Talk:Night vision

Headline text

It was suggested that this article should be renamed Night vision. The vote is shown below:

• Support. Hyphen is unnecessary. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Actually, hyphen is incorrect, in a noun. Night-vision goggles give you better night vision. —Michael Z. 2005-06-21 05:32 Z
• Support It's a noun. Wood Thrush 03:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)

LED reference

I've added a link to this page in the Light-emitting_diode article but also a note in its talk page disputing both the choice and reasons for the choice of colours of lights for protection of night vision. Anybody with more authoritive understanding than me care to have a look and maybe make a correction to that article? EdDavies 11:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

X-Ray Sony Camera

Would it be appropriate to include, on this page, a discussion (refutation or confirmation) of the fabeled early version of Sony NightShot which, when used during daylight, allowed viewing and recording of "x-ray" images?

Night Vision Technology History

I believe this article needs some manner of elaboration on the history of night vision technology. Sadly, I cant provide this information. Here's hoping someone else can.AJ 1st 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that Spicer was no more than 16 years old when WWII ended, the statement in the article as written is extremely unlikely. In the linked obituary, it indicates that he contributed to night vision while at RCA in the 60s. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subject to contribute or correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.86.59 (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

HELP

This article needs lots of corrections (spelling and so forth) attention, and expansion -- you can help. --Lperez2029 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

BMW, 'night vision in veicles'

Is somebody is trying to use this as advertising for BMW? The 'night vision in vehicles section' is packed with advertising crap. If night vision in vehicles improves saftey, then cite a reliable source, for example a study. "BMW.co.uk" is not academically reliable. BMW has already been in trouble for trying to rig their Google page-rank, but wether this is actually them, it's still junk so whoever it is please don't revert it again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.172.82 (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Image intensifier

This segment looks incorrect. As far as I can remember, older image intensifiers use a light sensitive material that phosphoresces when energized by a photon (for example, green phosphorous) and newer models use a photodiode-signal amplifier circuit-LED combination ... ? axharr (former USN) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.149.90.140 (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Green?

Can anyone tell me why nightvision is green? 81.105.217.34 16:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It mentions this in the image intensifyer page. its green becuase the human eye is most sensitive to this color, and can see the most shades of this color.

needs a non biological section on night vision

I served on submarines and remember well having to prepare myself for watch (involving periscope) by having the control room dark for a while before needed. TCO 21:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

BMW and Night Vision

BMW source their night vision system, as they do their forward collision system and lane deviation warning system from Siemens VDO, who in turn source it from Mobileye of Israel who obtained the technology from Raytheon (US). Mobileye have signed up most of the major car manufacturers and from 2008 night vision will be offered by most of the major manufacturers. --Gaptech 10:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

amplification in image intensifiers

The section on image intensifiers states that they do not 'amplify' I *believe* that they in fact do, just not in the commonly percieved way; an electronic signal amplifier, such as found in a stereo. My understanding is that the image intensifier unit is a specialized photomultiplier, and the effect is in fact 'amplification'. Once I've verified this, I'll be editing to this effect, that they do in fact 'amplify', but not through the use of amplifier circuits, but photomultipliers sensitive to IR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.67.106 (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger to IR signature

No to merger, IR detection is but one form of the technology, and would not be appropriate to for example natrual night vision (we're hopelessly lacking in this article in that respect), image intensification and for that matter systems which used an external IR lamp to illuminate a target.KTo288 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad

This article is bad. Where is all the information on natural night vision, the link to "eye adaptation" gives me nothing. 84.92.169.252 (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, bub, WP:SOFIXIT. I doubt any editors here will disagree that it should have some material on natural adaptation to low-light. So look up some sources, start a section, and start writing! I think something about natural dark adaption should go in lead section also, but not until the article itself says something to summarize. Such as: how much better are we at light detection when dark adapted? What is the quantum efficiency (I recall humans are within a factor of 3 of as good as we can be). How much better ARE animals with a tapetum? They look cool, but what is the payoff? I seem to remember that humans not that bad at night vision compared to most mammals when we are fully-dark adapted-- this article ephasizes that too much. And so on.

Remember, please, that Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. You're not being taxed, and you didn't pay, and you're not going to leave a tip, so don't complain about the service! We're all volunteers. Most of us got here by seeing some article and saying "that sucks... even I know more than THAT about that" and starting in on it. Then, you're hooked. So, welcome. Get to work. SBHarris 02:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Merger of thermal scope??

Thermal Weapon Sight is a very short stub article which needs to be incorporated into Night vision or Thermographic camera --B. Srinivasa Sasidhar 02:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't merge articles just because we can. The Thermal weapon sight is a particular kind of thermographic camera and should be mentioned in the latter article. But no doubt as more specific info becomes available on thermal weapons sights, they will need an article of their own. See WP:SS. Sometimes articles are like redlinks-- you can see that they will need to be a separate article in the future, and there's no point in merging them now, just to have to split them later. For example, we might have a tiny little article on the Fiat PuttPutt XL5. But that's no reason to delete it and cram it into the article on automobiles. SBHarris 02:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing WWII poster

"Night sight can mean life or death. Eat carrots and leafy greens or yellow vegetables, rich in vitamins," WWII poster

Because the premise of this poster is intentionally misleading, it is inappropriate for an article on human night vision.

This poster was part of a disinformation campaign to prevent the Germans from learning of British use of radar in World War II. The story was that British pilots ate many carrots to improve their night vision, but this was untrue. They were actually being guided by radar.

Smithsonian Magazine: A WWII Propaganda Campaign Popularized the Myth That Carrots Help You See in the Dark.

—Ryan (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Night vision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100117205639/http://www.irinfo.org/articles/03_01_2007_grossman.html to http://www.irinfo.org/articles/03_01_2007_grossman.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

People with biological night vision

In Southeast China in a town called Dahua, a young boy named Nong Yousui is claimed to have night vision - a skeptical Chinese journalist prepared a set of questionnaires to test the boy. Sitting in a dark room — pitch black — Nong completed his task and proved that his night vision is the equal to the daytime vision of most ordinary people. August 2013

I remember reading about a Chinese man having night vision, more than 20 years ago, in a Romanian popular science magazine. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

unaided night vision training

Please add information about unaided night vision training and applications, such as military watches at sea in World War 2.-73.61.15.43 (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Do we count eye patches as night vision?

Eye patches have been used by aircraft men as a form of "night vision" , more specifically adaption to the dark. Sigmaclass (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

References

This is a good biology article.

This is how it should be! A biology article that actually has loads of animal coverage? This is super rare!

90% of biology articles exclusively talk about human biology unless that article is specifically about animals or is about something we don't have (this doesn't count because we HAVE night vision our night vision is just bad)

Great job people. LoverOfAllAnimalsActivist (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @LoverOfAllAnimalsActivist and welcome to Wikipedia editing! I see that you have a lot of strong opinions about bio and anatomy articles being human-centric, and I mostly agree. I posted recently here for my own sake, not to complain about the human centricity so much, but looking for some guidance on how to handle it orginizationally. There were some good references posted in reply. Its important to remember that when a reader looks up vomiting for example, that they are generally wanting to read information about human vomiting. Combined with the fact that we know much more about human vomiting and that there are far more experts on human vomiting, its no wonder that the articles will organically tend to be human centric. That's not to say it has to stay that way:

• In articles where non-human content is in the minority and easily separable, it is generally put in an "other animals section", like in visible spectrum or as you started in floater.
• In articles where comparative biology is important, there is generally an even split between human and non-humans like in color vision, and each main section should "ideally" be species-ambiguous, as far as is reader-friendly.
• In articles where there is sufficient human and non-human information, but it is not useful to mix the information together, the articles are generally split, like in eye and human eye.
• In articles where humans do not really present a special case, the article can be framed in a way to focus only on the super-group, hence why I recently redirected evolution of human colour vision to evolution of color vision in primates, since there is nothing special to say about humans specifically that doesn't apply to all apes.
• Then there is also color blindness, where any reference to non-human animals was removed since animal color vision should not be judged in comparison to human color vision.

All different ways of handling the balance between human and non-human info. This balance will of course change as more non-human info is added to an article, and sometimes an article needs to be rewritten to better de-humanize (balance) it, so to speak. Not much to do until that info accumulates in an "other animals" section though. The only real problem is when human-centrists start removing animal information, which was apparently a problem in several anatomy articles recently, like pelvis. Its not an easy thing to balance on wikipedia, so please don't think that the status quo is somehow "ridiculous" or "preposterous". Most of us are just working to create an article that gives the reader the information they are looking for. Curran919 (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)