Seriously? The whole time I was watching the video I thought "surely these things are heated". Now that you mention it, I think you're right. That means the test means absolutely nothing.
I think the further away it is, the better it is; gives a safety margin as the review said. And as for the systems; the Audi I give props to. I do like the Mercedes headlights and how they flash the pedestrian. Does add an extra safety net in midnight driving.
These cars offer "Drivers Assist" Packages... Meaning the systems aren't intended to drive with your windows completely covered, but to add assistance while actually looking out of your windows while driving..
One thing you could've mentioned is the night-vision systems' use in foggy situations. As far as I know these systems kinda look through the fog and give you a much, much better view.
Wow, these guys are experts? Use the system the way it was designed- you need heat, you need movement, you need the object to actually be a potential hazard. This test is useless.
Great episode guys! But I second the request to test the system in adverse situations (rain/snow/fog). And also who can pick up first an object/pedestrian, the system or the driver.
Wow nightvision displays have improved a lot since then. Now you can watch nightvision in 1080 p near perfect imaging. Plus the nightvision capabilities are massively improved.
The "test" with the deer is not valid. An actual deer would be giving off heat which cause the system to detect it. A decoy does not have the same IR signature as a real deer.
The BMW needs to sense someone actually moving towards the car. Say if you're your driving in a city at night.. The BMW isn't going to highlight a bunch of people just sitting there. If they were moving in a fashion to where they could end up in your path then the system reacts. It's very intelligent.
I would really like them to do this again and include information on how early those systems picked up pedestrians before they could visually spot them with headlights and their naked eye. To make it interesting you could even include some camouflaged pedestrians. I think that would better highlight if these systems really are fulfilling their intended purpose.
All three of these cars have advanced contrasting to automatically adjust to incoming heat, infrared, and bright spots that can be an outlier to the system. It's like a point-and-shoot camera...it automatically adjusts to the amount of light coming in.
the cone test is very flawed because when you are actually driving on a country road at night time (when you need the camera most) and the hardest part is knowing where the road is and wheres its going while you're at speed and the headlights aren't keeping up, so the night vision camera assists with this because it can very easily help you distinguish the pavement from the vegetation or dirt on the sides of the road, ie. where you don't want to end up. However you did the test on a 100% pavement surface so it would be impossible to pick out where the road is. also others have stated how all life forms would have a much brighter heat signature.. man i wish i got to test these cars
This is one of the more interesting videos I've seen lately. Now, I want to retrofit this technology onto my vintage Audi. Damn expensive to hit a deer with one of those.
I'd say the farther away the car is to the object, the better is the night vision system. If the car gets very close by only using the screen, it means it has a wide angle lens, which won't work good at higher speed driving at highways. As far as i understand, these systems are made to make pedestrians more visible at highways.
I definitely agree with your final statements, for what they are intended to do the systems are fine, I see the Audi as the winner due to the pedestrian being highlighted and being picked up clearly for a decent distance away.
It was actually Cadillac who first came out with this system, it was sold on the Cadillac DTS (Deville) back in 2000 and it was very similar to what BMW uses.
they got it all wrong. We dont really need a night vision system in car that allow us to drive without headlights, that would be dangerous (remember you have to be seen also). I see the thermal system as superior since its NOT affected by FOG, or heavy SNOW, or heavy RAIN. The alternative vision is only useful if its better then the plain view. And your headlights (or even day, plain view) fail if you drive in fog, heavy rain or heavy snow, in this moment you can rely on the on-board alternative viewing system, since at that point its superior to plain view.
Interesting footage. The whole system is meant for pedestrian / animal detection. The FLIR system mounted in the BMW and Audi seems to be the best for that.
You guys should have done the proximity alert with people and try driving the highway or quiet streets to see if the night vision makes it easy to see road lines and concrete barriers
I think Mercedes said on their site to NOT attempt to drive using the night vision alone. Its an assist, not a cure for stupidity. Nobody should have ever tried this. I'm glad you guys are emphasizing that its a useless thing to do
I feel as if i will need to post this twice, so once for an answer to your question and once more to see if anyone at Car and Driver is listening. The reason for night vision 'assist' is not just to help you see 'warm' objects inthe dark, but to help drivers navigate fog. The instance that this is designed to assist with almost happened to me in Germany as a kid, in the back of my parents car. If not for my sister needing to pee every 5 minutes, we would have been on the autobahn...
..not to be confused with the early distronic tests where the car ploughs into a room ful of fog and totally rear ends the other demonstrator car. (many excuses were given, none were widely accepted. the system was redesigned) also, i won't post twice, i rambled on quite a bit. thanks for reading.
That's because the technology is completely different. Mercedes uses Near-Infrared (NIR), whose wavelength is only slightly longer than red light, and it behaves kind of like light, except you can't see it with a naked eye. It's not heat. The system needs to be illumination from a NIR light. Audi and BMW use a passive Far-Infrared (FIR) system, which is actually detects heat. I'd take a FIR system over a NIR any time. NIR (at the same price range) has a clearer image, but you can't see as far.
Interesting comparison especially considering I was under the impression that both the Audi and BMW use night-vision systems made by the same manufacturer, FLIR. Not sure who makes the Mercedes system, any further information on this point?
Yes it shows a warning on the HUD. I've got this gadget on my BMW 5 and honetly it works pretty well when driving by night in the mountains and forests. And seriously I never watch on the display screen because I prefer watch the road and wait for a warning. The IR display on the splitsreen is worthless when you are driving on roads that are not perfectly straight all the time...
Would one of these improve the distance you can see other cars in low visibility like fog/rain/snow? Would a projection system like the Mercedes help or hurt in those conditions?
How many decades will I have to wait for before seeing that "night vision system" on a Renault Clio or an Opel Corsa? Until that moment, I will only trust my eyes, glasses and Jesus. F.Casta, Ravenna, Italy
it is about the reality of what you see on the screen. It easier to control your vehicle if the camera doesn't zoom and you can estimate exactly where you are.
You guys Way way off. The test should've been done in the real world.. Like moose collisions.etc. This was a waste of video. I would like to see this technology and all cars in some form to save lives.
I’m just interested if it shows the road well in a blizzard of if it’s a dark bendy road and someone on high beams is coming at you or if it is raining super hard. The only times i hate driving is when i can’t see the road and in Finland we have a lot of that.
No, therefore they should have made the most advancements by now and come up with their own creative additions (such as headlight-flashing or yellow-boxing) because they've had a longer time to work with it.
One thing you didn't notice / test with the Audi is that the yellow box will turn red if the pedestrian makes a move that could put it in the path of the vehicle.
Interesting Audi uses IR light source, while others use thermal. IR seems good with good visibility, but I wonder if the thermal would be a lot better in low vis conditions.
What I find interesting is the fact that these car dealerships “never claimed” that you can see roads, pedestrians and animals with thermal vision - by itself. So the test was a false test from the beginning. These features are merely to “assist” the driver in detecting things ‘with heat signatures’ - nothing more. To me that helps, otherwise cops wouldn’t be able to catch things they’d normally never see without thermal vision such as people hiding behind camouflage or cars running and etc.
Wouldn't the steering wheel be bothersome while looking at the screen if the steering wheel is right in front of it? But at the same time feel really awkward when looking at the center console and driving, in the case of BMW. I think the best way to do it would be to not have a screen but instead some sort of HUD that displays on the windshield itself, highlighting potential dangers. Man cars are going to be crazy in the future.
According MSN Autos site, animal detection being added for cars from all three makers in 2013. Search "Animal detection coming to Audi, BMW, Mercedes as early as 2013" with google to find out more.
I'm actually looking to buy a Mercedes or BMW that can be optioned with Night Vision from these manufacturers. My interest is mainly for longer range detection of animals when driving on country roads at night.From what I can see these systems are intended to assist a driver to identify people, animals and in Mercedes case objects/obstructions on the road, well ahead of the normal reach of headlights. I would have liked to see a test from Car & Driver that concentrated more on live things.
Personally I think passive systems are superior. They work far better in bad weather conditions and there is no risk of blinding sensors of oncoming cars. I think the deer test was pointless. Point of these systems is to provide early warning. That's why they're focused far ahead. You have headlights and eyes for avoidance. In this generation pedestrians are of interest, future generations should look out for animals as well. Cone test was odd too because they have minimal heat signature.
when you have more light and less light. it say PASSIVE it means they just catch surrounding light. only merc has active night vision where he emits IR and catches it reflection
That kinda thinking could apply to everything in life such as cars, TV, games, phones, software and so on . It means you buy the cheapest or cheaper version of everything and wait for the price to go down on more expensive stuff. If you can't afford the more expensive version or are just cheap is OK. But that doesn't mean people that buy the more expensive versions are stupid. Maybe they have the money to treat themselves with the best of what they want.
MY Dealer usually tries to convince me of NOT to take some extra because i prefer a fully loaded car instead of a poor mans edition which is not making me enjoy the ride a lot. In fact i'd rather take a smaller car with more options than a big car that is naked.
In my knowledge about night vision systems on cars (especially the one in the mercedes), in order for the night vision to work, the lights of the car need to be on. Not sure about how bmw and audi do it, but I'm pretty sure that's how the mercedes is.
If its thermal how you can test it with a cold death plastic obstacles like the turkey??, also you are testing them on a wide open area, lets do it in a more dense layout like a forest and narrow roads with curves!
I liked it. I am guessing that if the Caddy night vision had been part of this, maybe the projection could be seen on the paper. That could have been interesting. I just looked at used car listing of a DTS with night vision, nice looking car, asking $2500. I kind of almost want it.
..doing around 100mph when the moving traffic drove into a wall of fog;litterally, daylight to clouds (rolling across the hills). 1 car slows dramatically, 1 swerves, 42 odd cars in mass wreckage. Millions of $ in damage, road closed, dozens injured, i'm sure, some dead. When i saw this system demo'd in 2003, the car faces a room full of water vapour (simulated fog) and all the vehicles stationary in the fog are clearly visible as if the fog were not there. Car and Driver, LET'S SEE THAT TEST!
How exactly is 'how close can you get' test useful? Why wasn't there any kind of opposing traffic, to test how well the systems behave when blinded by other cars' headlights?
I don't think 4 feet, 3 inches from the deer is "weak". Why do you need to get an inch from an object? These aren't for parallel parking, it's for noticing objects down the road while moving at speed.
I made night vision system for a car under 100 euro. Now I must printed some parts on 3D printer and then I go testing the whole system in my car. What do you think, want you buy my system in future ? Please let me know.
Are you SURE that they don't emit infrared light? I'm pretty sure they do... And why would they have infrared filters if they are trying to capture the infrared light exactly?
you can drive with it with the uropean model that is not permitted into the us yet. also Cadillac has a live drive system that beats all these cars hands down.
plz the car makers of these cars didn't intend for you to cover every window in the car this test doesn't make since I hope they intend for this to be a joke and not be taken seriously
It was a great video, very interesting, and I would also like to see them work in a "city scenario" just to see how they work in those situations and not only in big open spaces :D
It isn't showing the animals because there is no thermal reading in plastic!
True, they also chose not to show what the driver was seeing as he drove on the "turkey".
Seriously? The whole time I was watching the video I thought "surely these things are heated". Now that you mention it, I think you're right. That means the test means absolutely nothing.
I think the further away it is, the better it is; gives a safety margin as the review said. And as for the systems; the Audi I give props to. I do like the Mercedes headlights and how they flash the pedestrian. Does add an extra safety net in midnight driving.
These cars offer "Drivers Assist" Packages... Meaning the systems aren't intended to drive with your windows completely covered, but to add assistance while actually looking out of your windows while driving..
One thing you could've mentioned is the night-vision systems' use in foggy situations. As far as I know these systems kinda look through the fog and give you a much, much better view.
Wow, these guys are experts? Use the system the way it was designed- you need heat, you need movement, you need the object to actually be a potential hazard. This test is useless.
Great episode guys! But I second the request to test the system in adverse situations (rain/snow/fog). And also who can pick up first an object/pedestrian, the system or the driver.
Wow nightvision displays have improved a lot since then. Now you can watch nightvision in 1080 p near perfect imaging. Plus the nightvision capabilities are massively improved.
The "test" with the deer is not valid. An actual deer would be giving off heat which cause the system to detect it. A decoy does not have the same IR signature as a real deer.
The BMW needs to sense someone actually moving towards the car.
Say if you're your driving in a city at night.. The BMW isn't going to highlight a bunch of people just sitting there. If they were moving in a fashion to where they could end up in your path then the system reacts. It's very intelligent.
I would really like them to do this again and include information on how early those systems picked up pedestrians before they could visually spot them with headlights and their naked eye. To make it interesting you could even include some camouflaged pedestrians. I think that would better highlight if these systems really are fulfilling their intended purpose.
Very good test
The CL is so gorgeous!
in my mind, the best SYSTEM would be a NIGHT VISION SYSTEM integrated into a HEAD`S UP DISPLAY !!!!
Its good to make new reviews like that!
Nice episode guys!
All three of these cars have advanced contrasting to automatically adjust to incoming heat, infrared, and bright spots that can be an outlier to the system. It's like a point-and-shoot camera...it automatically adjusts to the amount of light coming in.
Love it. I wanna see more of these tech comparisons.
im glad that i got to see this
the cone test is very flawed because when you are actually driving on a country road at night time (when you need the camera most) and the hardest part is knowing where the road is and wheres its going while you're at speed and the headlights aren't keeping up, so the night vision camera assists with this because it can very easily help you distinguish the pavement from the vegetation or dirt on the sides of the road, ie. where you don't want to end up. However you did the test on a 100% pavement surface so it would be impossible to pick out where the road is. also others have stated how all life forms would have a much brighter heat signature.. man i wish i got to test these cars
This is one of the more interesting videos I've seen lately. Now, I want to retrofit this technology onto my vintage Audi. Damn expensive to hit a deer with one of those.
I'd say the farther away the car is to the object, the better is the night vision system. If the car gets very close by only using the screen, it means it has a wide angle lens, which won't work good at higher speed driving at highways. As far as i understand, these systems are made to make pedestrians more visible at highways.
I definitely agree with your final statements, for what they are intended to do the systems are fine, I see the Audi as the winner due to the pedestrian being highlighted and being picked up clearly for a decent distance away.
Good video, pretty informative.
It was actually Cadillac who first came out with this system, it was sold on the Cadillac DTS (Deville) back in 2000 and it was very similar to what BMW uses.
they got it all wrong. We dont really need a night vision system in car that allow us to drive without headlights, that would be dangerous (remember you have to be seen also). I see the thermal system as superior since its NOT affected by FOG, or heavy SNOW, or heavy RAIN. The alternative vision is only useful if its better then the plain view. And your headlights (or even day, plain view) fail if you drive in fog, heavy rain or heavy snow, in this moment you can rely on the on-board alternative viewing system, since at that point its superior to plain view.
well during these circumstances, its still probably best to not drive at all
Will these night vision systems function during rain or snow, or any inclement weather?
www.alibaba.com/product-detail/long-Distance-Night-Vision-Strong-Light_60594150926.html?spm=a2747.manage.list.4.247a71d2etrPCP
this can
Interesting footage. The whole system is meant for pedestrian / animal detection. The FLIR system mounted in the BMW and Audi seems to be the best for that.
You guys should have done the proximity alert with people and try driving the highway or quiet streets to see if the night vision makes it easy to see road lines and concrete barriers
I have this kind of system in my Chrysler Aspen!!! It´s really amazing.
nice, love this episode;)
In all seriousness... That remote control Turkey is epic, im making one.
I think Mercedes said on their site to NOT attempt to drive using the night vision alone. Its an assist, not a cure for stupidity. Nobody should have ever tried this. I'm glad you guys are emphasizing that its a useless thing to do
The more distance the better, not the least! More distance means more time to react...
What is price of camera and illuminator which is used in mercedes night vision
I feel as if i will need to post this twice, so once for an answer to your question and once more to see if anyone at Car and Driver is listening. The reason for night vision 'assist' is not just to help you see 'warm' objects inthe dark, but to help drivers navigate fog. The instance that this is designed to assist with almost happened to me in Germany as a kid, in the back of my parents car. If not for my sister needing to pee every 5 minutes, we would have been on the autobahn...
..not to be confused with the early distronic tests where the car ploughs into a room ful of fog and totally rear ends the other demonstrator car. (many excuses were given, none were widely accepted. the system was redesigned) also, i won't post twice, i rambled on quite a bit. thanks for reading.
That's because the technology is completely different. Mercedes uses Near-Infrared (NIR), whose wavelength is only slightly longer than red light, and it behaves kind of like light, except you can't see it with a naked eye. It's not heat. The system needs to be illumination from a NIR light. Audi and BMW use a passive Far-Infrared (FIR) system, which is actually detects heat. I'd take a FIR system over a NIR any time. NIR (at the same price range) has a clearer image, but you can't see as far.
Interesting comparison especially considering I was under the impression that both the Audi and BMW use night-vision systems made by the same manufacturer, FLIR. Not sure who makes the Mercedes system, any further information on this point?
Every system was built by the same supplier veoneer formerly Autoliv electronics. Only the FIR microbolometer sensor inside was supplied by FLIR.
@CARandDRIVER You hitting the Turkey was a set up gosh...Mercedes Benz is just the best!!!
Yes it shows a warning on the HUD. I've got this gadget on my BMW 5 and honetly it works pretty well when driving by night in the mountains and forests. And seriously I never watch on the display screen because I prefer watch the road and wait for a warning. The IR display on the splitsreen is worthless when you are driving on roads that are not perfectly straight all the time...
and that turkey had no heat signature if that night vision on theses cars works like traditional practical night vision used by the army vehicles.
Next test the audio systems. Or do all of them use Bang & Olufsen?
Would one of these improve the distance you can see other cars in low visibility like fog/rain/snow? Would a projection system like the Mercedes help or hurt in those conditions?
where do i buy?
This is a nice feature that you ever could have in your car
CARandDRIVER ftw!
How many decades will I have to wait for before seeing that "night vision system" on a Renault Clio or an Opel Corsa?
Until that moment, I will only trust my eyes, glasses and Jesus.
F.Casta, Ravenna, Italy
what about in fog? how do they work then? i see the system using the light having a problem.
it is about the reality of what you see on the screen. It easier to control your vehicle if the camera doesn't zoom and you can estimate exactly where you are.
You guys Way way off. The test should've been done in the real world.. Like moose collisions.etc. This was a waste of video. I would like to see this technology and all cars in some form to save lives.
I’m just interested if it shows the road well in a blizzard of if it’s a dark bendy road and someone on high beams is coming at you or if it is raining super hard. The only times i hate driving is when i can’t see the road and in Finland we have a lot of that.
No, therefore they should have made the most advancements by now and come up with their own creative additions (such as headlight-flashing or yellow-boxing) because they've had a longer time to work with it.
One thing you didn't notice / test with the Audi is that the yellow box will turn red if the pedestrian makes a move that could put it in the path of the vehicle.
Interesting Audi uses IR light source, while others use thermal. IR seems good with good visibility, but I wonder if the thermal would be a lot better in low vis conditions.
excuse me what's name of the music at 6:20 thankyou
What I find interesting is the fact that these car dealerships “never claimed” that you can see roads, pedestrians and animals with thermal vision - by itself. So the test was a false test from the beginning. These features are merely to “assist” the driver in detecting things ‘with heat signatures’ - nothing more. To me that helps, otherwise cops wouldn’t be able to catch things they’d normally never see without thermal vision such as people hiding behind camouflage or cars running and etc.
Wouldn't the steering wheel be bothersome while looking at the screen if the steering wheel is right in front of it? But at the same time feel really awkward when looking at the center console and driving, in the case of BMW. I think the best way to do it would be to not have a screen but instead some sort of HUD that displays on the windshield itself, highlighting potential dangers. Man cars are going to be crazy in the future.
Make a new night vision feature update with modern cars please! :)
Please do more shows like this one instead of the reality style shows.
According MSN Autos site, animal detection being added for cars from all three makers in 2013. Search "Animal detection coming to Audi, BMW, Mercedes as early as 2013" with google to find out more.
Donde puedo comprar ste aparato he instalarlo en mi bmw?
I'm actually looking to buy a Mercedes or BMW that can be optioned with Night Vision from these manufacturers. My interest is mainly for longer range detection of animals when driving on country roads at night.From what I can see these systems are intended to assist a driver to identify people, animals and in Mercedes case objects/obstructions on the road, well ahead of the normal reach of headlights. I would have liked to see a test from Car & Driver that concentrated more on live things.
Personally I think passive systems are superior. They work far better in bad weather conditions and there is no risk of blinding sensors of oncoming cars. I think the deer test was pointless. Point of these systems is to provide early warning. That's why they're focused far ahead. You have headlights and eyes for avoidance. In this generation pedestrians are of interest, future generations should look out for animals as well. Cone test was odd too because they have minimal heat signature.
when you have more light and less light. it say PASSIVE it means they just catch surrounding light. only merc has active night vision where he emits IR and catches it reflection
That kinda thinking could apply to everything in life such as cars, TV, games, phones, software and so on . It means you buy the cheapest or cheaper version of everything and wait for the price to go down on more expensive stuff.
If you can't afford the more expensive version or are just cheap is OK. But that doesn't mean people that buy the more expensive versions are stupid. Maybe they have the money to treat themselves with the best of what they want.
The Mercedes they used here wasn’t the most recent one for that time.. still impressive
They actually did on the new 7 series LCI.
MY Dealer usually tries to convince me of NOT to take some extra because i prefer a fully loaded car instead of a poor mans edition which is not making me enjoy the ride a lot.
In fact i'd rather take a smaller car with more options than a big car that is naked.
In my knowledge about night vision systems on cars (especially the one in the mercedes), in order for the night vision to work, the lights of the car need to be on. Not sure about how bmw and audi do it, but I'm pretty sure that's how the mercedes is.
What happens when you come across another car with nightvision? Will they blind eachother's visions?
If its thermal how you can test it with a cold death plastic obstacles like the turkey??, also you are testing them on a wide open area, lets do it in a more dense layout like a forest and narrow roads with curves!
BMW should consider moving the night-vision screen to the middle of the dials like the rest.
Guys , just a thought : when you drive relying only on the night vision. YOU SHOULD TURN THE HEADLIGHTS OFF FOR BETTER CONTRAST !
yes i'm 8
are you 16 now?
I liked it. I am guessing that if the Caddy night vision had been part of this, maybe the projection could be seen on the paper. That could have been interesting. I just looked at used car listing of a DTS with night vision, nice looking car, asking $2500. I kind of almost want it.
this camera also can
..doing around 100mph when the moving traffic drove into a wall of fog;litterally, daylight to clouds (rolling across the hills). 1 car slows dramatically, 1 swerves, 42 odd cars in mass wreckage. Millions of $ in damage, road closed, dozens injured, i'm sure, some dead. When i saw this system demo'd in 2003, the car faces a room full of water vapour (simulated fog) and all the vehicles stationary in the fog are clearly visible as if the fog were not there. Car and Driver, LET'S SEE THAT TEST!
www.alibaba.com/product-detail/long-Distance-Night-Vision-Strong-Light_60594150926.html?spm=a2747.manage.list.4.247a71d2etrPCP
This can work in fog
Thanks for saving 10 minutes of my life! *watches video anyways*
Just a ponder... Doesn't the BMW have HUD that shows the pedestrian or the HUD considered not part of the test?
Why the CL550 and not the S500?
How exactly is 'how close can you get' test useful?
Why wasn't there any kind of opposing traffic, to test how well the systems behave when blinded by other cars' headlights?
I don't think 4 feet, 3 inches from the deer is "weak". Why do you need to get an inch from an object? These aren't for parallel parking, it's for noticing objects down the road while moving at speed.
Main use for me?... Detect the warm engine of a police cruiser sitting in the median on a lonely highway while he runs his radar trap.
I made night vision system for a car under 100 euro. Now I must printed some parts on 3D printer and then I go testing the whole system in my car. What do you think, want you buy my system in future ?
Please let me know.
totally agreed
Would have been more helpful if you tested whether they can see through smoke and heavy fog.
Are you SURE that they don't emit infrared light? I'm pretty sure they do... And why would they have infrared filters if they are trying to capture the infrared light exactly?
Spotted people at 500 feet? Can you see that far with the headlights?
3d tha rapstar has his night vision displayed on his cl 550 too, should check it out he tells what he likes dislikes about it...this a cool video too
This shows which car company is the best
you can drive with it with the uropean model that is not permitted into the us yet.
also Cadillac has a live drive system that beats all these cars hands down.
They were testing how accurate the screen and camera would depict how far the car was from the actual object. That's why they all failed.
I really like cl class. Wana get it
You need object distant meter as well
i would like to see the new BMW night vision considering it looks more clear. Mercedes Night Vision is the best hands down son!
plz the car makers of these cars didn't intend for you to cover every window in the car
this test doesn't make since I hope they intend for this to be a joke and not be taken seriously
What an unscientific test. There's so much subjectivity from the user that's unrelated to the actual night vision device.
what are they like in fog?
www.alibaba.com/product-detail/long-Distance-Night-Vision-Strong-Light_60594150926.html?spm=a2747.manage.list.4.247a71d2etrPCP
this device can
That turkey really got reamed!
It was a great video, very interesting, and I would also like to see them work in a "city scenario" just to see how they work in those situations and not only in big open spaces :D
so can these see through water
They didn't turn on the "active" setting for the Mercedes.