Thermal sensor size and micron pixel pitch which scope or monocular is right for me?
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 07. 2019
- In this video, I will try and help you understand the difference in thermal sensor size, display size, pixel pitch, degrees FOV, and what you might want to consider when choosing your new thermal night sight, monocular or binocular. Need additional help? Call me toll free 877-806-2977
Clearest information I have seen yet. Thank you
Your vids are awesome. No bs about em. You had any time behind the xg50 yet? It'd be cool to hear your take on it.
Thanks for the great video! Definitely understand pixel pitch and sensor resolution a lot more - Just wondering if there was much physical size difference between the screens on the Axion XM30S and the Axion XM30 KEY model - Is the key model’s viewfinder screen much smaller than the XM30S? Also how do these viewfinder screens compare against the physical screen sizes of the Thermions? Cheers, Mike
The AMOLED scree appears about 60% larger than the LCOS. This was represented in the FOV vs magnification naming in the XM30 4x vs XM30 Key 2.5X. FOV was identical in these two units, the increase in magnification naming was a result of the physical appearance of the screen being that much larger. .The Key models use what appears to be a much smaller LCOS display. I am not sure the display itself is physically that much smaller but they certainly don't magnify it as much with the ocular lens. I am guessing this is a product of just not being able to magnify the lower resolution LCOS display as high without seeing more "imperfections" The XM30S uses basically what appears to be a further improved version of the original XM30 units 1024x768 AMOLED display, the Key units both use a 960x720 LCOS display. The "physical appearance of the display in the XM30S is very similar to what you see in a Thermion however the image while very useable certainly isn't as clear with the smaller axion objective lens. Don't get me wrong, for the money, the Key units are great at detection but they are certainly more friendly to younger eyes.
On a atn 640 4x40 how do u set the pixels in it no video
Very informative ty.
Thanks, If you have any questions or need help feel free to call or email anytime. 877-806-2977 or fox@foxoptic.com Travis Fox Fox Optic
Great video. Learning more each day about these thermals for a potential purchase. Since I see you are excellent about responding, I have a question or two.
Which scope would be most price efficient with the following: a 640x 480 sensor, a 640 resolution (or better) viewing screen with a good or great field of view? Thanks in advance for your time.
Personally, (assuming you are asking about a weapons mounted "scope")I like the new Thermions XP's for the money. 640x480 sensor, 1024x768 OLED color display. The XP38 is 4499.97 or the XP50 is 4999.97 for the kit on our website. (Kit 2-APS3 batteries, QD mount, and Cover) The XP38 is 1.5X-12X with 16.3° H base magnification FOV and the XP50 is 2.0X-16X with 12.4° H base magnification FOV. Long story short, either of these has tremendous FOV coupled with good magnification clarity produced by both a rich 640x480 sensor and a very high-quality display. Using Pulsar's PIP it's like having 2 scopes in one. If you have any questions you can call me anytime 877-806-2977 Thanks Travis Fox Fox Optic
Thank you for your time and reply. I will have to give you a call sometime.
Travis, love your videos. You should think about upgrading your video and audio production. It would be worth it for everyone considering how informative you are, you'd most likely get more views.
Thanks for the kind words and suggestions. I am going to be working on both, I recently purchased a Rode Lav mic setup, hopefully, the new videos will have much better sound in the very near future, I will be working on video after that.
@@foxoptic5887 But whatever you do, don't change that intro music!
Great video as always, Travis! To my eye, all things being equal, the 12 micron pixel pitch seems much better picture quality (ie. XG50) than the 17 micron pixel pitch. Do you concur?
Honestly, I think it is a more complicated question. For starters most manufacturers pair the smaller sensor micron size with either smaller lenses at shorter focal lengths or higher magnification at the same focal length compared to the next pixel size up. This is the primary advantage of the reduction in pixel pitch, "smaller" sensors allow smaller lens exit pupils. With this said, it really depends on what we are comparing. The XG50 is a 12 micron sub 50 mK 1.2 aperture 42mm lens at 3X. It produces high resolution and crisp subject images but has a narrower FOV, shallower depth of field and less background detail than the new XP50 Thermion Pro unit. The Pro uses the new sub 25 mK 17 micron 640x480 sensor at 1.0 aperture with 50mm lens at 2X which provides some impressive characteristics. Namely a very sharp broader image that deals with weather shifts better. It has wider FOV, larger depth of field, and a generally smoother image. With this said, the XG does provide better image detail (ID range max 20% better) on properly focused subjects at longer distances in good weather conditions. (As weather conditions deteriorate the XP50 PRO catches up) They are both outstanding and versatile units, I personally find the XP50 PRO to be more versatile and better suited to my conditions as I would rather keep the 33% additional FOV than have the extra 12% average gain in ID and more focal adjustments. I will tell you that I am yet to see a 2X 35mm 12 micron that will match the Pulsar 50mm 17 micron 25mK image. On paper they should be a dead match, but it always seems like something new crops up that makes them less smooth. (Signal noise, calibration issues, artifacts, etc...)
Hi Travis
Thanks for your info so far on the thermion scopes, have you had a chance to check out the Xm 30 ?
I shoot hogs out to 150m max with a 6.5 creedmoor. Do you think the xm 30 would be a good choice for this situation?
Cheers josh
Joshua, As far as I am aware, nobody in the USA has seen the XM30 yet. I don't think that the XM30 model is even supposed to be "released" until sometime in late August or September. Looking at the specs, I don't think that 150M would be an issue, I have guys taking coyotes beyond that with the Core RXQ30V, which is only 1.6X base and I expect the XM30 Thermion to outperform it fairly substantially. The Thermion's detection number is almost 60% higher than Core's 875 at 1350 yds, the ID's should follow that. The Core seems pretty good in the 150-200 yd positive ID range on game of that size, so I would expect the Thermion to achieve 250-300 in decent conditions. The Thermion will have the new 12-micron sensor, almost double the base magnification and the 1024x768 display screen. The display screen doesn't increase in appearance/size by the exact proportions, just the resolution; example 640 vs 1024, the "DPI" is almost double, however, the combination of the new ocular and the new display also have it appearing what seems to be about 25% "physically" larger. This helps with the detection increase also. One other note, the XM30 is going to be a fixed focus unit, however, I really wouldn't mind that provided I wouldn't have many shots inside of 30 yards or so. Again, this is the only Thermion I have not seen yet and these are just estimates based on the specs. that Pulsar has released. (Their data is usually spot-on accurate so I don't anticipate any surprises) Thanks, Travis Fox Fox Optic
Why is fixed focus on the XM30 a disadvantage when target is inside 30 yards? Or did i misunderstood this?ThanksLeo
@@LeoBram1959 I still have not received or seen the XM30, however in theory the reason extremely close focus may be an issue is that in order to get focus to infinity the manufacturers typically must have a higher close focus point, this combined with the units higher 3x base magnification vs say the 1.6x found on the RXQ30V Core has me believing that the first 20-30 yards are going to be a bit fuzzy. Should be clear from that point on. Again this is just a guess based on the numbers and what I have seen in other units.
Hello Fox OpticFirstly thanks for you videos that helps me and a lot others to understand the products.I was contacted by my local Pulsar dealer (In Denmark) today, because I have a pending order for the XM30. I was informed that due to some problems with internal parts, the XM30 will not be launched as planned this year and not as the XM 30 design that we have seen on adverts.I do not know if you can confirm this?ThanksLeo
@@LeoBram1959 I have not heard this from the US distributor yet, however I do know they have not received any units yet, so I assume it is possible. I know demand for the other models is high and I am having some difficulty getting enough to fill orders, I assumed they were putting it off till they got caught up with demand for the other models. I believe my rep has a meeting with them this week so I should know for sure in a week or so.
The sensor size must be coupled with a lens which can project to the size of the sensor. Larger sensors can (it sucks) digitally zoom more than the smaller sensor size. None of the thermal scopes have optical zooms as your optical scopes do have. As for as pixel size. The larger the pixel size, the more light can be captured. You can cram too many pixels into too small a space. When that happens I,age quality will degrade. Always when comparing sensors, always know the physical sensor size. For example a small physical size of sensor with a 320 x ? can possible perform better than a 640x? In the same physical size of sensor. Pixel count is not always a good indicator or quality. The sensor size and pixel count is key. If you have a physical larger size of sensor with an increased number of pixels at the larger physical ( micron) pixel size then, you have found a product whose manufacturing is on the up and up. Nikon is the worst at screwing the consumer into thinking pixel count is king. Trust me as a professional photographer for 52 years, find out what the physical dimension of the sensor is. Find out the micron size of each pixel. Find out what the pixel count is. Make sure the lens is matched properly to the physical sensor size. When seeing a lens size, it is not the diameter of the lens quoted, it is the mm of the focal length. So if you see, for example one model having a 25 mm lens vs a 35 mm lens, this is focal length not maximum aperture or light gathering ability. Also the objective, this should be as high as is available. I has to be tack sharp with its own resolution which is high enough that you cannot resolve each dot, if possible. There is a guide to what a human eye can resolve un aided and it should be beyond this. Lucky today with the madness surrounding the mirror-less cameras, this quality is readily available. Nuff said.
Optical zoom now on the new rico
New optical magnification on the iray is the wave of the future
The final optical magnification, focal length, lens diameter, and sensor combination set mechanical limits on top end performance. (The bottom suffers) It creates additional mechanical complexity and adds size weight vs. larger sensor/multiple sensor combinations that essentially establish the same end result with better reliability and less weight. It could be worse, 1 of the other companies braggs about a 640x360 with "optical zooming" but really just zooms on their Chinese display.
@@foxoptic5887 yeah I've seen that one and it's poop for sure!
Where as once I was lost, now I am still lost
Feel free to call me anytime with questions 877 806 2977
@@foxoptic5887 thank you very kind Sir, I think I will, what time zone are you in? please and thank you, your expertise is so very much appreciated
@@williammackey7243 CST
You sound like Bush Jr HAHAHHAHA :)
math is not the strongest his skills. 24 for 17 is not square, but diagonal, if pixel has equal dimensions. for 12 - 16.97
actually 17 is not width, but pixel pitch - i.e. step between pixels
24mm sq on the 17 micron sensor footprint vs 16.5 on the 12 was according to the ULIS sensor spec data, I didn't calculate it..