I have done side-by-side comparisons of an ITT thin-film Ultra P43 (green), an L3 unfilmed P45(white), an L3 unfilmed P43 all with similar performance specs.
Don't have any videos, yet. The comparisons are all based on eyeball observations.
This is what I have seen using a 1X NV objective:
When pointing each of the three tubes (MX10160 format) into the forest at Mount Pinos, Calif, BOTH unfilmed tubes showed greater definition of tree branches and rocks on the ground in the deep dark shadows of the forest. The thin-filmed Ultra tube showed less contrast in the deep shadows and overall exhibited a faint glow / haze on all terrestrial targets (tree branches, the ground) as if someone had placed a translucent (not transparent) film in front of the objective on the NV monocular housing. All three tubes had the same type of housing with the same front objective.
When pointed at the sky the difference between the thin-filmed and unfilmed tubes was less obvious. In fact the only difference I could see was that dimmer stars appeared sharper in my unfilmed tubes because there is a resolution difference between the thin-filmed vs unfilmed tubes - both unfilmed tubes have 72 lp/mm resolution vs. 64 lp/mm resolution in the thin-filmed Ultra tube.
I suspect that a video might not demonstrate the visual differences because although they are obvious visually, they are subtle enough, such that a camera may not have adequate dynamic range to capture the contrast differences.
I have not yet attempted a comparison between the three tubes in a telescope yet.
One final note, a while back I did a similar comparison between my thin-film Ultra tube and an L3 unfilmed tube with an SNR that is 4 points lower than the thin-filmed tube. The lower SNR unfilmed tube still showed better contrast and detail in forest deep shadows and sharper faint stars. This lower SNR unfilmed tube also has a resolution of 72 lp/mm.
I'm pretty much sold on unfilmed tubes. Wish they could be had in MX10130 format (for PVS-7's).