Super-second-generation and third-generation image intensifiers are two types of image intensifiers that use different technologies. Super-second-generation image intensifiers employ a Na2KSb(Cs) photocathode, whereas third-generation image intensifiers employ a GaAs photocathode. Third-generation image intensifiers employ higher cathode voltages than those employed by super-second-generation image intensifiers. In addition, third-generation image intensifiers employ an antireflection coating between the glass input window and GaAs photocathode; however, this is not employed in super second-generation image intensifiers. Furthermore, third-generation image intensifiers employ ion barriers on their MCP(microchannel plate), whereas super-second-generation image intensifiers do not. In terms of limiting resolution, despite the small initial electron velocity, narrow exit angle distribution, and high cathode voltage of the third-generation image intensifiers, the limiting resolutions of the two types of image intensifiers are the same; the advantages of the GaAs photocathode of the third-generation image intensifiers have not been introduced under the existing limiting resolution level. In terms of signal-to-noise ratio, the GaAs photocathode has a higher cathode sensitivity, normally more than twice that of the super-second-generation image intensifier. Thus, theoretically, the third-generation image intensifiers have signal-to-noise ratios that are 1.4 times those of the super-second-generation image intensifiers. However, the two types of image intensifiers are basically the same owing to the influence of higher cathode voltage and ion barrier transmittance and the advantage of not introducing the high sensitivity of the GaAs photocathode of the third-generation image intensifiers. In terms of gain, although the third-generation image intensifiers have higher cathode sensitivity and cathode voltage, the super-second-generation image intensifiers compensate for the shortcomings of cathode sensitivity and cathode voltage by increasing the working voltage of the microchannel plate. Therefore, in terms of the existing image intensifier gain, the gains of the two types of image intensifiers are identical. In terms of equivalent background illumination(EBI), owing to the higher sensitivity of the GaAs photocathode, the third-generation image intensifiers can obtain lower equivalent background illumination under the same photocathode dark current. Therefore, the third-generation image intensifiers have higher initial contrast than that of the super-second-generation image intensifiers. The higher the initial contrast of the input image, the higher the contrast of the output image. In terms of halo, because the photocathode of the third-generation image intensifiers has high sensitivity and an ion barrier film, theoretically, the third-generation image intensifiers have higher halo brightness than that of the super-second-generation image intensifiers. However, in actual situation, the halo brightness levels of the two types of image intensifiers are basically the same. In terms of stray light, the GaAs photocathode has an antireflection coating; thus, the stray light is lower than that of the super-second-generation image intensifier, so the imaging of the third-generation image intensifier is clearer and the sense of gradation is better. In terms of spectral response beyond the long-wavelength threshold, because the spectral responses beyond the long-wavelength threshold of the super-second-generation image intensifiers are higher than those of the third-generation image intensifiers, the super-second-generation image intensifiers have better imaging performance than that of the third-generation image intensifier under supplementary illumination using the near-infrared waveband. For example, without the presence of any light, the super-second-generation image intensifiers can obtain better images at a supplementary illumination of 980 nm wavelength, whereas the third-generation image intensifiers cannot. In terms of the resolution of low illumination, the super-second- and third-generation image intensifiers with similar performance parameters have the same low luminance resolution. It should be noted that this conclusion was obtained under the test conditions of a standard A light source. When the actual environmental emission spectrum distribution is different from that of a standard illuminant A, the low illumination resolutions of the two types of image intensifiers are different. Photocathode sensitivity is a parameter of the photocathode and not of the image intensifier. Thus, the performances of the two types of image intensifiers cannot be compared in terms of photocathode sensitivity. The difference between the super-second and third-generations cannot be understood using the meaning of “generation;” their differences do not lie in the meaning of “generation.”