As I have stated in the mailbag thread the TG165 is a disappointment. A 1 pixel IR thermometer merged with a LEPTON core
Frankensteins monster comes to mind
My comments from the Mail Bag thread reproduced here:
----------------------------------------------------
For anyone wondering what lives inside the FLUKE VT02, I did a teardown a while back.
It is very different (inferior) technology to that used in the TG165. A low resolution pyro-electric staring array, called the Redeye 6A captures the images and these are interpolated up to higher resolution. IIRC the Redeye 6A is a 31x31 pixel array that is used in a 15x15 pixel format in the VT02 and 30x30 format in the VT04. The Redeye 6A uses technology similar to the original BST arrays and requires a shutter (chopper) wheel to interrupt the image.
All becomes clear when you see the teardown that I did.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/fluke-vt02-thermal-camera-visual-thermometer-teardown/msg467641/#msg467641The VTxx series are FIXED FOCUS on both visible and thermal cameras, Depth of focus is similar to the E4. The wheel that looks like a focus control is just the lens cover that rotates to protect the lenses and releases the trigger lock..
The TG165 is a different beast BUT I have issues with the temperature being measured by a pretty much bog standard pyroelectric IR thermometer....very old school and a technique used in older fire fighting cameras, but they had a much smaller pyrometer FOV. The VT02 and VT04 read the radiometric data from the Redeye 6A so you measure what you see without parallax error issues and close-in working on PCB's is possible. The use of a single pixel pyrometer in the TG165 is fraught with measurement error risk as is the case with the conventional IR thermometer technology. With the FOV having a direct effect on the target area size with distance, it is essential to achieve 100% or greater illumination of the pyrometers view to avoid errors creeping in. This is why thermal cameras are so effective....they show you on the screen exactly which cluster of pixels are making the measurement. For me, the TG165 is a disappointment as surely the microbolometer could have provided adequate measurement accuracy ? Or maybe not. Is this the LEPTON cores Achilles heel ? Poor measurement accuracy
As Dave stated, the TG165 is aimed at a specific market and is well designed for that. However I would expect many to buy the superior E4 instead ? The standard resolution is the same, MSX is included and the E4 is a superior camera in most (all?) respects.
As for the VT02 and VT04, I suspect continued sales will only be due to buyers wanting FLUKE branded equipment ! My two VT02 prototypes were bought only out of curiosity
-------------------------------------------------------------------