Fluke VT02 resolution?

[zapta]

Anybody knows what is the resolution of the thermal image of the Fluke VT02. Looked all over their site and could not find it.

It is available for their other thermal imager like the TI29 but not for the low end VT02 and VT04.

[pmcouto]

Hi zapta,

Fluke VT02 is a “Visual IR Thermometer” – it is not a thermal imager.
As such, it doesn’t make much sense to speak about resolution (it’s very low, I guess…).

If you’re looking for a low cost real thermal imager, take a look at FLIR I3.
I3 price isn’t far from VT02 and it is “the real thing”.

[zapta]

>> Fluke VT02 is a “Visual IR Thermometer” – it is not a thermal imager.

Are you sure? My understanding is that it super imposes a low res thermal image layer on a high res visible light picture.  It also allows you to set the weight (opacity) of the thermal layer.

As for the I3, yes, price is reasonable but I like the idea of imposing a low res thermal image over a hi res visible light image. You can identify the parts and still associate temperature with them. The VT04 is supposed to have double the linear resolution of VT04 but I don't know what it is.

[pmcouto]

Fluke themselves call it “Visual IR Thermometer” instead of thermal imager and I’m sure there’s a reason for that.

http://www.fluke.com/fluke/usen/Thermometers/Infrared-Thermometers/VT02-Visual-IR-Thermometer.htm?PID=75051&trck=vt02

VT02 does indeed superimpose thermal information on a visible image, but the “resolution” is so low that it is very difficult to “see” a small spot.
Depending on your specific requirements, it may be OK for you but I would strongly advise to ask for a demo before you buy – it may not be what you’re expecting…

[Fraser]

Dave did a feature on the Fluke IR visual thermometers. He was not impressed in terms of 'bang for your buck' If it was say $200 it may have a decent market appeal but not at its current price. I classic case of too little, too late to market.

Dave did find out the resolution. I will see if I can find it.

[Fraser]

Take a look here

http://toolguyd.com/fluke-vt02-visual-ir-thermometer/

The article infers that the Fluke marketing team are ashamed of the low resolution so do not mention it.

Its optical resolution is 104x104 (11K pixels) but the thermal imager chip is only 15x15 (225 Pixels)

IriSys used to make 16x16 sensors in the UK and the common view is that 256 pixels is not enough to recognise what you are looking at, hence the requirement to fuse the thermal image with a visual image.

[zapta]

Thanks Aurora, this is what I was looking for. Yes, this is a new breed of thermal imagers, higher resolution for the visible, very low resolution for the thermal (with some interpolation).

The min focus is at 50cm with 20degrees opening, so if my calculation are correct, this translates to about 1cm per thermal pixel and 1.3mm per visible pixel. Might be good enough. The VT04 is supposed to have x4 the number of thermal pixels.

In a sense, it is similar to NTSC signal, high chroma resolution, lower color resolution, customer is happy.

Edit: should I expect a significant price drop in that market in the next year or so? My need is not urgent.

[Fraser]

As has been discussed in the Mu thermal imager project, the high cost items in a TIC are the Germanium lens and the micro-bolometer assembly. The micro-bolometer is an expensive component and a mechanical temperature calibration shutter is required. It has been shown that the imager chip used in many of the cameras has the same resolution and the manufacturer decides on the pixel count and final cost that the market will accept. These are still specialist items of kit.

All this adds up to a product that will remain quite expensive in the consumer marketplace. The numbers produced are also low when compared to your average digital camera.

Some will tell you that the Patent on some FLIR micro-bolometer FPA's has expired, or is about to expire. That does not make the micro-bolometers cheap to manufacture though.
 

[EEVblog]

IIRC sensor is about 16x16, I think made by a UK company. I do have some video footage comparing it with a Flir i3, absolutely no contest.

[EEVblog]

Here is the video:


Unlisted so far because I'm not sure if it belongs on the EEVblog channel or the Altzone channel?

[zapta]

Thanks Dave. Thumbs down indeed. I will keep looking. Interesting that it has good reviews on Amazon.

BTW, am I the only one that sees Tweety on the FIR screen here?  http://youtu.be/eHRyQtqg2SE#t=110s 

[timbob]

Thanks Dave for doing a video on the fluke vt02, but it came a couple months to late for me.

[all_repair]

Dave, I think many EEVBLOG viewers are evaluating the VT02 because of the price and visual + IR image.  Your video shall be very useful.  Thanks.

[zapta]

Thanks Dave for doing a video on the fluke vt02, but it came a couple months to late for me.

Did you buy it? How does it work for you?

[timbob]

Thanks Dave for doing a video on the fluke vt02, but it came a couple months to late for me.

Did you buy it? How does it work for you?

yes I did, it helped me found what was wrong with the plasma tv I as working on.

[EEVblog]

Did you buy it? How does it work for you?

No, the impromptu video was shot with someone who had one.

[timbob]

here are some of the pics I took with it
note- temp it is fahrenheit

[nowlan]

Not sure which is best thread, but notice this morning that element14 have rebate offers on fluke (not FLIR).
http://au.element14.com/special-offers

FLUKE "FILL YOUR POCKET" PROMOTION
Purchase a Fluke VT02 or VT04 Visual IR Thermometer between 1st November and 31st December 2013 and you will be eligible to receive:
Promo details
GET $120 AUD rebate with any purchase of the VT02 Visual IR thermometer.
GET $325 AUD rebate with any purchase of the VT04 Visual IR thermometer.

[mikeselectricstuff]

IIRC sensor is about 16x16, I think made by a UK company. I do have some video footage comparing it with a Flir i3, absolutely no contest.

IriSys used to make 16x16 sensors in the UK and the common view is that 256 pixels is not enough to recognise what you are looking at, hence the requirement to fuse the thermal image with a visual image.

..Fluke bought Irisys in June 2012 so seems likely they use the Irirsys sensor, though I've also seen a mention that at least one Fluke VT uses some sort of scanning mirror.
The Irisys sensor is pyroelectric, and only senses chages, so maybe they're using some sort of scanning arrangement instead of a chopper disc

BTW This news report features some of Irisys' fab facilities

[sipo75]

Not sure which is best thread, but notice this morning that element14 have rebate offers on fluke (not FLIR).
http://au.element14.com/special-offers

FLUKE "FILL YOUR POCKET" PROMOTION
Purchase a Fluke VT02 or VT04 Visual IR Thermometer between 1st November and 31st December 2013 and you will be eligible to receive:
Promo details
GET $120 AUD rebate with any purchase of the VT02 Visual IR thermometer.
GET $325 AUD rebate with any purchase of the VT04 Visual IR thermometer.

Would there be any reason to buy a Fluke VT0x now that Flir has released the E4?

Seems obsolete since the Flir E4 hit the shelfs - even without considering the hack.

[Fraser]

Saw a Fluke visual themometer VT02 in the office yesterday. It should be made clear that it is not a thermal camera like the E4.
IMHO, there is no comparison. The E4 wipes the floor with it, even when in 80x80 original format. VT02 and VT04 have effectively become obsolete overnight. This is why the E4 is such a reviolutionary step. It provides affordable reasonable resolution when combined with MSX in standard rig, plus it can presently be 'enhanced' by the user after purchase. A winning combination me thinks.

The Fluke may have an appeal to buyers with a scenario that does not require the better resolution that the E4 offers. There is a cost saving to be had and some buyers will be looking at the value for money aspect in relation to their need. I am interested in seeing what Fluke's response to the E4 will be, as they are unlikely to let FLIR stomp all over their market share.

[EEVblog]

Would there be any reason to buy a Fluke VT0x now that Flir has released the E4?

Not at the similar price point, no. There is no contest. The Fluke might be worthy of consideration if it was significantly less than say half the price of the Flir.

[amyk]

Its optical resolution is 104x104 (11K pixels)

Are you sure you don't mean 1024x1024 for visible light? Do they even make visible image sensors with that low of a resolution? Something like the OmniVision OVxxxx series are so cheap that I'm surprised they didn't go with at least 320x240...

[Fraser]

I was appalled with 11K pixels visual as well !

The manual is here:

 http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/fluke/pdf/vt02_man.pdf

Specs state 11K pixels with a 20 degree field of view. If you look at the visual images the unit produces you will see the poor visual resolution.

Specs say the detector is uncooled pyroelectric ceramic type. Not a micro-bolometer then. Mike's suggestion that the unit likely contains a IRISys detector looks very likely to be the case.

The VT02 optics are descibed as 'pyroblend' so I wonder if an oscillating mirror blends the thermal and visual images mechanically ?
Only a thought, no more. Oscillating mirrors were used in scanning type thermal cameras, and as a surface coated mirror reflects visual and thermal wavelengths, it could be used to present a scene to the visual and thermal image detectors in alternate image fields ? An odd idea though as electronic blending is more common these days but the resolution differences between the visual and thermal detectors could be the problem.

UPDATE.

Having read the manual I am less convinced of my suggestion that an oscillating mirror is used for the 'blend' as the thermal and visual lenses are not coaxial in nature as would be required. They are quite a distance apart.

[mcinque]

Thanks Dave for saving me from that garbage.

Dave 
Fluke VT02