Thread: Thermal knowledge?

Good morning all,
I currently run a Pulsar Apex XD38 on a 22 for Rabbit control, it has performed faultless for me.
Sometimes need the pests to hop or move head for definite ID before hitting them.
Have the images gotten a lot better defined in later scopes? What model in the Pulsar line would be considered an upgrade, get a lot of mixed messages at gun shop. Not shooting beyond 100 m just looking for greater definition of target.
Thanks for any help.
Robbie

The newer Pulsar Trail XP line is what you want. (not the XQ). The XP has a much higher resolution sensor, which makes a world of difference for resolution and detail.

I've done a fair bit of rabbit shooting with both the older XD50 and the newer XP50, and the increase in definition with the new one is massive. Still get a rare "I can't ID that" but it's pretty well restricted to partial obstruction, behind a bush etc. Overall detail and crispness is a huge step up. Last week I could clearly see that a rabbit only had one ear, before I shot it.

However, it's still a significant investment, so I would suggest contacting the distributor (Yukon optics) directly and asking if a demo unit is available. Especially as an existing owner, I'm sure they'll do their best to line something up for you.

Originally Posted by StrikerNZ

The newer Pulsar Trail XP line is what you want. (not the XQ). The XP has a much higher resolution sensor, which makes a world of difference for resolution and detail.

I've done a fair bit of rabbit shooting with both the older XD50 and the newer XP50, and the increase in definition with the new one is massive. Still get a rare "I can't ID that" but it's pretty well restricted to partial obstruction, behind a bush etc. Overall detail and crispness is a huge step up. Last week I could clearly see that a rabbit only had one ear, before I shot it.

However, it's still a significant investment, so I would suggest contacting the distributor (Yukon optics) directly and asking if a demo unit is available. Especially as an existing owner, I'm sure they'll do their best to line something up for you.

I'm sure we could sort something for you. Where are you?

If only headoffice would introduce a XP75...........

Hi there,
In Rangiora, sent you an email last week before posting here.

Thanks
Robbie

@faregame

The 2 main factors you should look at are the thermal cores resolution - generally these days its .17u (thats the spacing between pixels, lower is better, means more pixels per square inch) older/cheaper models are generally .25u and the new standard is .12 (each step is around 30% better which is a lot) and the lens length which is your optical magnification

The size of the core/lens will effect the overall Field of view and number of pixels on the target as well; Others are factors like lens quality (f/1 is ideal etc) core quality, image processing, sensitivity etc

that pulsar unit is a 38mm lens (f1.2) with a .17 core - So to get the improvements you are after you may need to look at something with a longer lens to get the magnification you need for a more defined image

Originally Posted by faregame

The 2 main factors you should look at are the thermal cores resolution - generally these days its .17u (thats the spacing between pixels, lower is better, means more pixels per square inch) older/cheaper models are generally .25u and the new standard is .12 (each step is around 30% better which is a lot) and the lens length which is your optical magnification

The size of the core/lens will effect the overall Field of view and number of pixels on the target as well; Others are factors like lens quality (f/1 is ideal etc) core quality, image processing, sensitivity etc

that pulsar unit is a 38mm lens (f1.2) with a .17 core - So to get the improvements you are after you may need to look at something with a longer lens to get the magnification you need for a more defined image

Let's now see if you are knowledgeable enough to explain the disadvantages of a small pixel size. Go on, impress me!

Originally Posted by Yukon

Let's now see if you are knowledgeable enough to explain the disadvantages of a small pixel size. Go on, impress me!

This post is probably the worst advertising you have ever done.

It's not advertising, but a response to a comment which is rather biased, especially when given by someone who claims to be an expert.

Although the 30% smaller pixel may be an advantage for resolution under the right circumstances, those being an increase in overall format size, it is also a disadvantage.

Firstly, it is true that when the pixel size is reduced, so is the amount of light, (light, heat, electromagnetic radiation, call it what you like) that falls upon each pixel is reduced by the same ratio. Therefore, though a 30% gain in resolution is achieved, so is a 30% reduction in sensitivity, and therefore for any given lens aperture, the NETD will be increased accordingly. The NETD by the way is one of the critical benchmarks for any thermal IR system. Higher the NETD, the less capable is the unit for detecting the slight differences between objects of similar heat.

Secondly, because the pixels are so much smaller, the overall size of the sensor is also smaller. This means that the magnification increases at the expense of filed-of-view. A small sensor means that a smaller proportion of the lens is used to form the image, and therefore, clarity (resolving power) is compromised. Further more, smaller sensors require shorter focal length lenses to form a usable image.

I remember when I first used large format cameras, the older ones actually had bubbles in the lenses, and yet, the image quality was breathtaking. A 640x480 sensor will piss all over a smaller sensor, regardless of pixel pitch. I know this, because I've seen for myself.

I think it would be really helpful, if we didn't confuse our potential customers with halve-truths, but let them get unbiased opinions. I therefore think it would be really good if Owl Optics and ourselves lend some equipment to forum members so that they can see, try, and form opinions based upon experience.

How about it?

I think it would be really helpful, if we didn't confuse our potential customers with halve-truths, but let them get unbiased opinions. I therefore think it would be really good if Owl Optics and ourselves lend some equipment to forum members so that they can see, try, and form opinions based upon experience.

How about it?[/QUOTE]
That’s a big call to make, considering the issues your having with some of your products at the moment Yukon

Originally Posted by Yukon

It's not advertising, but a response to a comment which is rather biased, especially when given by someone who claims to be an expert.

I think it would be really helpful, if we didn't confuse our potential customers with halve-truths, but let them get unbiased opinions. I therefore think it would be really good if Owl Optics and ourselves lend some equipment to forum members so that they can see, try, and form opinions based upon experience.

How about it?

Excellent suggestion, if it goes ahead Can you put me on the list!!!

My guesses would be higher power consumption, possibly a slower refresh rate, heavier as well. I dont own one but am in awe of Striker NZs wallaby video. Ive spot lighted them but a thermal is in a league of its own. If only you could rent them, the annual wallaby walloping trip would be something else.

Originally Posted by Marty Henry

My guesses would be higher power consumption, possibly a slower refresh rate, heavier as well. I dont own one but am in awe of Striker NZs wallaby video. Ive spot lighted them but a thermal is in a league of its own. If only you could rent them, the annual wallaby walloping trip would be something else.

Yes, but not the main disadvantage, good try though.

Smaller pixels = less photons hitting the pixel. So pixels generally get smaller only as we cam make more sensitive sensors. Well that would be my guess anyway. Basically no replacement for displacement but for cameras, medium format and large format are still the kings of quality

Originally Posted by Guypie

Smaller pixels = less photons hitting the pixel. So pixels generally get smaller only as we cam make more sensitive sensors. Well that would be my guess anyway. Basically no replacement for displacement but for cameras, medium format and large format are still the kings of quality

You are pretty much bang-on regarding photons hitting pixels. The comparison to different sized formats is very valid, but for another reason. But there is a little more to it to tie the two together. I'm sure Faregame will get this as he is the 'expert'....