2500FOM thin film, which would you pick?

Somewhat of a general question: At what point does higher FOM become a moot point where you just don’t notice the difference on a head worn unit (PVS14 for me)?

 

[SkyScrapin]

@Ironman8

Most people cannot tell the difference between filmed & thin filmed. Further, most people cannot decipher between a mediocre specs and good specs, or good specs and high specs. We're living in reallllly good times with NV.

Unless you live behind a set of nods, you're probably not going to see a difference between the FOM numbers you posted.

In a perfect world, get filmless. I'll be surprised if you notice much difference over a filmed unit with similar specs, even if you know what to look for.

 

[RyanScott]

I’m glad to see more discussion these days of dark vs. light polluted environments and what different needs the two might have. My 10 year old 14 is absolute shit when there’s ambient light sources, they burn shadows into it that take a while to heal themselves.

 

[Ironman8]

Thanks @SkyScrapin I kinda figured that would be the case.

 

[Lunabear]

Let’s throw a twist on it I guess. If you were looking to get a pair what would you choose? Assume that you live rural but have no ideal where you would use them or bring them outside of rural. Would you chose filmless with the higher price because they are the bees knees or would you go with this filmed because you may use in urban( much more ambient lighting) instead of rural at some point?

 

[Victor-TNVC]

Let’s throw a twist on it I guess. If you were looking to get a pair what would you choose? Assume that you live rural but have no ideal where you would use them or bring them outside of rural. Would you chose filmless with the higher price because they are the bees knees or would you go with this filmed because you may use in urban( much more ambient lighting) instead of rural at some point?

Bottom line, if you can afford filmless, cry once as you will be able to squeeze all the juice needed in those very dark rural environments if and when you need it.

 

[Lunabear]

Bottom line, if you can afford filmless, cry once as you will be able to squeeze all the juice needed in those very dark rural environments if and when you need it.

I guess to more point my question is everyone “wants” filmless because xyz and they are the best but are any significant drawbacks to consider that a thin filmed would address better than filmless?

 

[Victor-TNVC]

I guess to more point my question is everyone “wants” filmless because xyz and they are the best but are any significant drawbacks to consider that a thin filmed would address better than filmless?

Not that I'm aware. Filmless better in extreme low light, stronger (not internet rumor they are somehow fragile with shock), best in clip-on systems with magnified day optics (as long as the day scope is high quality).

There is an strong reason SOCOM selected these tubes for our warfighters, they work in the dark and work well.

 

[Lunabear]

Not that I'm aware. Filmless better in extreme low light, stronger (not internet rumor they are somehow fragile with shock), best in clip-on systems with magnified day optics (as long as the day scope is high quality).

There is an strong reason SOCOM selected these tubes for our warfighters, they work in the dark and work well.

That is the exact confirmation one way or another I was looking for especially coming from you. Thank you

 

[WhereNow&How]

I guess to more point my question is everyone “wants” filmless because xyz and they are the best but are any significant drawbacks to consider that a thin filmed would address better than filmless?

Yes Sir, the thin filmed have a significant advantage over the filmless.

The Mrs wont be quite as mad at you.

 

[Hard_ware]

Your older 7 pinnacle is pretty much same as mine on the SN & LP.

So in your opinion, in a no moon, 100% cloud cover, under heavy canopy, how much better do you estimate your filmless SN38 72LP units performs.

Can you give a percentage better estimate?

Thanks

20%. You see it in the brightness of a weak laser is now much brighter. Very low powered IR light for close range with vii unit is now good for a couple hundred yards. Big improvement on very dark moonless nights. I think it’s the filmless that allows that low low light performance. But other then the low low light nights the vii was just as clear. Other benefit is you need less IR to light up stuff, less IR less glow for critters to see. Was very satisfied with the pinnacle unit , it did what I needed. But the filmless is a step up, I have a WP unit, but I would think the GP would be just as good.

 

[Ironman8]

20%. You see it in the brightness of a weak laser is now much brighter. Very low powered IR light for close range with vii unit is now good for a couple hundred yards. Big improvement on very dark moonless nights. I think it’s the filmless that allows that low low light performance. But other then the low low light nights the vii was just as clear. Other benefit is you need less IR to light up stuff, less IR less glow for critters to see. Was very satisfied with the pinnacle unit , it did what I needed. But the filmless is a step up, I have a WP unit, but I would think the GP would be just as good.

The part about needing less IR Illum to light up stuff is what I was wondering in the back of my mind and very pertinent to the ability to be able to aim passively and not need IR Illum all the time. would you say that if you’re going to use a civ dbal A3 for example, you’ll be able to see more usable Illum from it out to 100yds or so?

 

[Ironman8]

Bottom line, if you can afford filmless, cry once as you will be able to squeeze all the juice needed in those very dark rural environments if and when you need it.

@Victor-TNVC would y’all be able to source a 14 in filmless WP with at least 2000 FOM?

 

[jwramp]

I don’t think it’s the filmed part that is what has people saying the Photonis “Gen2+” tubes are better performers in mixed/high light, is it? People aren’t saying filmed L3s do better in highlight, they say the Echoes/Intens do better (and lose less resolution in higher light environments).

 

[jeffl838]

I don’t think it’s the filmed part that is what has people saying the Photonis “Gen2+” tubes are better performers in mixed/high light, is it? People aren’t saying filmed L3s do better in highlight, they say the Echoes/Intens do better (and lose less resolution in higher light environments).

That's interesting. I'd love to read some actual science on that - if that's true, it would definitely be better for everything urban/suburban.

 

[TNVC_Will]

That's interesting. I'd love to read some actual science on that - if that's true, it would definitely be better for everything urban/suburban.

I can say the Echo's are better for mixed/high light (I had one at the same time as filmless and thin filmed and compared). The halo spec will play a role but it's not like gen 3 is totally useless. If you're in a "serious" situation, that's when a powerful IR illuminator comes into play. From my experience so far, filmless is better in all lighting conditions. It's better overall not just in low light. In higher ambient light the differences aren't as big is all.

It can be hard to show on camera but even in good ambient lighting conditions if you compare filmless and thin filmed, filmless has much better clarity with finer detail and in low light it's even better. That difference may or may not matter to some people but if you want the best then go filmless with good specs (all of them not just FOM - sensitivity, gain, EBI, SNR, resolution, halo)

 

[jwramp]

Agreed with will-1. Not saying the Photonis stuff is better, just trying to clarify what’s being discussed here. Lately people attribute the highlight performance to Photonis tubes, not just ‘filmed’ tubes - I didn’t think you see the same mixed light advantages from filmed L3s or Elbits or whatever. I’ve had great experiences with Echoes, and think their low pricing is awesome. I’ve side by sided them with real nice filmless L3s and there’s certainly a difference. But it’s not huge for most people I would imagine. People who chat about expensive optics and electronics online aren’t most people though...

 

[TNVC_Will]

Agreed with will-1. Not saying the Photonis stuff is better, just trying to clarify what’s being discussed here. Lately people attribute the highlight performance to Photonis tubes, not just ‘filmed’ tubes - I didn’t think you see the same mixed light advantages from filmed L3s or Elbits or whatever. I’ve had great experiences with Echoes, and think their low pricing is awesome. I’ve side by sided them with real nice filmless L3s and there’s certainly a difference. But it’s not huge for most people I would imagine. People who chat about expensive optics and electronics online aren’t most people though...

The Echo's are excellent tubes. It seems most of them are in the 2000-2200 FOM range (mine was 2100). I agree, doing the side by side Echo WP & filmless WP, the Echo was very good, however I wouldn't give up my filmless for one, lol.

 

[WhereNow&How]

20%. You see it in the brightness of a weak laser is now much brighter. Very low powered IR light for close range with vii unit is now good for a couple hundred yards. Big improvement on very dark moonless nights. I think it’s the filmless that allows that low low light performance. But other then the low low light nights the vii was just as clear. Other benefit is you need less IR to light up stuff, less IR less glow for critters to see. Was very satisfied with the pinnacle unit , it did what I needed. But the filmless is a step up, I have a WP unit, but I would think the GP would be just as good.

Thank You Sir. That is some very good information. Have not tried the WP filmless yet, but been thinking about it for a good long time. I spend a lot of time in really dark areas, so maybe in the future I will snag a nice set of high spec WP filmless and give them a whirl myself.

Again, much appreciated.

 

[sheepdog697]

So for you guys with experience with the Filmless, couple of questions (all pertaining to WP):

It seems like filmless is recommended more for rural (no ambient lighting) conditions while thin filmed is suggested for urban mixed lighting. How does filmless perform in that urban setting? Does it completely wash out? Can that be adjusted with gain control?

Second, if you could have a ~2000FOM filmless WP vs a ~2500FOM thin film, which would you pick?

Somewhat of a general question: At what point does higher FOM become a moot point where you just don’t notice the difference on a head worn unit (PVS14 for me)?

1. You will notice the performance gain more from filmless in extremely dark settings. IR illumination or high ambient light can make a 1500 FOM tube and a 2500 FOM tube appear to be about as clear as the other. If you have seen any high resolution pictures through a unfilmed WP tube it was probably with good ambient light or they were using supplement IR illumination. Filmless will not wash out in an urban-setting. Even if you went from a very dark setting to a lighted room it won’t wash out the tube. It’s not like the moves from the 90s where the actors are blinded. I believe all new tubes are autogated. I wouldn’t recommend this by any means but I’m just giving an example. I have only had dtnvgs and rnvgs so the manual gain was never an option for me With unfilmed tubes. The Omni7 pvs-14 I have has manual gain and I don’t really find my self needing to mess with it too much.I have walked my dog in my neighborhood with all the street lights and they do fine(Filmless). Halo is something you would want to consider if you plan on using them in high ambient light settings. If you have a high halo unit if you look into a light in the distance it will wash out part of your FOV. This is with filmless, thin filmed, filmed, etc. Anything with a under 1 is good, and anything under .6 is great (new video from Sam at TNVC explains this). I don’t have photonis or know anyone that does but supposedly the 4G INTENS works well in high ambient light settings. I can’t verify this personally, but I have seen videos on YouTube and it seems to do pretty well.

2. Keep in mind when talked about FOM you are only talking about two specs on the tube. Center resolution and signal to noise. This has been discussed in length on just about every forum. FOM is not the only thing you should consider. Halo as I mentioned, EBI, luminance gain, are all important too.

3. I think you would notice something like a good or bad halo/ebi more than 2000FOM vs 2500FOM. I would think anything with an SNR over 30 and atleast 64 center resolution (1920FOM) and you’re going to have a really nice tube. Granted other specs are good.

 

[Victor-TNVC]

@Victor-TNVC would y’all be able to source a 14 in filmless WP with at least 2000 FOM?

Of course. We do it most of the time.

 

[Victor-TNVC]

That is the exact confirmation one way or another I was looking for especially coming from you. Thank you

Well thank you for the kind words. We've all been using unfilmed from the onset with L3 and they're still the only US manufacturer producing them.

 

[Ironman8]

1. You will notice the performance gain more from filmless in extremely dark settings. IR illumination or high ambient light can make a 1500 FOM tube and a 2500 FOM tube appear to be about as clear as the other. If you have seen any high resolution pictures through a unfilmed WP tube it was probably with good ambient light or they were using supplement IR illumination. Filmless will not wash out in an urban-setting. Even if you went from a very dark setting to a lighted room it won’t wash out the tube. It’s not like the moves from the 90s where the actors are blinded. I believe all new tubes are autogated. I wouldn’t recommend this by any means but I’m just giving an example. I have only had dtnvgs and rnvgs so the manual gain was never an option for me With unfilmed tubes. The Omni7 pvs-14 I have has manual gain and I don’t really find my self needing to mess with it too much.I have walked my dog in my neighborhood with all the street lights and they do fine(Filmless). Halo is something you would want to consider if you plan on using them in high ambient light settings. If you have a high halo unit if you look into a light in the distance it will wash out part of your FOV. This is with filmless, thin filmed, filmed, etc. Anything with a under 1 is good, and anything under .6 is great (new video from Sam at TNVC explains this). I don’t have photonis or know anyone that does but supposedly the 4G INTENS works well in high ambient light settings. I can’t verify this personally, but I have seen videos on YouTube and it seems to do pretty well.

2. Keep in mind when talked about FOM you are only talking about two specs on the tube. Center resolution and signal to noise. This has been discussed in length on just about every forum. FOM is not the only thing you should consider. Halo as I mentioned, EBI, luminance gain, are all important too.

3. I think you would notice something like a good or bad halo/ebi more than 2000FOM vs 2500FOM. I would think anything with an SNR over 30 and atleast 64 center resolution (1920FOM) and you’re going to have a really nice tube. Granted other specs are good.

Great post and thanks for taking the time to write it up. Will definitely help when I’m ready to pull the trigger and know what to ask for.

 

[Hard_ware]

The part about needing less IR Illum to light up stuff is what I was wondering in the back of my mind and very pertinent to the ability to be able to aim passively and not need IR Illum all the time. would you say that if you’re going to use a civ dbal A3 for example, you’ll be able to see more usable Illum from it out to 100yds or so?

I don’t have an A3, but yes you will be able to see any illumination much better, I guess it would be like having a few extra clicks on the manual gain knob when needed. 99% of the time it’s probably not dark enough to matter. But I like the 1% because I can still see under zero lighting and critters have a very hard time.

 

[ryu_sekai]

Can't say if its worth the money but its noticeably better

 

[TheHorta]

The age-old question -- is "X" worth the premium over "Y"? It applies to everything, and the answer... the pain of cost quickly fades, while the pain of buying a lesser product lasts forever.

Is a $15K 'MericaSkeet worth triple the price of a ChinaSkeet?

Yup.

 

[Shreddingaxes]

I’ll be able to give you an opinion on the differences I see between the two within a few days hopefully. I sold my high spec Elbit tubes and have a set of high spec filmless DTNVGs that should be here today. There’s also a thread on arf that compares the two.

 

[Shreddingaxes]

I have been working a lot the last few days so I don’t have a lot of time on the new filmless tubes, but they definitely have better image quality compared to the thin filmed tubes. My Elbit WP tubes I had were awesome tubes and by far had the best image of any filmed tube I’ve ever had. The new tubes are clearer, sharper, and have better contrast, and things pop out more. It’s almost like the filmless tubes are like looking through a perfectly clear windshield, whereas the Elbit tubes are like looking through one with just the slightest amount of fogging. Both tubes are great, but filmless are definitely better. The specs on the new tubes are similar to the filmed, except a way lower EBI and better PS, so they’re similarly specd.

 

[NateSavannah]

So I know "ultra" high specs is a somewhat time related moving target. 2010 vs 2020 "ultra" high would be completely different.

However, as of May 2020 it would be nice to see what your current mindset is of exactly where the minimum threshold is for where "ultra" high specs as referenced above begins for the current Elbit tubes you are seeing.

The above being stated, would you mind filling in the blanks for the following categories so we could have a baseline on where the current minimum line is for entering the "ultra" high specs is in your opinion.

Photocathode Response: _________
EBI: _________
Center Resolution: _________
Signal To Noise: _________
Halo: _________
FOM: _________


Given that you see so many of these tubes, it would be an important data point on what your current assessment of where "ultra" specs begins.

Thanks

Really Hope Someone from TNVC answers this. Would love to see what they say.

 

[NateSavannah]

I’m on the hunt for a high FOM filmless 14 with the new NL914C battery housing. Hope this memorial day treats me well.

saw steele industries posted a few on Instagram in the last couple days.

 

[rlsmith1]

Did we just cross into 2022 or jump back to 2020?

Anyone have insight on where Omni IX stands? Hoping to have the $ to get unfilmed binos before too long so curious where everything is at.

I'm not in a huge rush cause I can keep trucking with my dual Elbit 14's