Re: Advantages Of FLIR Vs. NVG Image Intensification Systems ?

"Robert11" <rgsros@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Can someone please summarize for me the major differences between a
> FLIR system vs NVG (image intensification) ?

FLIR (and thermal imagers, like the ones used in tanks) use infrared
radiation as source for the image, whereas image intensifiers simply
amplify the existing light from moon and stars.

As image intensifiers rely on normal light, they can't penetrate
something that light cannot penetrate - fog, smoke, walls... thermal
systems however can do that to some extent.

IIRC the main reason why thermal imagers aren't used for infantry is
that they're heavier, and that the more sensitive ones (that give the
best picture) have to be cooled down quite a bit (though others might
correct me on that).

BTW, The first generation of night vision devices back at the end of
WW2 and in the years after the war used active infrared systems -
basically, they were clumsy FLIRs that needed a strong IR source to
heat the target for them, so they had a huge IR "floodlight" to do just
that. IR is invisible to the human eye, so the illuminator was
invisible to the other side - unless THEY had night vision systems too.

Ob-Trivia: Modern CCD-based cameras (digital cameras, webcams) can
display IR as well - you can actually use them to test if your TV
remote is working.

Juergen Nieveler
--
Why is it called "rush hour" if it's so damn slow?
.