Customer Reviews

XENONICS SuperVision High Definition Night Vision Monocular Scope (SV100)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I own this version of the SuperVision with the video out feature.
Let me tell you first what this unit is not.It is not a Gen 3 night vision tube.
But...
The SuperVision also has no blooming, higher sensitivity to the upper IR range and has the highest resolution of any CCD based night vision out there.

When compared to any of the Yukon brand CCD night vision there is no contest, the supervision wins hands down in my opinion.

Pros:
The Supervision has a greater FOV than any other CCD based night vision device out right now.

Resolution
The SuperVision has a CCD resolution of 800 x 600
In comparison the Yukon brand CCD night vision units do not have a model that has a camera resolution as high as the Supervision.

The supervisions viewfinder screen alone has a resolution of 1280 x 780.

Lux sensitivity between the SuperVision and the Yukon night vision devices.

0.3 Yukon
0.003 SuperVision

Supervision can pick up more light that the leading CCD night vision competitor as well.

Cons:

Heres where the unit fails.
I have a bunch of white pixels stuck on my SuperVision CCD sensor, brand new out of the box.

The hot pixels I am seeing are when the photo-sites on the CCD record a higher value than they should, usually with longer shutter speeds. (like in light mode gain setting on the S.V.) When the problem occurs at faster shutter speeds, too, they're considered "stuck" (always bright).

Virtually all CCDs will have them in some conditions. The longer the shutter is open, the more likely a photo site won't be linear with it's fill factor, and it will record a higher value faster than it should.

Unfortunately, sometimes with age, a CCD develops more bad pixels (ones that are not linear in the way they respond to light at typical shutter speeds). Sometimes they're too bright (hot), and sometimes they don't respond at all (dead).

I went ahead and hooked my SuperVision CCD to an oscilloscope. By blocking out all light, I can measure the background noise of the CCD, which works on a per-pixel basis, though it's kind of averaged.

The idea is that when there's no light, the oscillations in the video signal will occur at the approximate resolution of the CCD. (Simple huh?) The main hot pixels are actually "High points" that exceed 600mv and actually go over 1 volt. This is where the SuperVision's "dead pixels" are coming from, they come from the CCD, not the viewer. (As I suspected)

So I get 4 to 6 bright spots all the time.

That also means that using an oscilloscope is an effective tool for measuring the "defects" in the image - just adjust the scope and count the lines... Each line above the base is a dead spot.

The other lines above the base are also pixels that aren't "dead" but yeah, when I look for them in the viewer, I can see they aren't right either.

The most common CCD problem is a bright pixel, or RPN (Residual Point Noise). Variations of bright pixels have different temperature characteristics, bounce in level at varying time intervals, and affect other pixels later in the camera circuitry.

The primary system used to correct pixels on all digital cameras identifies the coordinates of the pixel and provides an offset signal in the correct time relationship. One name for this method is "compensation".

The SuperVision dose not do this software "compensation". This is why I am seeing white 'star pixels' that won't ever go away.

Another reason for the 'hot pixels' is because this thing gets warm. I mean pretty freaking warm! Thermal issues make ANY CCD show 'hot pixels' especially in low ISO settings and when the shutter is open for any length of time. (Which the SuperVision excels at.)

Xentronics could have solved this issue with a pelter module that only turned on when it needed to to keep the CCD cool enough but not too cold it would break the CCD off it's ceramic backing.
(To my knowledge the Supervision doesn't even have a pelter module based on how hot it gets!)

Bottom line is this company will be gone in less than 2 years and will take it's gullible investors with it.

In the mean time it's a cool piece of tech if you can afford it, but you must know it's limits and strengths.

Is it worth the money?
No, it's a $400 to $700 extremely low lux viewing video camera.
NOT the $1,500 'night vision' device they sell it as.

Night Vision device: Not really..no
Starlight amplifier: The BEST star viewer there is out there.

Thats the only reason I give it such a high rating.
But the stuck hot pixels are such a problem they are on EVERY SuperVision unit sold thus far. This is true of every unit I have ever inspected. (Over a 100)

I doubt there will ever be another SuperVision model that addresses the issues outlined in my Cons.
(Sigh)

Avoid like the plague till they get there prices down or storefronts start slashing prices because no ones been biting for years. It just too expensive for what it is.