O.K. now that I have a few more minutes I will try to pull some information that will better explain the rods vs. cones issue:
The retina contains two types of photoreceptors, rods and cones. The rods are more numerous, some 120 million, and are more sensitive than the cones. However, they are not very very sensitive to color. The 6 to 7 million cones provide the eye's primary color sensitivity and they are much more concentrated in the central yellow spot known as the macula.
Measured density curves for the rods and cones on the retina show an enormous density of cones in the fovea centralis. The cones are responsible for all high resolution vision. To them is attributed both color vision and the highest visual acuity. On the other hand, the rods are absent from the fovea. At a few degrees away from it their density rises to a high value and spreads over a much larger overall area of the retina. These rods are responsible for night vision, our most sensitive motion detection, and our peripheral vision.
As mentioned, rods are not very sensitive to color and this is most pronounced in their almost complete lack of response to red light. This leads to some interesting phenomena. Take for example a red rose at twilight: In bright light, the color-sensitive cones are predominant and we see a brilliant red rose with somewhat more subdued green leaves. But at twilight, the less-sensitive cones begin to shut down for the night, and most of the vision comes from the rods. The rods pick up the green from the leaves much more strongly than the red from the petals, so the green leaves become brighter than the red petals!
A ship's captain typically has red instrument lights. Since the rods do not respond to red, the captain can gain full dark-adapted vision with the rods with which to watch for icebergs and other obstacles outside. It would be undesirable to examine anything with white light even for a moment, because the re-attainment of optimum night-vision may take up to a half-hour. Red lights do not spoil it.
This same phenomena would apply to the coatings on the Predator binocular. The red (and brown – which is a color largely made up of red light) which the Predator is designed to enhance so as to make game animals stand out better are not seen by the rods in low light, which would serve to neutralize the value of the binoculars color-enhancing coatings.
This doesn't mean that you won't be able to see game animals using a Predator binocular in low light - it just means that they will not perform any better than any other binocular as their special coatings will provide no benefit. Thus the NightHunter, with its coatings which are designed to maximize overall light "transmission" would likely be the better choice if/when low-light performance is the only consideration - as was the case with the original question posted. This is not a matter of speculation or opinion, it is a simple fact of physics.
(p.s. the technical information posted was taken from hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu )