Thermal options

[STRUTTER]

Got to use a thermal scope for the first time to take out a few hogs and really get to use it. It was a flir RS 32 1.5-5. It had great uses but there were a couple things that I didn't care much for. First is the zoom, I have read the zoom threads about optical vs digital. When I use the zoom anything past 3x, the image gets a little blurry. Second, I always wait till 2 pigs line up for the first shot. I do this 90% of the time unless the pigs are stung out in a line moving from point A to point B. The problem I had using the flir is I couldn't see enough detail. It was about 100 yds and all I could see us a red blob as there were 4 pigs rooting in the same hole. I'm not sure if I had a setting wrong or there was just so much heat coming off the pigs, but I couldn't tell a rear from a head. Using my pvs-14, it's no problem to see the ticks on their head.

My questions:
1) Is there a different manufacture that for a thermal that would provide more detail. I'm sure it is for the $. But maybe in the $5k range.
2) is there any thermal made that doesn't have the video out option? This is something that I will never use thus I really don't want to pay for it if it increases cost.
Thanks in Advance!

 

[Curly Shuffle]

Call a couple vendors on here and talk to them. They are more than willing to help and are some fine gentleman. ArmaSight, IR Hunters/ *******************, and Pulsar seems to be talked about a lot also. Sounds like you had the contrast/brightness maybe to high and you could have tried Black hot on the settings, that would be my guess?? BANG BANG!!

 

[Taco]

With a $5k you are going to crush it. I've never used a flir ps scope but sounds like it wasn't focused or settings weren't right. With a Zeus 640 75 I can see teats on a sow and other anatomical features stand out.

 

[JPK]

I agree that the setting probably weren't optimal. And optimal settings can change as thermal conditions change, so getting used to a scope is important for getting the best performance possible from one.

320 resolution is 1/2 of the resolution of a 640 unit, and the 640 unit will have the FLIR 320's resolution at 2x digital zoom.

In the $5k range you should have some good 640 options, plus the Pulsars, which are something like 388 resolution.

Fwiw, I like to spot on white hot and shoot on black hot (but a lot of critter get shot on white hot anyway.) None of my units are color, and color seems pretty pointless to me. The FLIR can do monochrome white hot or black hot when set for it.

JPK

 

[Delta4-3]

Pretty much everything on the market is better than the FLIR RS series in my humble opinion.

 

[STRUTTER]

Thanks for the replies! I will reach out to the vendors when I'm ready to take the plunge. Looks like I need to stay away from FLIR and look at the 640s vs the 320s.

 

[JPK]

Delta 4-3 is one of the LSB vendors, in case you didn't know.

The Pulsars are nice, and provide a nice view, and a pretty economical option. I have the least expensive Pulsar spotter, the HD 19A, and it provides very usable resolution, though not as good as my 640 units.

JPK

 

[Brian Shaffer]

320 resolution is 1/2 of the resolution of a 640 unit

This is a very common misconception. 320 resolution is 1/4 the resolution of a 640. You have to remember that you are dealing with a 2 dimensional scale, not 1 dimensional.

So your 640 resolution scope is actually 640x512 (Armasight Zeus). A 320 resolution scope would be 320x256. If you do the math, the 650 resolution scope is 327680 total resolution. The 320 scope is 81920 total resolution, or 1/4 of the resolution of a 640 scope.

There really is a significant difference between the two.

 

[rob072770]

Called Third Coast yesterday about a thermal spotter. ******** did a great job walking me through the good, bad, and the ugly. Will stick with my W-1000 for now due to budget. A big shout out to ******** for giving me the truth and the cost. It is nice to get real world options. Thanks ********.

 

[JPK]

This is a very common misconception. 320 resolution is 1/4 the resolution of a 640. You have to remember that you are dealing with a 2 dimensional scale, not 1 dimensional.

So your 640 resolution scope is actually 640x512 (Armasight Zeus). A 320 resolution scope would be 320x256. If you do the math, the 650 resolution scope is 327680 total resolution. The 320 scope is 81920 total resolution, or 1/4 of the resolution of a 640 scope.

There really is a significant difference between the two.

Thanks for pointing out my simplistic error, and I have made it before, even though I should know better. But a point I was trying to make is that a 640 unit has the same resolution as a 320 unit when it (the 640 unit) is at 2x digital zoom. That is correct, right?

JPK

 

[Brian Shaffer]

Yes, the resolution would be the same.

 

[JPK]

Thinking about the math you pointed out, and which I overlook too often, it sure explains why digital zoom has its limitations.

For example, my 640 units are great with no digital zoom, ok with 2x, useable for shooting an already ID's target at 4x and not worth a damn at 8x.

 

[Brian Shaffer]

Right, because each step up in the doubled digital zoom reduces resolution to 1/4 of the previous level.