@MrAbrek777 Maximum clarity is only achieved at base magnification. 1.6x. (Actual optical zoom) Zooming above 1.6x is digital and essentially stretches the image. This will result in image pixelation, which gets worse the higher it's zoomed. While the image will become pixelated and this certainly affects clarity, it still aids greatly to the ability to hold reticle position relative to the target.

@@FoReNziiCz it's HVAC aluminum duct tape and can be bought at pretty much any hardware store. (I usually get it at ACE hardware)

Also, could you share the ballistic calculator app? For some reason, this app not available in app store. Thanks

The left hand recording through the scope was preformed by simply hitting the REC button on the scope while in video mode. (Look in the top left of your display and if you see a video camera icon it's in video mode, if you see a camera icon do a long press on the REC button first to switch to video mode) A short REC button press will start recording and you should see a red dot and timer activate. Another short press will pause or resume recording and a long press while recording will stop and save the video. Links for Stream Vision ballistics are Android play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yukon.ballisticcalculator Apple apps.apple.com/us/app/stream-vision-ballistics/id1530158169

@@foxoptic5887 a lot of thanks Travis. Seems they blocked the mentioned app in Ukraine. The last question, do you know if some software development API available for this scope? I mean if I want to develop some software and communicate with rifflescope programmatically from externall app - fetch video, change settings and profiles, etc. Thanks

@SuperBatiskaf The Stream Vision 2 wifi application (this is a different app than the Bluetooth controlled Stream Vision ballistics) already allows video transfer and remote operation of most scope functions. If you interested in app development opportunities, I would contact Yukon Global directly, I am guessing they don't allow this.

@@foxoptic5887 stream vision 2 works very well, for hunting. I need some approach for the targets moving on the air at pretty high speed. I guess yukon will be against my initiatives. A lot of Thanks

Personally, I like the extra versatility that the lower base magnification and higher resolutional compression provide. The XL unquestionably has better image performance if focused properly at distance than the XP50 with double the pixels per sq unit area. I lock the PIP on and use it to shoot with so I don't have issue with it going out after 10 seconds when the lfr is activated. Ranging with the LRF hasn't been an issue for me. In inclement weather I still get better ID'S, than the XP50 PRO can provide in almost every side by side condition that I have tested.

@@foxoptic5887 Im not seeing the versatility. In reality the picture is fantastic in short to medium range (<200m) thats what you get free with the 1.75 base magnification and HD. But the scope has to work harder for longer ranges and the picture really breaks up as the digital picture building is stretched. At 300m the 1.75 picture is useless for anything never mind further ranges, and its all digital zoom from there. PIP is not my preferred choice to shoot, in my opinion why use a small sight box when you have 3/4 of a screen sitting doing nothing, the problem is the scope does not offer a good option, its PIP or a bad offering if you dont want PIP. At 300m+ the non HD scopes see far better, I spent a day running the new HD with the standard Thermion2 and the older scope beats it hand down. The HD at 800m is down to a line of Pixels its that bad, The Thermion2 is a blob but its a better picture by far and you could still identify for instance a sheep from a fox if it was moving about. I have watched as many Thermion 2HD on line videos as possible and not one shows the scope at any distance over 200m. I dont think anyone is brave enough to test the 2 units at proper distances in a side by side. I own many scopes and understand fully what it takes tho get these things focused so Im sure im not the problem.

@paddymularkey At 100 yards, the XL with 1.75x has a FOV of 14x10.5 degrees or approximately 3975 sq ft with 786432 pixels this translates to approximately 200 pixels per sq ft at 100 yds. This is basically identical resolutional compression as all 3x 640x480 units on the market. The versatility comes in having the same resolutional compression (same top end ID'S. I prefer to use mathematical facts rather than subjective opinions. ) If focused correctly, the shallower 1.75x lens should actually produce slightly better results than a 3x at the same focal distance as the rays aren't bent as steeply. For me, the advantage of PIP is that I get FOV from the larger base screen for better situational awareness while being an eye movement away from clear and potentially highly magnified shot precision. The alternative in non HD devices narrowing the base FOV to increase resolution with less pixels. As your sensor gets bigger, your base magnification is limited at a given focal length. Increase the lens depth and you decrease exit pupil, this then requires a longer focal length and typically larger lens to deal with the weaker and potentially noisier signal caused by the longer distance from lens to sensor and sharper lens curve. With this said, I will agree to disagree. The XL50 is much more versatile than pretty much anything else on the market currently. (An opinion based on facts and my own comparison with multiple 640x480 units) 640x480 3x units are a great way to save money if you click the box FOV isn't critically important for my use. For me, the fact is, if I can have both in 1 device (FOV and long range high resolution), I will take it. FOV gives me more situational awareness (at night you can't see what's happening outside the display and it also gives me increased reticle travel vs narrower resolution/FOV units as reticle movement is constrained by the FOV

@@foxoptic5887 Wow that all sounds great and thats what I spent £6000 British pounds on, Pulsars marketing blurb, Your obviously paid to sell it, IM not, Im stuck with an inferior product. But the trouble is im not playing at 100yards. The problem comes at 300m-600m where that 1.75base with 10.5 degrees of angle is practically useless as a FOV where everything is now dots in the distance and your left with a poor quality PIP to shoot with. At that distance I find I want the whole screen for identification and see whats around my target. And again thats where this scope falls down, by not giving a good non PIP option. You like your numbers I just like a good clear picture, the Thermion HD does this badly. Show a side by side test of a fox or rabbit at 600m / 14x zoom and see what scope has the best image. If your brave show something at 1000m and the HD will show individual pixels, I know I spent my weekend comparing with my NON HD Thermion2.

The new LRF units will provide a suggested point of impact based on the ballistics information that you input. You can input pretty much any starting point you would like, 50, 60, 75, 100, 200 etc Yards or Meters. Basically the inputs create a start origin and associated trajectory curve for the projectile. Then it calculates the intersections at the LRF input over distances as they deviate from the "known" starting point. (The distance that you tell it you zeroed at)

There is a stadiametric measurement/estimation feature capable of reading in Yards or Meters.

Thanks for watching.

On DUO, simply hit the mode switching button at the rear of the eyepiece