• HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    5 months ago

    First: I’ll believe it when I see it. Every so often pie-in-the-sky claims of this type come out, and they often end up not being feasible, even if they’re technically possible.

    Second: if it is feasible, given that gen 3 night vision tubes have remained stubbornly expensive, I would not expect this to be cheap for a long time.

    • magikmw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      Who knows. Some tech is both better functionally and cheaper. We’ll see. No need to hype anyway.

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      iirc the way night vision currently works the actual amplifying part is incredibly thin and more than 90% of the thickness is post amplification cleanup.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m pretty sure you’re correct, although I believe that the part that’s capturing photons also needs to be heavily protected from the environment, and you also need something to prevent to many photons from getting to it and burning it out (e.g., almost all gen 3 NODs are autogated so that someone shining a flashlight at you won’t wreck your image intensifier tubes.)

        It’s one of those things that can get pretty overwhelming to try and research as a consumer, because it gets really technical really fast.