Another great video! We like your videos because they address details with explanations that most users don’t cover. From our testing, green phosphor has better contrast - even when the FOM/Gains are similar. 4G very high FOM (above 2500) Green Phosphor is what we use in our intensified digital night vision cameras, because the GP input to the CMOS provides more contrast to the CMOS, which enables maximum performance (output) since the image output from the CMOS is B&W. In terms of that testing summary, you flashed on the screen it would have been better if the organization doing that test had concentrated on object recognition in an obstructed environment instead of having a goal of shot placement using laser designators. The way they ran the test, the soldier’s brain function/hand to eye coordination was focused completely on shot placement. With the use of a laser designator, it wouldn’t make that much difference if you were using WP or GP as the soldier would focus solely on the spot on the target, and the results pretty much indicated that it really didn’t make a difference. Perhaps if the goal of the test was identifying objects or reading letters/numbers it would have produced a different result. With that said, even US Army testing has shown that it doesn’t make a difference to most people - however, it does make a difference within our own testing, which is why our intensified cameras use GP - and for other environments we use a variety of phosphor coatings in different colors based on the use of the image intensifier. At the end of the day (or night) what we always tell people is that everyone's eyes and brains are calibrated differently for image interpretation, and what looks best to them may not apply to someone else. Plus, if one adds other elements to the mix, such as our 50-degree objective lenses, it changes even more how the brain interprets contrast/resolution. Therefore, people should always get what looks best to them at the price they can afford no matter who makes the gear. After December 2023 ECHO tubes will phase out and only the higher end 4G tubes will be available (in varying FOMs), because of fewer fall-outs.
The green tubes are really overlooked for how well they perform. Thanks for the additional information and context once again. Can't wait to see what you guys are cooking up in the future.
Do you bond your CMOS to the fiber optic bundle or use a relay lens? I'm highly interested in making my own non afocal camera adapter and wonder how to correct for the rounded fiber optic output or whether I should contact Schott for a Sensor to fiber bond. On your website I can't really see what the cricket device uses, appears to be a relay lens though
@@ZIEKedit Only when the US opens its ITAR floodgates or we get more serious european competition for Photonis. I really hate their monopoly, ITTs should not cost that much anymore. Especially with production speeding up because of Ukraine
they really are just "different", i dont really think one is better than the other. Its truly a preference matter. A while ago I got to look through some SOCOM spec L3 UFWP tubes and I was so excited and the first difference right away was obviously the color. It was a pretty dark night, no moon, overcasted, we were 40 miles away from the nearest town at this event and I did see more of that "Black and white" look to them. I have an Omni 8 L3 tube which I have tested along side some pretty high spec elbit and L3 tubes, so I am very confident when I say my Omni 8 tube certainly exceeds minimum DoD specs, especially in gain and SNR - I put my GP omni 8 tube right next to that WP tube and....the image was deff the same in terms of what I could see and not see. Because "white" almost feels like a damn flashlight is shined into my eye...I had to turn the gain down on the WP unit so it wasnt so bright. It wasnt so bright as in "I can see more than my GP tube", it was just the color of the WP tube was to intense to my eyes, that I had to turn down the gain. Its like looking at a website that doesnt have a dark theme at 2 in the morning, you have to turn "night mode" on your phone so its not too much on your eyes. I find with GP, I actually have *less* eye strain and my entire military career...never once got a headache because of my nods. I got headaches from the helmet itself and long term use during operations. I didn't wear it JUST at night...its obviously worn during the day aswell. WIth WP, i saw why people love manual gain. Like I said, I had to turn the gain down again simply just because of the color being more sensitive to my eyes and being more "bright". Not because it had more "gain". With GP? I use ABC on my device. I removed the pigtails off my tubes. I prefer ABC...but with GP. Deff not WP. And, to your point, GP is cheaper so I run GP not because I like it "better", but because it was much more cost effective. Omni 8 tubes when I bought them were about 1200 still in the package. Elbit XLSH tubes were in the 2500+ range. For the price of 1 WP tube, I got 2 GP tubes. If I want a more "WP look"? I just throw a filter on my device. I know LLI has their filters (which I own), but if you really want an actual "WP" look? Get blue filters on ebay. MUCH MUCH more WP looking and actually dont cut down on the light to your eye than purple filters do. As you said, all this comes down to preference. Do I prefer WP? Yes. Do I 'NEED" WP? No. I chased wanted WP tubes so bad until I looked through them, I realized id be spending thousands to change out my tubes...literally for a different color of phosphor...for what? To Be cool? Nah. LOL until the money is there to throw at it...Ill be sticking to my GP Omni 8 tubes for a long, long time.
Good shit brotha. I've been going back and forth between green v white phos tube's in regards to overall bang for buck, and your video has helped me come to a decision. For the cost and it's intended use, gen 3 green seems the best route. Thanks again.
My take-away is that white phosphor "feels" more natural and is less harsh on the eye, whereas green is harsher on the eye and less "natural" feeling, but allows you to see greater contrast and detail in extreme low-light conditions. WP might be great for general use, whereas green would be helpful for picking up the outline of things trying not to be seen.
I've got several hundred hours on green phosphorous NVG from the military. My only experience with white phosporous is the rifle scope my dad and I bought for coyotes. don't know if it's my eyes, or the time I have only green nogs, but I prefer the green so far.
Thanks for the upload, your other upload(s) have been instrumental in me making a well informed decision on my purchase. Went for BNVD 1432s with NVT5 WP tubes, 1800 FOM. Not the greatest but pretty decent for someone just starting out and honestly, probably wouldnt see or appreciate the difference at my current level of use anyway.
I don't think prices will fall that much for new commercial GP tubes. GP tubes are a little cheaper right now, but manufacturers are also making fewer of them since the industry has moved fully on to WP.
Within the American market that may be true but outside of the US green production is still steady for now. However, this is a rapidly evolving industry and time will tell if the context of this video changes in the future.
@@IntrepidDivergencethe one that works for you. not everyone is the same and not everyone has the same free money. i would love white but cant afford them.
I finally got a white phos set up and i was shocked my green 14 can see in darker conditions up close its the difference between tripping over the coffee table or dog and not
@@coldharboursupplyI really appreciate your willingness to help! I'm really happy with my 2337 WP Echo. Seeing this almost makes me want to buy a green as well, but there is not much of a use for me. It would still be nice to have, though. 😂
My 2600 FOM Photonis absolutely wrecks my Omni 7 cripsy GP contract tube in low light. They human eye sees low gain much much better. He talked about that in the beginning but to really see it, its not this "Night and Day" different shown on video. @@Mr_Glenn
I imagine that the reason we see green more accurately is simply because we have three cones(well most of us) and all three of those cones have a range, they see in, that is almost like a gaussian distribution over blue, green, and red regions of the EM spectrum. And since green in right in the center it means no only do you hit the green cone right at it's peak, you also have both the red and the blue cones picking up some of the color as well, so effectively your brain is getting more information to work with to discern the scene. Where say if you picked the red region, then the blue cones would not really be picking up any information, leaving only the green and red cones to try to discern what your eyes are seeing. I however can also understand how despite that being the case, eye strain from looking at a green monitor is gonna likely be annoying. Anyone who used to use the only apple II+ machines in the day, or most old PCs, all used green monitors as well. However I do agree that when you look away from the screen, after looking at a green screen, your eyes adjust quicker to seeing regular dark surroundings, then if you have been staring at a bright white screen. So despite eye strain being greater, it could make the difference in warfare if your eyes adjust quicker to seeing your dark surroundings then if you remove your headgear with white phosphorous and now you are effectively blind for a moment waiting for your eyes and brain to be able to adjust. Again it likely has to do with how much each of the cones has been stimulated and for how long, etc....Or it could just be purely a neuron thing, I guess if you observed how big someone's iris was after viewing green vs white phosphorous screen, and measured how big the iris was immediately after removing the headgear. It could be literally that the brain is telling your eyes to keep your iris smaller for longer with the white. Else if there is no difference in iris, but there is a perceived difference from user testing that your eyes adjust quicker, it must be how much light has been simulating the cones and rods with green vs white phosphorous... it's interesting video, thanks!
Great job, but .... The description is wrong. 10:20 there is 0.01 mfL and at 10:38 there is 0.05 mfL (shown as darker), and at 11:01 there is 0.01 mfL again (described as even darker than earlier). And there's something wrong with the system gain measured I'm affraid. For SG 4500 when optics is standard military (i.e. Carson) PR must have been over 1700 uA/W to give this high system gain. Photonis doesn't produce this powerfull photocathodes yet. For the second NVG with SG about 5360 with ratio of tubes luminance gain between the two about 1.38 photcathode response should be extreeemly poor for the second tube in comparison if the optics are similar.. :-)
Thanks for the feedback. Mentioned the editing error in the video description. As for the SG the Hoffman reads what it reads. Sample size of one and all. Trying to keep settings consistent. There's no user input for the system gain tests of the Hoffman other than the unit calibration when you put the probe on the lenses. Gen 3 typically puts 8K+ SG so Photonis pushing 4-6K is not too out of the ordinary given the difference between Multi-Alkali tubes and GaAs ones. If you can procure some better results we would love to see it.
I'm not a biologist, but I'm an astronomer and I **believe** the reason the human eye sees the most shades might be similar for digital cameras. Digital cameras are more sensitive to green, because camera sensors (either CCD or CMOS) use something called a Bayer array, and 50% of all the pixels on a color camera sensor are green. This obviously biases the camera to green light, to match our own eyes bias to the color. Our eye's cones, like a digital camera, also come in three types. Based off the digital camera problem, you'd probably think that the human eye would have the most cone cells, just like how the digital camera sensor has the most green pixels, but that isn't the case. The camera sensor is like this to match the sensitivity of our eyes, but not the ratio of green cone cells to red and blue in the human eye. In terms of physics, there are no such thing as "red" or "green" or "blue" light. Light (depending on how it was made) can be any wavelength. Both camera sensors and our eyes are spectrometers, meaning it's able to sort light as either red, green, or blue (for long, medium, and short wavelengths). But neither our eyes or camera sensors are perfect at this. It often sorts light as red-green, or green-blue, or even red-green-blue. It's also important to know that light has different energy depending on it's color. Reddish light has less energy than blueish light, with green in between. How does this relate to the question? Red cone cells are not very sensitive and only work over a small region in the visible spectrum (actually digital cameras are natively way more sensitive to red than our eyes, and so they actually place blue-green pass filter over the sensor to reduce red light), and it has less energy too. To compensate, our eyes have about 65% red cones, but even then we do not see reds and infra-reds very well. Meanwhile, blue cones also work over a very narrow region, but Blue and UV light is much more energetic than red or green. As a result, our eyes have only 2% blue cones, so we don't see blues very well either. Green cones, as it turns out, are the big winners. They work over a larger region than they probably should. It's response regions massively overlaps with both blue and red cone regions, and is about 31% of our cones are green. This means we're very biased to seeing green light. But, why are we biased to green light? Because the sun is mostly green. Think of the sun's light emission profile as a really skewed bell curve (it's called a black body curve for those interested). At one end you have red light, at the other blue. Because our atmosphere absorbs or reflects most of the very blue (ultraviolet) and very red light (infrared), and due to something called diffraction, the "visible spectrum" becomes the optimal region to "see in", and the brightest part of that window is green. This reason is also why plants are green. It's weird to think about, but plants being blueish-green means they are throwing away light from the peak wavelength of light and the most energetic light. There's lots of speculation as to why this is, but the simplistic answer is it's probably a form of sunblock, it prevents them from getting more energy than they need need at any moment and from burning up. So based off all of this then, I'd assume that the white color would be best because it's using the whole eye. While green is only using rods and green cones, white will be using rods and the red, green, and blue cones. But, since green overlaps so much with red and blue cones, it does not matter much.
Incidentally, this is a potential flaw in your experiment, as the sensor of the camera will be skewed towards preferring the green. If you ever revisit this test, something to look at are monochrome cameras. There are lots of consumer astronomy monochrome cameras worth looking at, because not only can you use the whole sensor with things like the red blocking filter removed, companies like ZWO publish spectral response graphs, meaning you can equalize the camera exposure to match each nvg. But in tests like these, all that really matter is what the human eye sees, so an even better test is to just get a bunch of people who are experienced with these goggles, and ask their opinions.
Do you have a recommendation for a pair of NVGs for star gazing? I know I want a gen 3 tube but not sure about color and other specs. Looking to put it on a telescope as well so any info you have would be appreciated!
@@dimitrioscamacho6131 From what I've seen, the standard suggestion is either the TNV/PVS-14 or TNV/PVS-7. Tele Vue makes an adapter for these so you can attach them to one of their eyepieces. If you can find a different gen 2+ or 3 for less, that's also an option, though it will be on you to find a way to adapt it to a telescope. Something I've found is that you can't remove the lens on an NVG and attach that to a telescope like you might a camera. It's possible to make a custom optic to fit any telescope of a specific focal length without needing an eyepiece, but you'd need to know a little about optics to build it. As a quick overview, the lens on an NVG is doing two things; it's gathering light/creating an image, and then it's collimating the light (basically straightening the light path). This collimated light is sent through the nvg amplifier, and then it's decollimated by the rear optic back into an image. In terms of conveniences though, it's probably better to just go the standard route with Tele Vue (though it's a little expensive since I believe you're required to buy a Tele Vue eyepiece that itself costs around 200 dollars or more, but if you're already spending over a 1000 dollars on the goggles it's not a huge deal more I suppose). Alternatively, if you're good with a 3d printer you can design your own adapter and then attach it to a specific lens. You'd want to use a wide-field lens though, the cheapest are made by a company called GSO, their SUPERVIEW eyepieces are similar (but not quite as good) to the same ones made by Tele Vue for nvg.
You will get some loss of brightness an image with any filter you put on your lens. We would say you get slightly less brightness than the WP Echos we posted here, so it brings it down a notch. That being said, you also don't get that eyestrain you might get, and it lowers the signature of the NOD considerably. It is removable so for users needing max gain, you can simply remove it. Personally, I find that because the Echo GPs are not as bright or as harsh as most GaAs (gen 3) tubes, I run without it. YMMV.
@@MOAON_AABE your paying for a warranty. The tube won't go bad for a long time and there are tubes out there that last 30+ years. Heck even some gen 1 tubes still exist. So I'm my opinion the warranty is not very important.
White phos auto corrects to white phosphorus haha. I’ve looked through some high spec green tubes that look freaking amazing. Shouldn’t we all be buying supergain tubes then?
Bluish emission of P45 stimulates rod cells, which are far more efficient than cones. The notion of P43 having higher gain based on photopic daylight weighting is thrown into doubt.
We always encourage buyers to do their own research, some research papers we read show the benefits of p45, some show the benefits of P43. I still prefer P45 but I would say phosphor choice alone is not the only determinative matter when choosing nods.
Human vision hue discrimination is relatively weak in "green". It has the best spectral discrimination between green and red (noticing when fruit is ripe) as well as blue-green. The GP region of 540-550 nm is the weakest area of hue discrimination outside of the spectrum ends. Edit: the premise of these test is wrong. You are not simulating human vision with a camera.
Nor do we claim to simulate human vision with a camera as that's impossible as we've implied. We just wanted to see the performance of the tubes in some environments, mostly looking at the gain spec differences and how that would change the image between WP and GP Photonis Tubes.
dude he was just clearly trying to share the difference from green and white. It doesn’t matter what the icon see versus the camera because we can clearly see on camera green is the better option for seeing in darker places
@@mrgrump2534 what I've learnt in 6 months since posting that is that for a given electron energy level, fewer photons are produced by WP, because blue is more energetic. There are also very few S cones in the fovea which results in poor blue spatial resolution. The greatest blue resolution is 10° off the visual center. P43 green is far better in all respects and production of P45 seems unnecessary.
![Chinese Autogated NNVT vs Photonis Echo | Are these NVG tubes any good? [4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/66sOQ0TkXb8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Chinese Autogated NNVT vs Photonis Echo | Are these NVG tubes any good? [4K]](/img/tr.png)
Another great video! We like your videos because they address details with explanations that most users don’t cover.
From our testing, green phosphor has better contrast - even when the FOM/Gains are similar. 4G very high FOM (above 2500) Green Phosphor is what we use in our intensified digital night vision cameras, because the GP input to the CMOS provides more contrast to the CMOS, which enables maximum performance (output) since the image output from the CMOS is B&W.
In terms of that testing summary, you flashed on the screen it would have been better if the organization doing that test had concentrated on object recognition in an obstructed environment instead of having a goal of shot placement using laser designators. The way they ran the test, the soldier’s brain function/hand to eye coordination was focused completely on shot placement. With the use of a laser designator, it wouldn’t make that much difference if you were using WP or GP as the soldier would focus solely on the spot on the target, and the results pretty much indicated that it really didn’t make a difference. Perhaps if the goal of the test was identifying objects or reading letters/numbers it would have produced a different result. With that said, even US Army testing has shown that it doesn’t make a difference to most people - however, it does make a difference within our own testing, which is why our intensified cameras use GP - and for other environments we use a variety of phosphor coatings in different colors based on the use of the image intensifier. At the end of the day (or night) what we always tell people is that everyone's eyes and brains are calibrated differently for image interpretation, and what looks best to them may not apply to someone else. Plus, if one adds other elements to the mix, such as our 50-degree objective lenses, it changes even more how the brain interprets contrast/resolution. Therefore, people should always get what looks best to them at the price they can afford no matter who makes the gear. After December 2023 ECHO tubes will phase out and only the higher end 4G tubes will be available (in varying FOMs), because of fewer fall-outs.
The green tubes are really overlooked for how well they perform.
Thanks for the additional information and context once again. Can't wait to see what you guys are cooking up in the future.
Do you bond your CMOS to the fiber optic bundle or use a relay lens? I'm highly interested in making my own non afocal camera adapter and wonder how to correct for the rounded fiber optic output or whether I should contact Schott for a Sensor to fiber bond. On your website I can't really see what the cricket device uses, appears to be a relay lens though
It is bonded directly to the fiber optic bundle.@@wylnd
Does less dropouts and higher yields mean that 4G will be cheaper (compared to today)?
@@ZIEKedit Only when the US opens its ITAR floodgates or we get more serious european competition for Photonis. I really hate their monopoly, ITTs should not cost that much anymore. Especially with production speeding up because of Ukraine
Still waiting for amber phosphor tubes, truly the coziest color as proven by Fallout New Vegas.
Amber phosphor tubes, Project Nevada, Darker Nights, and the Anti Materiel rifle.
Life was simpler back then.
Ahh a cultured individual
😂
Low light innovations sells an amber filter for the PVS-14 and NVG-40/50
The Wilcox Amber filter for the PVS 14 made the tube look completely amber, I really disliked it and removed immediately lol
they really are just "different", i dont really think one is better than the other. Its truly a preference matter. A while ago I got to look through some SOCOM spec L3 UFWP tubes and I was so excited and the first difference right away was obviously the color. It was a pretty dark night, no moon, overcasted, we were 40 miles away from the nearest town at this event and I did see more of that "Black and white" look to them. I have an Omni 8 L3 tube which I have tested along side some pretty high spec elbit and L3 tubes, so I am very confident when I say my Omni 8 tube certainly exceeds minimum DoD specs, especially in gain and SNR - I put my GP omni 8 tube right next to that WP tube and....the image was deff the same in terms of what I could see and not see. Because "white" almost feels like a damn flashlight is shined into my eye...I had to turn the gain down on the WP unit so it wasnt so bright. It wasnt so bright as in "I can see more than my GP tube", it was just the color of the WP tube was to intense to my eyes, that I had to turn down the gain. Its like looking at a website that doesnt have a dark theme at 2 in the morning, you have to turn "night mode" on your phone so its not too much on your eyes. I find with GP, I actually have *less* eye strain and my entire military career...never once got a headache because of my nods. I got headaches from the helmet itself and long term use during operations. I didn't wear it JUST at night...its obviously worn during the day aswell.
WIth WP, i saw why people love manual gain. Like I said, I had to turn the gain down again simply just because of the color being more sensitive to my eyes and being more "bright". Not because it had more "gain". With GP? I use ABC on my device. I removed the pigtails off my tubes. I prefer ABC...but with GP. Deff not WP. And, to your point, GP is cheaper so I run GP not because I like it "better", but because it was much more cost effective. Omni 8 tubes when I bought them were about 1200 still in the package. Elbit XLSH tubes were in the 2500+ range. For the price of 1 WP tube, I got 2 GP tubes. If I want a more "WP look"? I just throw a filter on my device. I know LLI has their filters (which I own), but if you really want an actual "WP" look? Get blue filters on ebay. MUCH MUCH more WP looking and actually dont cut down on the light to your eye than purple filters do.
As you said, all this comes down to preference. Do I prefer WP? Yes. Do I 'NEED" WP? No. I chased wanted WP tubes so bad until I looked through them, I realized id be spending thousands to change out my tubes...literally for a different color of phosphor...for what? To Be cool? Nah. LOL until the money is there to throw at it...Ill be sticking to my GP Omni 8 tubes for a long, long time.
Makes sense to me
Good shit brotha. I've been going back and forth between green v white phos tube's in regards to overall bang for buck, and your video has helped me come to a decision. For the cost and it's intended use, gen 3 green seems the best route. Thanks again.
My take-away is that white phosphor "feels" more natural and is less harsh on the eye, whereas green is harsher on the eye and less "natural" feeling, but allows you to see greater contrast and detail in extreme low-light conditions. WP might be great for general use, whereas green would be helpful for picking up the outline of things trying not to be seen.
I've got several hundred hours on green phosphorous NVG from the military. My only experience with white phosporous is the rifle scope my dad and I bought for coyotes. don't know if it's my eyes, or the time I have only green nogs, but I prefer the green so far.
Wow, I'm surprised by the benefits of green. Especially in the forest! So much more shading.
Yep! We do think the Photonis green tubes are very overlooked for some of the benefits they provide.
Thanks for the upload, your other upload(s) have been instrumental in me making a well informed decision on my purchase. Went for BNVD 1432s with NVT5 WP tubes, 1800 FOM. Not the greatest but pretty decent for someone just starting out and honestly, probably wouldnt see or appreciate the difference at my current level of use anyway.
Great to hear!
This is an excellent video, really making me feel good about picking up GP!
Very informative video. Thank you!
Having used both in the military, I prefer green.
I don't think prices will fall that much for new commercial GP tubes. GP tubes are a little cheaper right now, but manufacturers are also making fewer of them since the industry has moved fully on to WP.
Within the American market that may be true but outside of the US green production is still steady for now. However, this is a rapidly evolving industry and time will tell if the context of this video changes in the future.
this is a great example on why you should have thermal. scan with thermal and identify with NVG.
Which color phosphor would you choose for identifying with night vision?
@@IntrepidDivergencethe one that works for you. not everyone is the same and not everyone has the same free money. i would love white but cant afford them.
Welcome to Dubai gentlemen.
I finally got a white phos set up and i was shocked my green 14 can see in darker conditions up close its the difference between tripping over the coffee table or dog and not
Unbelievable, you sold me back on greens... I have 2x pvs14 in white, which are awesome.. but that gain
This was the video that was promised to me after my reddit post. Nice!
We live to give.
@@coldharboursupplyI really appreciate your willingness to help! I'm really happy with my 2337 WP Echo. Seeing this almost makes me want to buy a green as well, but there is not much of a use for me. It would still be nice to have, though. 😂
My 2600 FOM Photonis absolutely wrecks my Omni 7 cripsy GP contract tube in low light. They human eye sees low gain much much better. He talked about that in the beginning but to really see it, its not this "Night and Day" different shown on video. @@Mr_Glenn
As usual perfect video but I would like a video: echo white vs gen3 omni8 green !!!! Please!!!!!
I imagine that the reason we see green more accurately is simply because we have three cones(well most of us) and all three of those cones have a range, they see in, that is almost like a gaussian distribution over blue, green, and red regions of the EM spectrum. And since green in right in the center it means no only do you hit the green cone right at it's peak, you also have both the red and the blue cones picking up some of the color as well, so effectively your brain is getting more information to work with to discern the scene. Where say if you picked the red region, then the blue cones would not really be picking up any information, leaving only the green and red cones to try to discern what your eyes are seeing.
I however can also understand how despite that being the case, eye strain from looking at a green monitor is gonna likely be annoying. Anyone who used to use the only apple II+ machines in the day, or most old PCs, all used green monitors as well. However I do agree that when you look away from the screen, after looking at a green screen, your eyes adjust quicker to seeing regular dark surroundings, then if you have been staring at a bright white screen. So despite eye strain being greater, it could make the difference in warfare if your eyes adjust quicker to seeing your dark surroundings then if you remove your headgear with white phosphorous and now you are effectively blind for a moment waiting for your eyes and brain to be able to adjust. Again it likely has to do with how much each of the cones has been stimulated and for how long, etc....Or it could just be purely a neuron thing, I guess if you observed how big someone's iris was after viewing green vs white phosphorous screen, and measured how big the iris was immediately after removing the headgear. It could be literally that the brain is telling your eyes to keep your iris smaller for longer with the white. Else if there is no difference in iris, but there is a perceived difference from user testing that your eyes adjust quicker, it must be how much light has been simulating the cones and rods with green vs white phosphorous... it's interesting video, thanks!
Great job, but .... The description is wrong. 10:20 there is 0.01 mfL and at 10:38 there is 0.05 mfL (shown as darker), and at 11:01 there is 0.01 mfL again (described as even darker than earlier). And there's something wrong with the system gain measured I'm affraid. For SG 4500 when optics is standard military (i.e. Carson) PR must have been over 1700 uA/W to give this high system gain. Photonis doesn't produce this powerfull photocathodes yet. For the second NVG with SG about 5360 with ratio of tubes luminance gain between the two about 1.38 photcathode response should be extreeemly poor for the second tube in comparison if the optics are similar.. :-)
Thanks for the feedback. Mentioned the editing error in the video description.
As for the SG the Hoffman reads what it reads. Sample size of one and all. Trying to keep settings consistent. There's no user input for the system gain tests of the Hoffman other than the unit calibration when you put the probe on the lenses. Gen 3 typically puts 8K+ SG so Photonis pushing 4-6K is not too out of the ordinary given the difference between Multi-Alkali tubes and GaAs ones.
If you can procure some better results we would love to see it.
Great video. Thank you
I think white phosphorus is definitely better for spotting movement.
I think white phosphorus is better at ending movement
Nope, they’re about the same. Depends on the person.
Dude, literally just proved you wrong in this video
Good video
Makes me wish I’d gone GP for my ECHO over WP 😢
Great video
you guys should get your hands on a sionyx opsen and put it through the testing regime
Was issued a AN/PVS-7s during Desert Storm and they were B/W and much easier to drive with than the older dual green ones.
I notice you guys don’t carry the green for Jerry 31s.
I'm not a biologist, but I'm an astronomer and I **believe** the reason the human eye sees the most shades might be similar for digital cameras. Digital cameras are more sensitive to green, because camera sensors (either CCD or CMOS) use something called a Bayer array, and 50% of all the pixels on a color camera sensor are green. This obviously biases the camera to green light, to match our own eyes bias to the color.
Our eye's cones, like a digital camera, also come in three types. Based off the digital camera problem, you'd probably think that the human eye would have the most cone cells, just like how the digital camera sensor has the most green pixels, but that isn't the case. The camera sensor is like this to match the sensitivity of our eyes, but not the ratio of green cone cells to red and blue in the human eye.
In terms of physics, there are no such thing as "red" or "green" or "blue" light. Light (depending on how it was made) can be any wavelength. Both camera sensors and our eyes are spectrometers, meaning it's able to sort light as either red, green, or blue (for long, medium, and short wavelengths). But neither our eyes or camera sensors are perfect at this. It often sorts light as red-green, or green-blue, or even red-green-blue. It's also important to know that light has different energy depending on it's color. Reddish light has less energy than blueish light, with green in between.
How does this relate to the question?
Red cone cells are not very sensitive and only work over a small region in the visible spectrum (actually digital cameras are natively way more sensitive to red than our eyes, and so they actually place blue-green pass filter over the sensor to reduce red light), and it has less energy too. To compensate, our eyes have about 65% red cones, but even then we do not see reds and infra-reds very well.
Meanwhile, blue cones also work over a very narrow region, but Blue and UV light is much more energetic than red or green. As a result, our eyes have only 2% blue cones, so we don't see blues very well either.
Green cones, as it turns out, are the big winners. They work over a larger region than they probably should. It's response regions massively overlaps with both blue and red cone regions, and is about 31% of our cones are green. This means we're very biased to seeing green light.
But, why are we biased to green light? Because the sun is mostly green. Think of the sun's light emission profile as a really skewed bell curve (it's called a black body curve for those interested). At one end you have red light, at the other blue. Because our atmosphere absorbs or reflects most of the very blue (ultraviolet) and very red light (infrared), and due to something called diffraction, the "visible spectrum" becomes the optimal region to "see in", and the brightest part of that window is green. This reason is also why plants are green. It's weird to think about, but plants being blueish-green means they are throwing away light from the peak wavelength of light and the most energetic light. There's lots of speculation as to why this is, but the simplistic answer is it's probably a form of sunblock, it prevents them from getting more energy than they need need at any moment and from burning up.
So based off all of this then, I'd assume that the white color would be best because it's using the whole eye. While green is only using rods and green cones, white will be using rods and the red, green, and blue cones. But, since green overlaps so much with red and blue cones, it does not matter much.
Incidentally, this is a potential flaw in your experiment, as the sensor of the camera will be skewed towards preferring the green. If you ever revisit this test, something to look at are monochrome cameras. There are lots of consumer astronomy monochrome cameras worth looking at, because not only can you use the whole sensor with things like the red blocking filter removed, companies like ZWO publish spectral response graphs, meaning you can equalize the camera exposure to match each nvg.
But in tests like these, all that really matter is what the human eye sees, so an even better test is to just get a bunch of people who are experienced with these goggles, and ask their opinions.
Do you have a recommendation for a pair of NVGs for star gazing? I know I want a gen 3 tube but not sure about color and other specs. Looking to put it on a telescope as well so any info you have would be appreciated!
@@dimitrioscamacho6131 From what I've seen, the standard suggestion is either the TNV/PVS-14 or TNV/PVS-7. Tele Vue makes an adapter for these so you can attach them to one of their eyepieces.
If you can find a different gen 2+ or 3 for less, that's also an option, though it will be on you to find a way to adapt it to a telescope. Something I've found is that you can't remove the lens on an NVG and attach that to a telescope like you might a camera. It's possible to make a custom optic to fit any telescope of a specific focal length without needing an eyepiece, but you'd need to know a little about optics to build it. As a quick overview, the lens on an NVG is doing two things; it's gathering light/creating an image, and then it's collimating the light (basically straightening the light path). This collimated light is sent through the nvg amplifier, and then it's decollimated by the rear optic back into an image.
In terms of conveniences though, it's probably better to just go the standard route with Tele Vue (though it's a little expensive since I believe you're required to buy a Tele Vue eyepiece that itself costs around 200 dollars or more, but if you're already spending over a 1000 dollars on the goggles it's not a huge deal more I suppose). Alternatively, if you're good with a 3d printer you can design your own adapter and then attach it to a specific lens. You'd want to use a wide-field lens though, the cheapest are made by a company called GSO, their SUPERVIEW eyepieces are similar (but not quite as good) to the same ones made by Tele Vue for nvg.
How would the WP stack up against a GP with an amber/white filter? Everyone knows that filters eat performance, but how bad is it?
You will get some loss of brightness an image with any filter you put on your lens. We would say you get slightly less brightness than the WP Echos we posted here, so it brings it down a notch. That being said, you also don't get that eyestrain you might get, and it lowers the signature of the NOD considerably.
It is removable so for users needing max gain, you can simply remove it. Personally, I find that because the Echo GPs are not as bright or as harsh as most GaAs (gen 3) tubes, I run without it. YMMV.
What price should I expect for unfilmed gen 3 WP/GP
SNR: 30
EBI: .8
FOM: 2000
HALO .8
LP/MM (64 to 72)
?????
3000 to 3300. Custom nvg sells tubes with those specks for that price.
@@TRUMP-od7vi I have seen a l3 Harris unfilmed 35 SNR , .5 EBI, .7 HALO, FOM 2200 for 3900$, what do you think of that price with a 10 year warranty?
@@MOAON_AABE your paying for a warranty. The tube won't go bad for a long time and there are tubes out there that last 30+ years. Heck even some gen 1 tubes still exist. So I'm my opinion the warranty is not very important.
@@TRUMP-od7vi thanks so much, and what a about good used PEQ 15, what do you think a FAIR price for that is
@@MOAON_AABE to be honest I couldent tell you. I'm more just eyeballing the nvg market rn trying to get a good deal.
White phos auto corrects to white phosphorus haha. I’ve looked through some high spec green tubes that look freaking amazing. Shouldn’t we all be buying supergain tubes then?
Bluish emission of P45 stimulates rod cells, which are far more efficient than cones. The notion of P43 having higher gain based on photopic daylight weighting is thrown into doubt.
We always encourage buyers to do their own research, some research papers we read show the benefits of p45, some show the benefits of P43. I still prefer P45 but I would say phosphor choice alone is not the only determinative matter when choosing nods.
@@coldharboursupply Do lenses have variants for the two?
I know it useless but they actually do popular color by region
what does that even mean?
White phosphor doesn't work for me I can't see anything with white phosphor
Can't beat the classics sometime.
when will cold harbour get gen3 tubes?
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
But here is one thing that can't be measured with numbers ... the drip factor of White phosphorus 😌
What’s does that even mean 😂
I came here to see what was gonna show me the best thing under low light
I could give a fuck less about “drip factor”🤡
U gay
Human vision hue discrimination is relatively weak in "green". It has the best spectral discrimination between green and red (noticing when fruit is ripe) as well as blue-green. The GP region of 540-550 nm is the weakest area of hue discrimination outside of the spectrum ends.
Edit: the premise of these test is wrong. You are not simulating human vision with a camera.
Nor do we claim to simulate human vision with a camera as that's impossible as we've implied.
We just wanted to see the performance of the tubes in some environments, mostly looking at the gain spec differences and how that would change the image between WP and GP Photonis Tubes.
🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓
dude he was just clearly trying to share the difference from green and white. It doesn’t matter what the icon see versus the camera because we can clearly see on camera green is the better option for seeing in darker places
@@mrgrump2534 what I've learnt in 6 months since posting that is that for a given electron energy level, fewer photons are produced by WP, because blue is more energetic. There are also very few S cones in the fovea which results in poor blue spatial resolution. The greatest blue resolution is 10° off the visual center. P43 green is far better in all respects and production of P45 seems unnecessary.
You rook rike perlson who eadda lodda lice
Fuck is wrong with you?