384 vs 640

ATN thor4 384 4.5 vs 640 4.0. This is a comparison between the two starting at 50 yds out to 350 yds. 50 yard increment with base to max zoom

[@JAT_4321]

FINALLY. Good job for making a video that ACTUALLY SHOWS SOMETHING instead of talking about specs I can just read on a website!!

[@TasteLikeChicken]

I agree with this comment absolutely.

[@SilverStarHeggisist]

Interesting, it seems the 384 produces a higher contrast image that makes finding a target easier, while the 640 once the target is located produces a clearer picture of the target. thanks for this simple side by side comparison. just what I needed to help me decide.

[@thehealthpolicychannel1229]

I noticed that too. However, i think the difference in contrast is how the scopes are setup. I think the major difference is the resolution difference you notice when he zoom s in both the scopes so that the person appears about the same size on both scopes. the right image is clearer

[@scottbyars6189]

Thank you for this excellent comparison. I now know that the 384 will more than satisfy my needs as all of my shots would be 200yds or less on coyotes and the resolution of the 384 appears to be good enough to identify coyotes at that range.

[@AboxofMonsters]

384 looks better in some ways and as long as you dont mAx zoom 640 not needed Both are clear Good upload!!

[@EroticOnion23]

Yea until they get to like 4K it's pretty much meaningless...😁

[@davidshuff2700]

I completely agree with most of the comments about the need for honest videos instead of advertisements and a bunch of BS. I actually couldn’t believe how hard it was to find a video that actually showed the difference in the actual field of view. I’m just looking for a thermal monocular that I can distinguish between hogs and small deer at about 100 to 125 yards. If anyone has a suggestion I would love to hear it because this thermal monocular business is expensive and can be overwhelming with all the information and or disinformation.

[@thomaspike1475]

Thanks for making this video. Really shows what more money buys you. Also lets you decide if the 384 is good enough.

[@barbandrob1]

Finally a useful video on thermals

[@strat1960s]

I love this video comparison. I wish you could have included the magnification/x zoom so I could kind of figure out at how much zoom does it start to look grainy.

[@saltyreviews1848]

Dang, and I was hoping to get away with a 256 Thermal...looks like a few more months of PB&J and Ramen Noodles!

[@muddyriverdogz]

Dont forget the hot dogs AKA lips and assholes.

[@anotherguy9402]

How's it working out?

[@saltyreviews1848]

@@anotherguy9402 Got both 384 and 640.

[@wonderingsoul9890]

Just made the decision a little more expensive. Nice Vid!!!!

[@theshepherdsoutdoors9985]

Thanks

[@toddjenest3212]

DAMN IT! LOL I thought I might be okay with the 384 until I saw this comparison. I guess I need to save more money. 😥

[@muddyriverdogz]

@@toddjenest3212 No need the 384 is good enough.

[@bradbutler4213]

Thank you for doing this. Straight to it. Good usable information.

[@thenewyorkredneck4735]

Thank you so much for making a video that gets right to the point

[@DOGWOMAN55]

THANK YOU!!!!!!👍🙏 you saved ne alot of money as i could not find a good compasrison video and THIS is the only one.. GREAT JOB

[@scmbtv3686]

Great video! I have been trying to find one that showed a side by side like this

[@vdcalls]

This is exactly what I was looking for. Solid side x side video.

[@DeeDee-vu5mi]

If one has a base mag of 4.5 and the other has a 4, then why did you not start both at 4.5 for a better comparison?. Keeping the mag levels the same throughout. But all in all still a reasonably good comparison

[@toddjenest3212]

DAMN IT! LOL I thought I might be okay with the 384 until I saw this comparison. I guess I need to save more money. 😥

[@theshepherdsoutdoors9985]

Yea the 630 is bad ass. But also the 384 is killer for the money

[@nathanstandley156]

Why does the 640 w 40x max zoom look less zoomed in than the 384 w 18x max zoom?

[@Kettenhund75]

Holy cow, look at all the dead pixels in the 640.

[@breckfreeride]

Yep... Gotta love atn... The 384 has a few too

[@n2shooter]

@@breckfreeride They just didn't take the time to do a pixel correction, which clears this right up. Every thermal scope from every manufacture has this, and if you don't believe, just look at the AGM Rattler manuals, as they show you the menus for DPC (Dead Pixel Correction). I own a Thor 4 384 and X-Sight 4K Pro, and they have served me very well.

[@susanp.pfeiffer6546]

What magnification were you using for the max zoom?

[@Wldmanuk]

Tbh depends on size of lens as well a 15mm 384 vs a 35mm 384 the 35mm lens has a 2.5 magnification head start

[@sailguy0321]

Thank you for this video. Very informative and useful

[@nathanielgray4235]

I am a little bit confused on how the magnification works so differently with these thermos in ratio to magnification number versus how close the image looks

[@marshalllaw4116]

I could make that shot with either scope. My 384 288,2x8 shipped yesterday, can't wait.

[@SilverStarHeggisist]

I think there's a more important thing then can you make the shot, and that is, do you know exactly what you're shooting at. for instance, is it just a unarmed girl walking near a tree line or is it someone carrying a gun moving in on your position.

[@JoeyFranko]

i bet you were disappointed i bought a thor 4 it had to repaired or replaced 7 times

[@joeashbubemma]

For the price, the 384 works fine for me.

[@JoeyFranko]

some advice about the ATN thor 4. i bought a thor 4 640 2.5x25, its been repaired or replaced 7 times, you get what you paid for, its better to spend a little more, than less, when buying a thermal scope

[@rumplemcfrankenberg]

thank god you made this video

[@grantjamrock3812]

For the cost difference and most shots being wwll within 200 yards just don't zoom in so much

[@ChapsShrugged]

AWESOME video, zoom in/out at varying distance, simultaneously captured for IDENTICAL condition & a side-by-side, display for exact comparison. I'm filtering (very hard) to choose my first thermal. Since its my first, I want a good experience, so I need to weigh factors like versatility, type and frequency of use, budget vs overall performance & quality... Is it worth 2x the price for something I may not use all that frequently, or would it well to purchase multiple mounts for use with several units? Do I want simplicity or will I wish I had certain features? This was very helpful and I think ultimately, my effective range of use will be the deciding factor on which is a better fit for me. Thank you!

[@JakeB-920]

what is the magnification on these scopes? or at least the max magnification? trying to figure out which one i want

[@clintlautner9542]

Great video

[@jymdaddy1465]

384 for hunting 640 for law enforcement and military

[@Snick8765]

Good video thank you

[@alexboael25]

thanks

[@nathanielgray4235]

Vary good comparison

[@josedominguez7708]

Nice comparison I stuck to the 640

[@nathanielgray4235]

Are the atns still holding up and how is the battery after a bunch of use

[@paulcrow4827]

Am I the only one who likes the 384 better?

[@theshepherdsoutdoors9985]

IMO on the 384 heat stands out better, but on the 640 picture quality is way better. the latest updates on the 640 have made it way better i need to do this video again

[@paulcrow4827]

@@theshepherdsoutdoors9985 Thanks. I have been trying to research thermal for predator hunting. Not sure if ATN is a quality option.

[@theshepherdsoutdoors9985]

@@paulcrow4827 What are you looking for as far as quality? I use mine 2-3 times a week in anything from -20 in michigan in the winter and 90 down in texas and everything in between. I've been in rain "I do try not to let it get to wet" snow, ice. just about anything and it always works. add the ability to record, good eye relief, and a 14hour battery. I think they are awesome. Check out my facebook page "the shepherds outdoors" and you will see lots more videos of them. feel free to ask any questions I would be happy to help

[@paulcrow4827]

@@theshepherdsoutdoors9985 Are you on Instagram?

[@theshepherdsoutdoors9985]

@@paulcrow4827 yes @the.shepherds.outdoors

[@poppabear9279]

I own 2 of the ThOR 4, 640, 2.5x25. I’ve looked through the lower resolution imagers and they’re good, but if you don’t want stuff pixeling as bad, the 640 is a no brained. At zoom powers above 10x, even the 640 imagers will start showing pixels. So, my recommendation is to just bite the bullet and get the 640 imagers. I also have their XSight 4K night vision. The high def on them is great day or night. Slight delay / lag on them, but that’s ok. Drop the resolution down a tiny bit and enable 120hz refresh and that even clears up most of the lag. Thermal has almost no latency (lag) and are amazing. Where we live, we have coyotes, bears and the occasional fox that try to get into our chicken coops. Latency can mean the difference between living and dying if you have a bear charging you.

[@JoeyFranko]

i bought the same scope, its been repaired or replaced 7 times, what a piece of junk, atn sucks

[@jamessawyer1331]

@@JoeyFranko What issue were you having on these?

[@leoelderkin9716]

Seems counter-intuitive that the lower resolution version has superior sensitivity an greater magnification. It's almost as if your pixel count labels are swapped. Kind of a bummer if the point of your exercise was to make viewers decide to buy the cheaper version because it appears to be the superior choice...

[@SilverStarHeggisist]

I think it's less that it's more sensitive and more that the pixels wash over. notice that while the lower resolution image is brighter, you've almost no idea what you're looking at especially at longer range, it kinda just becomes a warm pillar.

[@muddyriverdogz]

@@SilverStarHeggisist I could make out the animal being looked at just fine.

[@randomconvos]

What magnifications are these?

[@theshepherdsoutdoors9985]

The 640 is a base of 4 and the 384 is a base of 4.5

[@shawncrittenden6216]

@@theshepherdsoutdoors9985 Ya well what is max for each ?????Are these------- 384 4.5-18x----- and 640 4.0-40x? if so why does max at 350yrds shown at 4:30 person looks the same size at 18x and 40x???? Should not 640 40x person be like half a size bigger than 384 at 18x?

[@joeprimal2044]

So is a sensor better than the 640 coming out soon, or is that limited by military restrictions?

[@theshepherdsoutdoors9985]

My guess is cost but honestly I don’t know. I know the military are way better but I’m not sure what sensors they are using.

[@joeprimal2044]

@@theshepherdsoutdoors9985 Thanks very much. I guess waiting for these to come down is probably silly, time to cry once.

[@theshepherdsoutdoors9985]

@@joeprimal2044 check out the ATN refurbished units. They are considerably less expensive. Also they get the same warranty as new units

[@joeprimal2044]

@@theshepherdsoutdoors9985 Will do, thanks.

[@jataun1978RoTex]

There’s so many thermals better than ATN for the same price or cheaper. Never understood why people would buy one. Prove me wrong and send me one that actually looks good.

[@charlesbukowski9836]

like what ?

[@n2shooter]

The built in Ballistics Calculator is by far a killer feature that the other brands just don't have. As an airgunner, I heavily rely on this feature for both my Thor 4 384 and my X-Sight 4K Pro with the added ABL Laser Rangefinders.

[@jasonliu3202]

Actually the 384 has a better sensitivity, higher contrast

[@RobinLester-d9k]

Gonzalez Christopher Moore Elizabeth Moore Eric

[@OrpiAktar-q3w]

Miller Cynthia Brown David Williams Jeffrey

[@possumtrapper]

then put the cheaper Pulsar XP50 thermion next to the Mars 4 4-40 and the ATN goes back to the shop.

[@dariuszkaps1444]

rubbish