Actual resolution of Flir One V2

[tom66]

Does anyone know the actual resolution of the 2nd gen Flir One which supports Android?

Flir seem to indicate 160x120, but they say this is an "enhanced" resolution, and it uses a Lepton core (which seems to be 80x60 only)

I'm tempted to get one and sell my Seek Thermal, but I think 80x60 even with MSX will be too low resolution for SMD work. I plan to add a lens to it, to use it with SMD, so MSX would usually be off.

[TopLoser]

Got one on my desk. What's the simplest way to determine actual resolution?

[tom66]

Look at an image with sharp gradients, you will be able to tell if it uses interpolation or something. Just upload a photo here and we can probably tell.

[TopLoser]

Just took a pic of a finned heatsink. MSX turned off.

[tom66]

Hard to pick out any contrasting edges - could you get a picture of something with a sharp edge? Maybe something like a soldering iron, or a thin and hot wire.

[TopLoser]

Well you can easily resolve 30 fins. That's surely more than 60 pixels in the horizontal direction?

[tom66]

Yes - I appreciate that and thanks for taking the photo with the camera. But I am trying to determine if the resolution is greater than 80 pixels across. That sets a lower bound of 60 pixels but we know the Flir Lepton sensor is at least 80x60. I'm just wondering if Flir have a custom 160x120 Lepton, or if they're just talking about some edge enhancement algorithm that improves apparent sharpness but doesn't actually add extra data.

It does look remarkably better than my Seek, and at a price that is extremely competitive.

[TopLoser]

It was a rushed picture, I have 'stuff' to attend to this afternoon and over the weekend. I'll try pictures with an increasing number of fins when I get back. I also have a Testo camera with 160x120 resolution I can do the same tests with.

Post of pic from the Seek camera with 30 similar fins if you can please? Or if somebody has an existing Flir One they can try the same.

[Fraser]

I have written to my friends in FLIR on this topic and hope to have a definitive answer soon.

Aurora

[frenky]

Post of pic from the Seek camera with 30 similar fins if you can please? Or if somebody has an existing Flir One they can try the same.

I don't have anything similar at hand but this photo shows what Seek is capable of:
(With custom software: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/seekthermal-how-to-correct-the-image-received-from-the-sensor/)


I'll try to find a pcb that has even smaller pins on IC.

[Trax]

whats the FOV of the new flir one?
can someone make a picture of a PCB?

@frenky
Have you used any additional lenses?

[frenky]

Yes I used 50mm lens in front of seek.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

[Muxr]

So I did a little experiment. I took the original image, and downscaled it to both purported resolutions, just to see how much data is lost. I don't know that this is a valid test. Since image resizing algorithm is obviously going to discard more when squeezing the image into a smaller resolution. But I still think it's interesting.

edit: also there are some jpeg compression artifacts at play, but I used 100% quality in every step.

[NathanFowler]

Not sure if this helps but here is an ambient temp heat sink against my hand.  Seems we can see the fins, gen 1 max blending off

[Fraser]

Well executed interpolation can be challenging to spot on thermal images when looking at everyday objects. The 160x120 image is up-scaled to the resolution of the phone screen as well.

A side by side comparison with a reference 160x120 pixel camera image is likely a good way to spot any obvious image manipulation. A common target, such as an SOIC chip, could be used to compare edge detail around the pins.  I can produce 160x120 images from an NEC AVIO F30 or TESTO 875. I will see what I can do over the weekend.

There are some clever image experts on this forum. Maybe they know how best to spot multiple levels of interpolation.

Aurora

[Muxr]

Ok so I added a 3rd sample. In it I tried to exaggerate the loss due to recompression and bicubic scaling. It's the original image, downscaled to 160x120, then upscaled to 320x240, and back down to 160x120 again.

You can tell that the image maintains the original detail. Where as going down to 80x60 has produced a significant loss in detail. My feeling is that the new camera indeed has more resolution.

[NathanFowler]

What's strange is the Moiré pattern that's so pronounced, is this usual?  It persists on all samples in a very clearly defined pattern.  I defer to your expertise but does this point to post-processing issues on-device or interpolation?  Very interesting and thank you.

[Muxr]

I don't know much about how thermal imaging sensors work, but the moire pattern is common in digital imaging. Most imaging color sensors use a Bayer pattern and they all require an anti aliasing filter to combat moire. Some super high resolution camera makers do away with the filter in order to restore some of the sharpness lost due to the AA filter (we're talking 36mp +). Fujifilm uses X-trans sensors which combat this by laying RGB fotosites in a different pattern.


You can see the difference in uniformity. of RGB photosites.

This is why film didn't have moire, because it had random distribution of pigment.

So moire is to be expected on sharp edges. I doubt you'd want an AA filter on a thermal imaging sensor. Also we're still dealing with really low resolutions here where accuracy is more important than the pleasing look.

[NathanFowler]

Muxr thank you for taking the time to explain, I apologize and now realize you were taking a singular posted image and applying resolution degredation as an approxmiation for resolution differences.  I would assume the same Moiré pattern as you upscaled and downscaled the same image.  Apologies on my part; I saw the patterning and wasnt' sure of it's origin but you've explained it very well and I've learned something new today.  A sincere thanks.

[Muxr]

Muxr thank you for taking the time to explain, I apologize and now realize you were taking a singular posted image and applying resolution degredation as an approxmiation for resolution differences.  I would assume the same Moiré pattern as you upscaled and downscaled the same image.  Apologies on my part; I saw the patterning and wasnt' sure of it's origin but you've explained it very well.

Exactly, my crude method was really an experiment to see if an 80x60 image could contain the detail seen in the original image. After comparing the detail lost when resampling down to 80x60, I think not. I think the new sensor does indeed have a higher resolution.

Sorry for the confusion.

[NathanFowler]

Sorry for the confusion.

It's I that should apologize and thank you for the explanation and taking the time to do so.  To use an American colloquism, it just "clicked" meaning all pieces of the mental puzzle suddenly were in place.  I very much apprecaite your explanation and taking the time to educate me.

[jadew]

A common target, such as an SOIC chip, could be used to compare edge detail around the pins.

I can help with images from my Seek. It's the XR version so I didn't use additional lens.

The square IC in the first one is a QFN32, so 0.5 mm pitch. It's also present in the second image.
The chip in the second image (bottom left) has a 0.8 mm pitch.

The dimension of the first image is about 38 x 28 mm, while the second one is 11 x 8 cm.

I also attached enlargements of both with bicubic interpolation.

[tomas123]

There are some clever image experts on this forum. Maybe they know how best to spot multiple levels of interpolation.

Aurora

see here for sample images from a heating wire and some ImageMagick steps
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/flir-one-thermal-imaging-camera-teardown-and-hacks/msg551882/#msg551882

[TopLoser]

I don't have any lenses of any kind and the Flir is fixed focus so there's no point me trying to take photos of boards. So don't ask.

After I took it apart and bodged it back together I put the heatsink back in the oven again and tried a few pics at different distances to see where it became impossible to resolve individual fins.

With the Testo 875-1i (manually adjustable focus) this is the furthest I could get before it all became a blur:



A quick measure of the stepped jaggies easily reveals a resolution of 160H x 120V. Exactly as claimed by Testo for that model. There's no significant attempt at interpolation or cheaty processing that I can see in that pic.

On to the new Flir. Furthest I could get and still see all the fins:



Lots of interpolation and processing going on, no obvious jaggies and it all just rapidly turned into a blob if I moved a few cm more away. Counting horizonontal fins I guess it's *just* possible to resolve about 50 across the entire width (that heastsink has 30 and it doesn't fill the entire width). Double that up and we have 100, not quite the 120H we were looking for but not far off considering the focus is probably crap at the distance the picture was taken. Sorry I didn't rotate the camera 90 degrees to match the Testo pic...

I'm not a fanboy, I'm not trying to sell these things, in fact I have no need for them. I'm just curious. But if somebody gave me one of these and asked what the sensor resolution was then right now I'd say it was 120x160 considering the poor focus at short distances. I'd rather Flir didn't f*ck about with interpolation and processing because it doesn't add anything in my view, the raw images would perfectly acceptable combined with MSX.


Edited to get some details right lol

[Fraser]

For anyone not familiar with what IRISYS did to enhance their low resolution camera images, I attach an image showing what they achieved.

IRISYS were working with a low resolution 16x16 pixel pyrometer chip that needed a lot of interpolation to achieve a useful image.They interpolated from 16x16 up to 128x128 ! As many readers will know, interpolation adds no true data to an image, it just takes the values of adjacent pixels and inserts virtual data in the midpoint between the two. Depending on how well interpolation is implemented, it can be challenging to spot in a processed image, especially if other image processing algorithms to remove sharp transitions are in use.

In a visible light camera you use a resolution chart to see the true imager resolution. This gets below any interpolation that may be in play. Sadly I have no such chart for use in the thermal domain.

A thought to consider.......

FLIR may be using sophisticated interpolation, and other image processing techniques, that may challenge us to determine whether the microbolometer is native 80x60 or 160x120........ If this is the case, they have done a very good job  If they are operating a X2 interpolation and we cannot truly see such in the real world, we are unlikely to have issues with the images that the camera produces in daily life 

If our tasking is so demanding that it needs 160x120 physical resolution, then we should be able to clearly see the image degradation when compared with a known 160x120 thermal camera.

If not.....be happy 

Aurora

[Fraser]

No reply from FLIR to my question on physical resolution yet but it is the weekend.

In truth, FLIR's response to my question will provide teh answer to this threads question. Answers will be one of the following:

1. Interpolation and image processing used to create a 160x120 image from a 80x60 microbolometer array

2. Microbolometer array is constructed in a 160x120 array of 19200 pixels

3. Nil response or decline to comment due to commercial sensitivities ..... read this as meaning interpolation of a 80x60 microbolmeter is being used in the design.

We shall see what FLIR say this week.

Aurora

[TopLoser]

In a visible light camera you use a resolution chart to see the true imager resolution. This gets below any interpolation that may be in play. Sadly I have no such chart for use in the thermal domain.

I'm curious... why is the finned heatsink not usable as a substitute for resolution chart?

[amyk]

In a visible light camera you use a resolution chart to see the true imager resolution. This gets below any interpolation that may be in play. Sadly I have no such chert for use in the thermal domain.

Would dark and light surfaces (i.e. ink and paper) have different enough emissivities to be distinguishable?

[jadew]

In a visible light camera you use a resolution chart to see the true imager resolution. This gets below any interpolation that may be in play. Sadly I have no such chert for use in the thermal domain.

Would dark and light surfaces (i.e. ink and paper) have different enough emissivities to be distinguishable?

No, however, a chart like that can be easily constructed by cutting rectangular holes in a piece of paper and having a higher temperature object behind it.

[Fraser]

@Toploser,

The following article explains how I use resolution charts with visible light cameras

http://blog.almalence.com/how-to-measure-the-resolution-of-a-digital-camera/

It is important to match the target 'grille' to the pixels and doing this with a fixed pitch heatsink is challenging and relies upon the distance of the camera to the lens to set the width of the 'fin' so that it covers only one pixel width and is 'in sync' the others that the microbolomers sees. A resolution chart provides 'grilles' or varying resolutions and is calibrated for such.

I am not saying a heatsink cannot be used, but it will not be easy.

Aurora

[TopLoser]

One last picture to ponder:



Landscape orientation 731 x 579 pixels 1.25:1 aspect ratio. Not quite the 1.33:1 ratio as would be expected so some horizontal pixels are being 'lost' offscreen.

Notice the jaggies on the right hand side sloping edge...

777 pixels total width after correcting for the missing pixels. I count 13 jaggies in a 63 pixel horixontal interval, one every 5.25 pixels, that rather conveniently gives what looks like a 160.3 pixel sensor resolution. Notice that Flir do some interpolation and processing between each jaggie edge to make it look better, but underlying resolution seems to be 160 pixels.

[TopLoser]

@Toploser,

The following article explains how I use resolution charts with visible light cameras

http://blog.almalence.com/how-to-measure-the-resolution-of-a-digital-camera/

It is important to match the target 'grille' to the pixels and doing this with a fixed pitch heatsink is challenging and relies upon the distance of the camera to the lens to set the width of the 'fin' so that it covers only one pixel width and is 'in sync' the others that the microbolomers sees. A resolution chart provides 'grilles' or varying resolutions and is calibrated for such.

I am not saying a heatsink cannot be used, but it will not be easy.

Aurora

And almost impossible with an unfocussed camera, but this is not a lab and I'm using stuff to get a VERY rough idea.

We're looking for a factor 2 here, not a few lines/mm difference between different lenses.

[marshallh]

That looks a lot better, but I'm not 100% convinced. I will try and get some comparison shots with my NEC.

[tomas123]

One last picture to ponder:

Landscape orientation 731 x 579 pixels 1.25:1 aspect ratio. Not quite the 1.33:1 ratio as would be expected so some horizontal pixels are being 'lost' offscreen.

Please post an original saved jpg from the flir app (this includes the raw values)

Then we can get the real resolution- see my samples (convert with exiftools):
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/flir-one-thermal-imaging-camera-teardown-and-hacks/msg551882/#msg551882

[tomas123]

Just took a pic of a finned heatsink. MSX turned off.

from this nice image we get a sensor resolution of 120x90 pixel like FLIR E5

Code: [Select]

$ convert crop772x579.png -resize x1200 res1.png
$ identify res1.png
res1.png PNG 900x1200 900x1200+0+0 8-bit sRGB 565KB 0.000u 0:00.000

$ convert -size 10x10 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,9"  -draw "line 0,0 9,0"  1.png
$ convert -size 900x1200 tile:1.png -transparent white grid3.png

$ convert res1.png grid3.png -flatten overlay3.png
crop of a overlay with a 120x90 pixel grid (see steps on vertical lines)

[Fraser]

@tomas123,

120x90 

The E5 spec always interested me. I know of no microbolometer array that uses a 120x90 format.
I always suspected that such was just some weird idea from FLIR for an intermediate resolution step. As we know the Ex is 320x240 and they manipulate the data to create whatever resolution they want.

But why claim 160x120 and then provide a software created 120x90 resolution instead.

All very weird I must say 

Aurora

[TopLoser]

Please post an original saved jpg from the flir app (this includes the raw values)

Obviously out of focus range because I couldn't adjust the MSX distance value to align the IR and normal images.

EDIT: just added a diagonal view, probs from too far away to be useful but here it is anyway

[NathanFowler]

Very interesting comments all around, thank you TopLoser for sharing the images.

[jadew]

If you have a better thermal camera around, you could take an image with the Flir One, that covers a known width and height and then take another one with the higher resolution camera, of the same object but covering (width, height) * ratio. Even if the interpolation might fool you a bit, it should still be visible in the amount of detail.

[TopLoser]

If you have a better thermal camera around, you could take an image with the Flir One, that covers a known width and height and then take another one with the higher resolution camera, of the same object but covering (width, height) * ratio. Even if the interpolation might fool you a bit, it should still be visible in the amount of detail.

Not going to happen, sorry! This Flir One is already sold to an impatient group member who didn't want to wait, they picked it up a few hours ago.

I was impressed with it, I've already ordered another one for myself.

[NathanFowler]

I was impressed with it, I've already ordered another one for myself.

By chance did you have Gen 1 or the fine person who picked up yours, I'd be curious to see it compared and contrasted even with interpolation.

[frenky]

I did some playing with the images...

I measured the right side of this photo with 13 visible ridges which are actual thermal pixel and is 73.4px wide.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2063383/ir%20stuff/jaggies.PNG

So 1 thermal pixel is 5.6 pixels on image.

So I made a crop 504x504 which translates to 90x90 thermal pixels:


I resized it to 90x90:


And then up-scaled it back to 504x504:


If you look at the original and processed image you will see that new image has exactly the same ridges as the original:


So thermal resolution is not 120x160. It's closer to 103x131...

If we had a photo with hot wire going diagonally we could determine resolution quite precise.

[TopLoser]

I was impressed with it, I've already ordered another one for myself.

By chance did you have Gen 1 or the fine person who picked up yours, I'd be curious to see it compared and contrasted even with interpolation.

No I don't have a Gen 1 sorry. I asked if anybody with a Gen 1 could do the same kind of test as I did but got no response.

Over to you lot now, I posted enough pics to allow better minds than mine come to some conclusion.

[NathanFowler]

I have a Gen 1 on iOS, how can I help, I am very willing to take images/pictures?  I'm fixing to (American Southern Colloquialism for "happening in the next few seconds") to just order a Gen-2 and do a side-by-side comparison on-list for those that it could help.

[TopLoser]

I have a Gen 1 on iOS, how can I help, I am very willing to take images/pictures?  I'm fixing to (American Southern Colloquialism for "happening in the next few seconds") to just order a Gen-2 and do a side-by-side comparison on-list for those that it could help.

I just added a raw pic taken at a diagonal to a previous post, hope that helps thomas123 delve a little deeper.

Obviously I'd suggest an image of a heatsink with fins 1.5mm apart for direct comparison, but I guess that's not possible.

Maybe the group should suggest what they regard as a suitable comparison image.

[NathanFowler]

Obviously I'd suggest an image of a heatsink with fins 1.5mm apart for direct comparison, but I guess that's not possible.

Maybe the group should suggest what they regard as a suitable comparison image.

Would be great, I do have access to various heatsinks, boards, etc.  Selection of a common object with enough detail to discern differences between the two would be nice but I defer to the expertise of those here with the intent to help in any way I can.  Thanks all.

I do have some lenses but it's hit or miss.  I'm an amateur radio (ham)/computer guy so I just bang rocks together and call it science 

[frenky]

Maybe the group should suggest what they regard as a suitable comparison image.

Good image would be one without MSX and with straight (under angle) lines going from one side of the image to another. (Without any gaps on the sides)

Like this:

[TopLoser]

Maybe the group should suggest what they regard as a suitable comparison image.

Good image would be one without MSX and with straight (under angle) lines going from one side of the image to another. (Without any gaps on the sides)

Like this:

Bit of a pain without closeup lenses because of the fixed focus (min 1m I think, based on the MSX adjustment slider range ) of the standard lens.

Plus I really don't think single line images are any use due to the amount of interpolation and processing that can be applied to them. You really need multiple parallel lines.

[NathanFowler]

flir one gen one 1.0.11 firmware sent from iPhone 5s so sorry for rubbish typing

[frenky]

It's 80x60. 

[jadew]

It's 80x60. 

His Flir One is first gen , now we need the same picture from thew new Flir One.

[TopLoser]

It's 80x60. 

His Flir One is first gen , now we need the same picture from thew new Flir One.

This is not a good test. I can take a low resolution image of a single line and apply multiple smoothing, dilation and erosion passes to it to give a very high resolution image at the end. The same techniques applied to multiple parallel lines would result in a very different result.

[tomas123]

EDIT: just added a diagonal view, probs from too far away to be useful but here it is anyway

looks like 120x90

all steps:

Code: [Select]

//extract RAW and resize 300%
exiftool -b -RawThermalImage diagonal\ from\ app.jpg > v2.png
convert  -define png:swap-bytes=on v2.png -auto-level -filter point -resize 720x 720x960.png

//stretch level
convert 720x960.png -level 0,25000 720x960.png

//get palette
exiftool diagonal\ from\ app.jpg -b -Palette > pal.raw
convert -size 224X1 -depth 8 YCbCr:pal.raw -separate -swap 1,2 -set colorspace YCbCr -combine -colorspace RGB pal.png
convert 720x960.png pal.png -clut 720x960color.png

// 120x90 (x8 -> 960x720)
convert -size 8x8 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,7"  -draw "line 0,0 7,0"  8x8.png
convert -size 720x960 tile:8x8.png -transparent white grid8.png
convert 720x960color.png -page -2-2 grid8.png -flatten overlay-120x90color.png
convert overlay-120x90color.png -crop 200x200+300+100 crop-120x90color.jpg

//  160x120 (x6 -> 960x720)
convert -size 6x6 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,5"  -draw "line 0,0 5,0"  6x6.png
convert -size 720x960 tile:6x6.png -transparent white grid6.png
convert 720x960color.png grid6.png -flatten overlay-160x120color.png
convert overlay-160x120color.png -crop 200x200+300+100 crop-160x120color.jpg

the cropped result:

overlay 120x90


overlay 160x120

[NathanFowler]

It's 80x60. 

 

[tomas123]

all steps

Code: [Select]

//extract RAW and resize 300%
exiftool -b -RawThermalImage from\ app.jpg > v2.png
convert  -define png:swap-bytes=on v2.png -auto-level -filter point -resize 720x 720x960.png

//get palette
exiftool from\ app.jpg -b -Palette > pal.raw
convert -size 224X1 -depth 8 YCbCr:pal.raw -separate -swap 1,2 -set colorspace YCbCr -combine -colorspace RGB pal.png
convert 720x960.png pal.png -clut 720x960color.png

// 120x90 (x8 -> 960x720)
convert -size 8x8 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,7"  -draw "line 0,0 7,0"  8x8.png
convert -size 720x960 tile:8x8.png -transparent white grid8.png
convert 720x960color.png -page -2-2 grid8.png -flatten overlay-120x90color.png
convert overlay-120x90color.png -crop 300x200+100+700 crop-120x90color.jpg

//  160x120 (x6 -> 960x720)
convert -size 6x6 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,5"  -draw "line 0,0 5,0"  6x6.png
convert -size 720x960 tile:6x6.png -transparent white grid6.png
convert 720x960color.png grid6.png -flatten overlay-160x120color.png
convert overlay-160x120color.png -crop 300x200+100+700 crop-160x120color.jpg

the cropped result:

overlay 120x90


overlay 160x120

[TopLoser]

EDIT: just added a diagonal view, probs from too far away to be useful but here it is anyway

looks like 120x90

all steps:

Code: [Select]

//extract RAW and resize 300%
exiftool -b -RawThermalImage diagonal\ from\ app.jpg > v2.png
convert  -define png:swap-bytes=on v2.png -auto-level -filter point -resize 720x 720x960.png

//stretch level
convert 720x960.png -level 0,25000 720x960.png

//get palette
exiftool diagonal\ from\ app.jpg -b -Palette > pal.raw
convert -size 224X1 -depth 8 YCbCr:pal.raw -separate -swap 1,2 -set colorspace YCbCr -combine -colorspace RGB pal.png
convert 720x960.png pal.png -clut 720x960color.png

// 120x90 (x8 -> 960x720)
convert -size 8x8 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,7"  -draw "line 0,0 7,0"  8x8.png
convert -size 720x960 tile:8x8.png -transparent white grid8.png
convert 720x960color.png -page -2-2 grid8.png -flatten overlay-120x90color.png
convert overlay-120x90color.png -crop 200x200+300+100 crop-120x90color.jpg

//  160x120 (x6 -> 960x720)
convert -size 6x6 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,5"  -draw "line 0,0 5,0"  6x6.png
convert -size 720x960 tile:6x6.png -transparent white grid6.png
convert 720x960color.png grid6.png -flatten overlay-160x120color.png
convert overlay-160x120color.png -crop 200x200+300+100 crop-160x120color.jpg

the cropped result:

overlay 120x90


overlay 160x120

Looks like this coin has 3 sides!! 120x90 would certainly fit in with Flirs statement that it's an improved Lepton but reluctance to state what the physical resolution is.

Thanks very much for your valued and objective input thomas123

[tomas123]

Maybe the group should suggest what they regard as a suitable comparison image.

Good image would be one without MSX and with straight (under angle) lines going from one side of the image to another. (Without any gaps on the sides)

Like this:

yes, see my experiments with a heating wire from last year:

after the sensitivity tests above it's time to make a resolution test

I used a 0,2mm heating wire and took some photos from 1m distance of the diagonal wire.
To avoid optical crosstalk I only heated the wire 5 Kelvin.
 
First the screenshots from Flir Tools. Here you can check the minor temperature differences (crosstalk)

E40 (hacked to 320x240 pixel)



Flir One (80x60 pixel)

we can see, that the noise level from the Flir One by a 6 Kelvin scale is very good (compared to the Seek Thermal infrared camera) 
please note the cold spots around the wire (artefacts from upscaling to 160x120??)


now some steps with imagemagick and exiftool to extract the raw values
As overlay a grid, to show the real size of one sensor pixel.
For better viewing I resize a sensor pixel to 8x8 screen pixels

Flir E40 (image IR_3115.jpg with 320x240 sensor pixels)

Code: [Select]

//extract RAW
$ exiftool -b -RawThermalImage IR_3115.jpg > IR_3115.tif

//auto-level and resize (without interpolation!) to 8x8 pixel size
$ convert IR_3115.tif -auto-level -filter point -resize 2560x wire6.png

//draw one square with size 8x8
$ convert -size 8x8 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,7"  -draw "line 0,0 7,0"  1.png

//enlarge to 320x240 squares of size 8x8
$ convert -size 2560x1920 tile:1.png 320x240.png

//overlay grid with image
$ convert wire6.png 320x240.png  -compose overlay -composite IR_3115ov.png

//crop a part of 640x480 => 80x60 sensor pixel
$ convert IR_3115ov.png -crop 640x480+800+700 IR_3115ov-crop.png
this is a crop with the size of 80x60 sensor pixels ( crop to same size like Flir One)
(the full image download as attachment)
one square = one sensor pixel of Flir Exx

the result is really sharp (thanks to good optics of the Flir Exx)
Wow


Now process the image from the Flir One ( IMG_3353.JPG )
Flir converts the RAW values of the Lepton Sensor from 80x60 to 160x120 Pixel.
I still make a overlay grid of 80x60 Pixel. As result you see 4 extrapolated pixels in one 8x8 sensor square.

Code: [Select]

//extract RAW
$ exiftool -b -RawThermalImage IMG_3353.JPG > wire.png

//change byte order, auto-level and resize (without interpolation) to 8x8 pixel size
$ convert  -define png:swap-bytes=on wire.png -auto-level -filter point -resize 640x IMG_3353.png

//draw one square with size 8x8
$ convert -size 8x8 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,7"  -draw "line 0,0 7,0"  1.png

//enlarge to 80x60 sensor pixel squares
$ convert -size 640x480 tile:1.png 80x60.png

//overlay grid with image
$ convert IMG_3353.png 80x60.png -compose overlay -composite IMG_3353ov.png
one square = one sensor pixel of Flir One

Well, the result is definite poorer, as the 80x60 crop of the Exx ...
... but the Exx is a reference design.

I think this a good result for the price of the Flir One.
Please note the above described cold spots around the wire.
Edit 19.11.2014
better use this code with transparent png's

Code: [Select]

$ convert -size 8x8 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,7"  -draw "line 0,0 7,0"  1.png
$ convert -size 640x480 tile:1.png -transparent white grid.png
$ convert largeimage.png grid.png -flatten overlay.png

[tomas123]

Looks like this coin has 3 sides!! 120x90 would certainly fit in with Flirs statement that it's an improved Lepton but reluctance to state what the physical resolution is.

Thanks very much for your valued and objective input thomas123

maybe the sensor is 160x120 and the Flir firmware reduce the resolution to 120x90 (like Flir E5)

but in my post above with Flir E40 you can see, that the lens quality is a major factor for high resolution

[Fraser]

Well I have received a response to my resolution query lodged with FLIR:

My Question was:

"Hi,

I have pre-ordered the 2nd Generation FLIR ONE for Android and need to clarify something about the new cameras thermal specification. I have already been advised that the new LEPTON produces 4X the resolution of the old 80x60 core, but this could be achieved through interpolation within the ROIC.

I own and use several FLIR thermal cameras and for my applications I need true 160 pixel x 120 pixel physical (optical) resolution from my cameras. That is to say, interpolation from 80x60 up to 160x120 would not work for me.

Please will you confirm the physical pixel count of the Microbolometer used in the new 2nd Generation Lepton core

Kindest Regards

Fraser"

The response from FLIR CS was:

"Hi Fraser,

The lepton core does have the higher resolution but the FLIR ONE outputs a VGA image with the MSX applies. I confirmed and I was informed that this will work for you.

I hope this answers your question, I will go ahead and close your ticket but if you have any more questions or need more information, please feel free to reopen the ticket by responding to this email or logging into the support portal.

Thank you for contacting FLIR ONE Support "

Well that was not the response I was hoping for. I specifically asked if the microbolometer was physically 160x120 or interpolated from a lower resolution.

The answer should have been either. Yes, it is 160x120 or No, it is interpolated from X

I get suspicious when an OEM tells me something will "work for me" yet will not provide a specific confirmation of the physical specification.

Gee this is like getting blood out of a stone 

I will ask a VERY direct question now. Namely please conform whether the 2nd Generation FLIR ONE  microbolometer is 160x120 PHYSICAL Pixels.

How about someone else having a go ? If enough people ask, we might get a straight answer on this matter ?

Aurora

[tom66]

Perhaps ask for the total number of thermal pixels... is it at least 19,200?

[Fraser]

This is my next question to FLIR support.

"Dear FLIR support,

Thank you for you previous response, but I do need confirmation of the 2nd Gen FLIR ONE microbolometer specification.

Please will you answer this direct and simple question:

Please confirm that the 2nd Generation FLIR ONE microbolometer uses an array of 160x120 PHYSICAL Pixels and that these are active in the images produced.

If not, please state the arrays physical pixel specification.

I am sorry to be so pedantic but this specification is VERY important to my application (which is not use as a simple phone thermal camera).

Kindest Regards

Fraser"


Its a simple question so if FLIR Support cannot answer it, they are either not qualified to be support officers or have something that they want to hide. I am not into conspiracy theories but it is almost as though the FLIR staff do not know the specification of their new product, or if they do, are unwilling to release such.

Aurora

[Fraser]

Just a received a response from FLIR in in the USA    That was super fast, I only just sent the question !  I wonder if they are reading this thread ?

"Hi Fraser,

From the information that I have received the second generation of the FLIR ONE uses an array of 160x120 PHYSICAL Pixels and that these are active in the images produced"

So there you have it. The best I can do on the support front. A confirmation that the microbolometer is 160x120 active physical pixels.

Aurora

[jadew]

Good job!

[NathanFowler]

Time to order a 2nd gen =)  Thanks Fraser, much appreciated.

[Trax]

How reliable should it work with any android phone?

There are only a few phones listed on flirs website,
I have a LG Optimus X4 HD

Do you think I can order without worrys or make sure I will be able to return it if my handy does not likes it?

[mikeselectricstuff]

Just a received a response from FLIR in in the USA    That was super fast, I only just sent the question !  I wonder if they are reading this thread ?

"Hi Fraser,

From the information that I have received the second generation of the FLIR ONE uses an array of 160x120 PHYSICAL Pixels and that these are active in the images produced"

So there you have it. The best I can do on the support front. A confirmation that the microbolometer is 160x120 active physical pixels.

Aurora

The second question - is the lens up to the job of the increased resolution..?
Hard to tell from the photos if it's the same size as the previous version

[Trax]

Just a received a response from FLIR in in the USA    That was super fast, I only just sent the question !  I wonder if they are reading this thread ?

"Hi Fraser,

From the information that I have received the second generation of the FLIR ONE uses an array of 160x120 PHYSICAL Pixels and that these are active in the images produced"

So there you have it. The best I can do on the support front. A confirmation that the microbolometer is 160x120 active physical pixels.

Aurora

The second question - is the lens up to the job of the increased resolution..?
Hard to tell from the photos if it's the same size as the previous version

I think it must be, the lens is part to the lepton sensor itself. It would be pointless to develop a new sensor and provide it with a inadequate lens.
A good sensor and a bad lens can be expected I think only if this are separate parts that can be changed.

[Trax]

PS: can the flir one be operated on a PC like the seek can?

[Fraser]

@Mike,

Sadly I am not an optics expert so can offer no definitive comment on this. The lens is a significant factor when it comes to producing a decent image, and I do know that Megapixel visible light cameras benefit greatly from Megapixel quality lens. No its not just sales jargon. Megapixel lenses are just better quality than non Megapixel types.

When it comes to the FLIR ONE I am thinking along the lines of a cheap Web Cam. I have seen some pretty awful cheap and nasty 320x240 webcams that have lenses so small that you think they are actually using a pin hole. Yet they still mange to produce a reasonable image. I had a specialist security system that contained a camera having an on die glass bead lens of only ~1mm diameter. That camera still managed to produce a 320x240 visible light image, albeit a fisheye type, so full of distortion (note to self... (find that camera in my attic and show it on this blog  )

I am not sure how small a lens can be at 160x120 resolution before it seriously impacts on the image produced.

We do know that lens will be either GASIR or or some similar cheap to manufacture process. The quality of the lens material could be an issue as I know that GASIR is not as good as Germanium when used in thermal camera lenses.

All interesting stuff. I don't think I will batter FLIR Customer Services with any more probing questions for the moment though 

As a side note, I originally wrote to FLIR customer support and they redirected me to a dedicated FLIR ONE team with its own support staff. It would appear that the FLIR ONE has its own enclave within the greater FLIR company. This is clever thinking as the target market for the ONE cameras is far more likely to ask lots of support related questions. Having such an enclave takes this load off of the support staff who look after Industry etc.  Maybe that is why my simple, but technical, question caused an issue. Maybe the support team are expecting questions along the lines of "how to I install the application?, how to I charge the camera?, does it work under water ?, will it work with my XYZ phone" etc etc

Asking about Pixels probably made some poor support officers brain explode 

Aurora

[dadler]

Just a received a response from FLIR in in the USA    That was super fast, I only just sent the question !  I wonder if they are reading this thread ?

"Hi Fraser,

From the information that I have received the second generation of the FLIR ONE uses an array of 160x120 PHYSICAL Pixels and that these are active in the images produced"

So there you have it. The best I can do on the support front. A confirmation that the microbolometer is 160x120 active physical pixels.

Aurora

Spectacular. Thanks for all of your efforts ferreting out this info.

Now it is waiting time:

1   FLIR ONE for iOS
Est. Delivery Date:   Jul 24 - Aug 3, 2

[TopLoser]

Another one of these was delivered to me today, must have pressed the 'buy' button a few times too many last week.

I think the lens quality is what is holding the sensor back with this new version - the reason why it was difficult to determine the physical pixel resolution from pictures taken and why thomas123 thought 120 x 90 was the physical resolution after all his calculations.

I've taken pictures of various detailed and complex scenes with a Testo 875 (physical 160 x 120 but BIG adjustable focus lens) and the new Flir (tiny fixed focus lens). I took them from 1.5m distance so the Flir should have been in focus, I adjusted the Testo to get the sharpest image.

Testo blows the Flir out of the water, despite having identical physical resolution - the optics are just so much in its favour.

The little Flir is so cute though, and so convenient to use for undemanding little jobs around the house.

[Fraser]

@Toploser,

To be fair though..... the TESTO is a very different beast to the 2nd Gen FLIR ONE. Its is more akin to the FLIR Exx series and it has a physically huge high quality microbolometer compared to the LEPTON. The 875 is an industrial grade thermal camera, it wasn't significantly better than the FLIR ONE I would be very worried. Your assessment of the TESTO lens is spot on though. It is a multi element large chunk of diamond turned Germanium costing a significant part of the cameras several Thousand Dollars cost.

A fixed focus lens is a compromise solution by necessity and it will never compare well to the sharp focus capability of a variable focus lens.

I also own a TESTO 875 and it is a nice camera 

Aurora

[TopLoser]

The new Lepton sensor seems to be pushing the limits of the existing lens, Flirs next step forwards will have to be improving the optics, they've reached the tradeoff point now.

[Fraser]

Indeed, the LEPTON is very small indeed. FLIR have done well to design and build such a compact core.
I note that larger lenses appear to be available for the 80x60 LEPTON as Digikey sell several models of LEPTON now. Sadly it is unlikely to be an easy retrofit onto the FLIR ONE because of the built in shutter that IIRC sits in front of the objective and not behind where it is found on conventional TIC's.

If the new 160x120 core can actually perform well with better quality lenses, it will make a lovely core for experimentation. Let us hope it delivers  better image than the SEEK microbolometer when it comes to some more demanding targets such as PCB components.

I highly recommend that you consider spending around £10 on a 12mm, or greater diameter, Chinese ZnSe Plano Convex CO2 laser lens. Pick an FL that suits your needs, but I recommend a 100mm to start with. Such a close-up lens, when placed in front of the ONE's objective, will provide excellent images of small targets  You can almost make a thermal microscope with the shorter FL lenses 

Aurora

[encryptededdy]

How reliable should it work with any android phone?

There are only a few phones listed on flirs website,
I have a LG Optimus X4 HD

Do you think I can order without worrys or make sure I will be able to return it if my handy does not likes it?

It probably won't work properly on your phone. It has a NVIDIA Tegra SoC which is notoriously difficult for screen recorders and other things that read from the frame buffer.

It'll be very likely the live preview / video recording functions won't work. Picture taking will probably still work though.

[TopLoser]

The new Flir One as it stands is perfect for all my needs. Easy, convenient, decent resolution and now a -20 to +120 degree temp range. And all for £160 ish + VAT.

Everybody I show it to wants one for that price, a new 'must have' gadget for those that have never seen one before.

[tomas123]

there is a flir one v2 (android) review with some nice raw images
http://www.slashgear.com/flir-one-thermal-camera-for-android-hands-on-30391243/

s sample:

 
the code:

Code: [Select]

//extract RAW and resize 300%
exiftool -b -RawThermalImage 1.jpg > v2.png
convert  -define png:swap-bytes=on v2.png -auto-level -filter point -resize 960x 960x720.png

//get palette
exiftool 1.jpg -b -Palette > pal.raw
convert -size 224X1 -depth 8 YCbCr:pal.raw -separate -swap 1,2 -set colorspace YCbCr -combine -colorspace RGB pal.png
convert 960x720.png pal.png -clut 960x720color.png

//  160x120 (x6 -> 960x720)
convert -size 6x6 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,5"  -draw "line 0,0 5,0"  6x6.png
convert -size 960x720 tile:6x6.png -transparent white grid6.png
convert 960x720color.png grid6.png -flatten overlay-160x120color.png
convert overlay-160x120color.png -crop 200x150+540+500 -quality 100 crop-160x120color.jpg

//  120x90 (x8 -> 960x720)
convert -size 8x8 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,7"  -draw "line 0,0 7,0"  8x8.png
convert -size 960x720 tile:8x8.png -transparent white grid8.png
convert 960x720color.png grid8.png -flatten overlay-120x90color.png
convert overlay-120x90color.png -crop 200x150+540+500 -quality 100 crop-120x90color.jpg

and the result:

160x120


120x90


To my mind the resampling algorithmus of this image is really better.
I cant see the sensor resolution on diagonal lines (typical steps) and noise artefacts.
It's possible that this pre-production (android) model is not software (firmware) crippled.

[Fraser]

The android software is still under development as we know. The iOS software would have had to have been submitted to Apple for approval some time ago and needs to be re-approved with each update.

Could it just be that we are seeing a new version of processing algorithms that have yet to be released for the iOS model ?  There is also the possibility that the 2nd Gen ONE for iOS is running software based on the old 80x60 iOS FLIR ONE version. The Android software will likely be all new and potentially created by a different team of coders ?

The banding on the prototypes images is unusual but may well be a software issue that still requires 'treatment'.

If the images produced by the pre-release Android version are already better than those that we have seen from the iOS I am hopeful that we may see great things from the 2nd Gen One Android in July 

Aurora

[tomas123]

the above image converted with level stretching (min. temperature spreading) shows interesting artefacts
 

Code: [Select]

convert 960x720.png -level 20000,50000 1.png
The image quality is great!!

[tomas123]

the raw image is ovesharpen

The banding on the prototypes images is unusual but may well be a software issue that still requires 'treatment'.
Aurora

I think, it's a bad NUC (Non Uniformity Correction) function

from user manuel

The camera has a mechanical shutter inside that periodically activates
and allows the thermal camera to do a calibration or image refresh.
When the shutter activates, the image will freeze for a brief period.
The purpose of the shutter is to allow the camera to provide an
improved image. The FLIR ONE performs the tuning operation
automatically on a periodic basis.

... I am hopeful that we may see great things from the 2nd Gen One Android in July 
Aurora

like Flir One v2 connected to a Linux PC (i.e. a raspberry pi webcam) 

[Trax]

like Flir One v2 connected to a Linux PC (i.e. a raspberry pi webcam) 

does that really work?

[tomas123]

sounds like a minor hack with the Flir One SDK and an USB adapter (OTG?)
http://developer.flir.com/flir-one-software-development-kit/

[Trax]

Ok my phone is most likely not flir compatible even after installing a 5.1 ROM it does not allow me to download the flir one apk from the pay store :/
could someone send it to me for testing if it installs.

With the 5.1 rom it however allows to install the seek thermal software.

So if there is no simple way to operate the flir from a windows or Linux PS/Table I will have to go for the seek damn it.

[Fraser]

Why do you have to go for the SEEK ?...... I think you will regret such a decision.

I bought a used phone cheaply off of ebay for my SEEK experiments and I will be using it for my V2 FLIR ONE. It cost me £30 for an as new Motorols MOTO G. It was sold cheaply as it is a US Verizon phone that does not work as a phone in the UK. I also bought a MOTO X for £20 because it had a faulty speaker. That is no good however as it is not 'On the Go' capable.

I often see various mobile phones sold with faulty phone parts such as 'will not read SIM' or speaker broken etc. Take a look fro a decent condition one that suits your needs.Do not pay too much though    The Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity is normally still fully operational in these phones..

Aurora

[Trax]

>Why do you have to go for the SEEK

Cause its more likely to work with my phone, and if not there are sources in an other thread here some-ware to with a windows app that would allow me to use it on any of my x86 windows tablets.

I haven't looked on ebay for cheep compatible phones,
but if you look on the flir website the tested phones are only very few top of the line units. Of cause it will very likely work also with sufficiently many older cheep units but without knowing which once its like playing roulette.

Or do you think that all thats needed is USB OTG and a kernel >= 4.3

My LG has OTG support only with a custom kernel so possibly google thinks than my phone does not have OTG at all and thats why it denyes the installation even with a 5.x ROM.

I think the best would be if someone would find a quick way to use the Flir One on a normal PC/tablet with windows/linux.

Trax

[Muxr]

You could also get an iPod touch. Not sure if it's a cheaper alternative, but you would be able to order the iOS version which is a few weeks wait I believe.

[Trax]

You could also get an iPod touch. Not sure if it's a cheaper alternative, but you would be able to order the iOS version which is a few weeks wait I believe.

My aversion towards apple is to large for that. I already get pustules when I have to use MacOS in a VM.
If I would have to use an actual crapple device my tow nails would probably role up or something similar.


But on a serious note I really like x86 hardware and something that runs on almost any android has good chances to be runnable under windows/linux on a PC as happened with the seek.
So I definitely will go for something that is android compatible.
I don't mind the waiting I have enough other work to take my mind of the waiting.

[Muxr]

Heh I gave in to Apple many years ago . Ran Linux prior to that for many years. The older I get the more I find I'd rather spend my time tinkering with my projects then keeping my computer and phones running the latest hack or whatnot. Apple devices are restricted, but at least they work well out of the box.

I understand though

[dadler]

Off-topic but locally on topic: Same with me. I exclusively used Linux (and sometimes Windows) from the mid-nineties until about 2007. A customer complained that a web application I had developed did not work in "Safari".

So I begrudgibgly went to the Apple Store and bought a Mac Mini to test the app against. And the rest is history: desktop Unix that generally "just works"--and doesn't require constant hand-compilation of the kernel or kernel modules.

Been using Mac when I can ever since. I'm torn on iOS vs Android though. I own devices of both platforms, but ordered the iOS flavor of the Flir One v2.

[tom66]

With an added lens I found the Seek to be more than usable for my electronics work.

I'm likely to sell my Seek I acquired from Aurora soon and move to a Flir One, but I'm still pretty happy with the Seek. I think with some better software it would be a good alternative to the Flir. The sensor may not be as good but for general purpose electronics work (finding shorts, determining hotspots, etc.) it works exactly as one would require.

[tomas123]

a minor hint:
Flir double the (extrapolated) image size of the embedded raw values from Flir One version 1 to 2.

Code: [Select]

$ exiftool -RAWTHERMAL* FLIR_ONE*
======== FLIR_ONE.jpg
Raw Thermal Image Width         : 120
Raw Thermal Image Height        : 160
Raw Thermal Image Type          : PNG
Raw Thermal Image               : (Binary data 19971 bytes, use -b option to extract)
======== FLIR_ONEV2-ANDROID.jpg
Raw Thermal Image Width         : 320
Raw Thermal Image Height        : 240
Raw Thermal Image Type          : PNG
Raw Thermal Image               : (Binary data 52476 bytes, use -b option to extract)
======== FLIR_ONEV2-IOS.jpg
Raw Thermal Image Width         : 240
Raw Thermal Image Height        : 320
Raw Thermal Image Type          : PNG
Raw Thermal Image               : (Binary data 80870 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Source:
Flir One V2 Android http://www.slashgear.com/flir-one-thermal-camera-for-android-hands-on-30391243/
Flir One V2 IOS https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/actual-resolution-of-flir-one-v2/msg701478/#msg701478

[encryptededdy]

Looks like FLIR have released another product using the 160x120 lepton core - the FLIR K2 (firefighting camera).

According to this press release: http://investors.flir.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=916817

Powered by FLIR's revolutionary Lepton(R) camera core, the compact K2 delivers detailed thermal images at 160 x 120 resolution

On the specs page here: http://www.flir.com.hk/fire/display/?id=68967

It tells us the unit is 9Hz and the lens is f/1.1

Temperature range is –20°C to +150°C (–4°F to +302°F) and 0°C to +500°C (+32°F to +932°F). Presumably the first range is "native" to the sensor, and it's what we see on the FLIR C2 or raw lepton, whereas the 2nd range is using a ND filter.

[wischi]

How are the FLIR ONEv2 Macro capabilities for taking photos of PCBs with the stock lens?

Did someone already try the ONEv2 with an additional ZnSe lens?

Any advice on what to get for taking thermal images of PCBs? SEEK + ZnSe lens, SEEK xr or ONEv2 + ZnSe lens?

Best,
wischi

[Muxr]

With the standard lens it's usable but it's a bit par for the course.

The board pictured is 87x63mm.

[Pantheron]

Hello,

i found some documents around the new FLIR Lepton Core (3), with its improved resolution but smaller Pixelsize etc..
Also an Databrief, appnote where are the 80x60 and the 160x120 compared.

So everything is the same in the core, except the resolution and this is also affects the vospi.. Now you have the frames (80x60) at 120 Hz.. they send 4 frames at 80x60 so you have to "assemble" it in 1 frame with 160x120..
But everything is described in the documents.

http://www.mako.co.kr/#!---/cyai

So its nice to read, its just plug in to get 160x120 where actually is 80x60 !!

Regards
Pantheron

[mikeselectricstuff]

Nice info - links to actual PDFs
Lepton 2 vs. 3 differences
http://media.wix.com/ugd/53cdb6_9b698564a2e84af6a955078615b3a9da.pdf
Lepton 3 Datasheet
http://media.wix.com/ugd/53cdb6_5191be73d1c943d78d2e1a095cb7f3b8.pdf


Interstingly the new one has some NV memory for storing configurations - I suspect this is the extra chip seen on Toploser's teardown

[Fraser]

@Pantheron

Very interesting reading. Thank you 

So FLIR have also gone for a 12um pixel size. I still wonder if the patent dispute with SEEK Thermal related to work FLIR was also doing on 12um microbolomter technology and techniques.

As expected FLIR are using some nice image processing in this LEPTON 3 Core. I like the detail that they have provided on FFC and ALC operation. This core also has dynamic dead pixel mapping  (not just at time of OEM calibration).

I may be ahead of myself here, but FLIR have a real beauty to market in the form of this new LEPTON 3 core    If it does not encourage 3rd party usage of thermal imaging in an array of products then nothing will.

Aurora

[mikeselectricstuff]

Wonder when we'll see them in Digikey

[tomas123]

Flir doesn't puplish informations, how to convert the "Radiometry Enabled" RAW14 stream to temperature [°C / °F].

I think, this is a big benefit of a calibrated Flir One V2 (with a real camera).

the calibration datas from a Flir One V2 image

Code: [Select]

>exiftool -Planck* -Atmospheric* -Offset*  FlirOneV2\FLIR_ONEV2-ANDROID.jpg
Planck R1                       : 11208.23
Planck B                        : 1311.1
Planck F                        : 1
Planck O                        : 174
Planck R2                       : 0.01068296
Atmospheric Temperature         : 20.0 C
Atmospheric Trans Alpha 1       : 0.006569
Atmospheric Trans Alpha 2       : 0.012620
Atmospheric Trans Beta 1        : -0.002276
Atmospheric Trans Beta 2        : -0.006670
Atmospheric Trans X             : 1.900000
Offset X                        : +3
Offset Y                        : -7
Maybe it's simple to hack the USB Port of the Android version to get this stream.


two sample images from different FlirOneV2 with the thermal calibration parameters:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/actual-resolution-of-flir-one-v2/msg701478/#msg701478
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/actual-resolution-of-flir-one-v2/msg706841/#msg706841

There is also a calibration value for the y-offset between thermal to real camera!

Code: [Select]

>exiftool -Planck* -Offset* *.jpg
======== 1.jpg
Planck R1                       : 15314.136
Planck B                        : 1404.6
Planck F                        : 1
Planck O                        : -978
Planck R2                       : 0.011565135
Offset X                        : -1
Offset Y                        : +34
======== 2.JPG
Planck R1                       : 15633.827
Planck B                        : 1410.8
Planck F                        : 1
Planck O                        : -1655
Planck R2                       : 0.012125017
Offset X                        : +1
Offset Y                        : -6

[wischi]

Ok, one more kinda unrelated question: Do you guys feel the +120°C*vmax is to low for PCB-analysis?

Best,
wischi

[Fraser]

Anything running at >120C on my equipment or PCB's is a reason for concern and further investigation.

I exclude soldering irons of course 

I have not needed to analyse a temperature higher than 100C but I know some forum members have needed a higher temperature capability. I will let them comment on such scenarios.

Aurora

[mikeselectricstuff]

Ok, one more kinda unrelated question: Do you guys feel the +120°C*vmax is to low for PCB-analysis?

Best,
wischi

No - if it's that hot you don't care if it's 100 or 150 -it's too hot.
And if parts unsolder themselves, that's really too hot!

[Fraser]

I have been trying to think of electronics related situations that involve temperatures that normally rise above 120C. I can only think of relatively rare ceramic power resistor situations and items that contain heaters such as PCB pre-heaters etc. If a user really wants to see a soldering irons heat distribution, the FLIR ONE will not be the tool to choose.

As Mike has stated, temperatures that are above the capabilities of the FLIR ONE are higher than would normally be a good idea. Such can lead to PCB degradation and component stress. Both situations best avoided.

I can imagine needing a higher temperature capability when looking at internal combustion engines as they have lots of very hot bits  Looking for hot spots on an engine is a little OT for this forum but worth thinking about if a potential buyer is also a fellow petrol head 

Aurora

[ElectroIrradiator]

I have been trying to think of electronics related situations that involve temperatures that normally rise above 120C. I can only think of relatively rare ceramic power resistor situations and items that contain heaters such as PCB pre-heaters etc. If a user really wants to see a soldering irons heat distribution, the FLIR ONE will not be the tool to choose.

Dare I mention it...? 

RF high power and/or microwave amplifiers utilizing vacuum/thermionic tubes with ceramic insulation (Beryllium oxide). You can use a thermal camera to check for proper cooling and hot spotting (early failure). The actual temperatures allowed during normal operation on external surfaces are frequently up around 200-250 C.

There are even radiation cooled tube types, where the internals are deliberately running at incandecent hot temperatures ('cherry red' is the usual description given) inside an outsize Pyrex glass envelope. However those types of tubes are probably only of interest to hobbyists these days. I'm not even sure if they are manufactured any longer.

[CatalinaWOW]

Some specialty areas, like oil well data loggers and some aerospace equipment need to operate at very high temperatures.  But for the very vast majority 120C is plenty of temperature measurement capability.

[bktemp]

I have been trying to think of electronics related situations that involve temperatures that normally rise above 120C.

Most overtemperature shutdowns in ics trip at around 130-170°C junction temperature. Depending on the construction the case will be at a lower temperature, but it will be at least in the 120°C range. A higher temperature range would ne nice, but 120°C is ok.

Here is an example of an electronics related situation where 120°C were not enough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbjSWxWXurE&feature

[Trax]

Is it possible to extend the lepton sensors temperature range using a ND filter for example by a factor of 2 or 4?
And if so how expensive mod would that be?

[Muxr]

You could I guess use the IR ND filters, but they do impact image quality, to what extent I am not sure.

[wischi]

Thanks for your feedback about the FLIR ONE, I will order one plus one or two lenses.

Best,
wischi

[mimmus78]

My Flir One V2 order was cancelled ... I'm the only one or they are late with the product?

[mikeselectricstuff]

Did you get the email last week about shipping delays til Sep ?

[mimmus78]

Yes I get this email ... but yesterday the order was cancelled. Asked to Danielle what's up ... hope to receive a reply tomorrow.

=====================================

Dear Aeldom:
Thank you for your recent order of the FLIR ONE! You certainly aren’t alone. Due to an overwhelming number of orders for the device, we were unable to keep pace. As a result, we are backordered and unable to ship your order by the date we promised and we sincerely apologize for the situation.
Recently we have really been turning up the heat on production and we can confirm that your order will be shipped the week of September 7th. Please note that orders are shipped in the order they are received.
On behalf of everyone at FLIR Systems, I would like to thank you very much for your business and your patience. Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions regarding your order.
Kind regards,

Danielle XXXXXXXXXXX
FLIR One Customer Advocate

FLIR Systems, Inc.
70 Castilian Drive, Goleta, CA 93117 USA

[ThomasK888]

Hi there,

i saw the Pic from the Flir One Sec.Gen. of the electronic Board from Muxr.
Does anyone know the Depth of Field of the Flir one.
What is the minimum distance between the Object an the Camera.
Is it possible to recognize e.g.  a 0402 resistor on the Picture?
@ wishi, what kind of additional Lens do you mean? I think there is no aditional Lens available for the Flir one. 

[gmit77]

hello, hope good news! we are receiving the FLIR ONE for iOS and Android begin of October.
discount code: flironenew
free shipment to Europe (we ship from Italy)
here is the link for the two models:
- Android http://www.batterfly.com/shop/flir-one-android
- iOS http://www.batterfly.com/shop/flir-one-ios
 

[Neganur]

discount code: flironenew
free shipment to Europe (we ship from Italy)

According to my shopping cart, shipping is free if the order is worth more than 400 EUR (before VAT).
Or is the discount code meant to compensate the shipping cost?

[gmit77]

FIXED now both discount code and free shipping work
thanks

- - -
Hello, it is discount code and free shipping.
Let me check now, it will be fixed in 45 minutes from now.
Cheers.

discount code: flironenew
free shipment to Europe (we ship from Italy)

According to my shopping cart, shipping is free if the order is worth more than 400 EUR (before VAT).
Or is the discount code meant to compensate the shipping cost?

[Ben321]

All this debate could be solved very easily. If FLIR won't tell you, you could buy a spare FLIR One V2, and break it open, and then put the actual focal-plane array microbolometer under a microscope. Then count the number of sensor sites you see vertically, and count horizontally. That will give you the true resolution.

[Redshift1340]

All this debate could be solved very easily. If FLIR won't tell you, you could buy a spare FLIR One V2, and break it open, and then put the actual focal-plane array microbolometer under a microscope. Then count the number of sensor sites you see vertically, and count horizontally. That will give you the true resolution.

This debate was going on before anyone had gotten their hands on the gen2, breaking one open was not an available option.  It's been more or less settled by now.

[thefamilyman]

I received my Flir One today, ordered it on Thursday from the Flir website.

They used GlobalShopex as their international selling agent and honestly they are useless.
I straight away had trouble with their online ordering that it returned an 404 after being redirected from PayPal, this caused my order to be registered on their end but the PayPal transaction was incomplete.
I immediately emailed their support and they emailed me back in 12 hours.
i had placed 4 ordered according to their system but they canceled all bar one that they manually made a PayPal transaction.
in their email they also mentioned that there are back orders and my order wont be shipped out for 2-3 weeks but to my surprise and pleasure i get an automatic email an hour later with a DHL tracking number.
What i did like about GlobalShopex is that they took care of GST and Duties which streamlined the shipping a lot.

Anyway, i'm so happy with the little gadget, its going to be very useful at work.
just a quick shot from it.


And according to their website it's 160*120.


The App works pretty good on my Huawei P8, except it crashes when i enable the LIGHT mode.
the USB is the wrong direction on my Nexus 7, so i'll look at making an extension USB cable for it.
the FLIR Tools App is good for creating quick little reports as like the PDF attached.

[Fraser]

@thefamilyman,

Glad to hear that you have received your F1G2 camera.Can you advise which country you are in please.

I am still awaiting the delivery of my replacement camera due to demand outstripping supply in Europe.

Regards

Fraser

[thefamilyman]

New Zealand ^_^

[encryptededdy]

New Zealand ^_^

How much in customs charges?

The FLIR One is $250 USD = $385 NZD which should be under the $400NZD limit for waiving all GST and customs charges?

[Ben321]

All this debate could be solved very easily. If FLIR won't tell you, you could buy a spare FLIR One V2, and break it open, and then put the actual focal-plane array microbolometer under a microscope. Then count the number of sensor sites you see vertically, and count horizontally. That will give you the true resolution.

This debate was going on before anyone had gotten their hands on the gen2, breaking one open was not an available option.  It's been more or less settled by now.

What method was used to determine the number of physical pixels on the microbolometer? I wouldn't trust advertisement wording from FLIR. They could say 160x120 resolution, but it might just be 2x upscaled from 80x60 resolution (done in camera) and then another 2x upscaling to 320x240 done by the camera app (as seen by the fact that thermometric JPEGs from it have a thermal resolution of 320x240) for a total of 4x upscaling. I'd like an actual horizontal count and vertical count of sensors on the chip, from somebody who's broken one open, and had a microscope handy to count the number of sensors. And he wouldn't have to count them all (10s of thousands of sensors), just horozontaly and vertically (a couple hundred counts). This should be a fairly easy task, and is really the only technique I would consider foolproof.

[thefamilyman]

@encryptededdy

Flir One US$249.99

DHL to NZ US$17.29 (which is very good, shipping from USA is normally the most expensive location to buy from).

Duties and GST charges USD$55 (This is about right because the GST plus the customs handling free would be more than this and I have no idea what if any duties would be in it too).

So total was US$322.28 landed in 4 days.

[encryptededdy]

All this debate could be solved very easily. If FLIR won't tell you, you could buy a spare FLIR One V2, and break it open, and then put the actual focal-plane array microbolometer under a microscope. Then count the number of sensor sites you see vertically, and count horizontally. That will give you the true resolution.

This debate was going on before anyone had gotten their hands on the gen2, breaking one open was not an available option.  It's been more or less settled by now.

What method was used to determine the number of physical pixels on the microbolometer? I wouldn't trust advertisement wording from FLIR. They could say 160x120 resolution, but it might just be 2x upscaled from 80x60 resolution (done in camera) and then another 2x upscaling to 320x240 done by the camera app (as seen by the fact that thermometric JPEGs from it have a thermal resolution of 320x240) for a total of 4x upscaling. I'd like an actual horizontal count and vertical count of sensors on the chip, from somebody who's broken one open, and had a microscope handy to count the number of sensors. And he wouldn't have to count them all (10s of thousands of sensors), just horozontaly and vertically (a couple hundred counts). This should be a fairly easy task, and is really the only technique I would consider foolproof.

That can't be done without destroying the sensor, as you can't see through the germanium (or other LWIR transparent material) window on top of the sensor with a optical microscope. By removing said window you destroy the sensor.

I don't think FLIR would lie about the physical resolution of the sensor, but I guess it doesn't hurt to check.

The entire lens etc. is larger in the new 160x120 lepton so I think it's logical to believe that FLIR have moved to a 160x120 12um sensor (as stated in their datasheet I posted in the other thread) vs the old 80x60 17um sensor.

[encryptededdy]

@encryptededdy

Flir One US$249.99

DHL to NZ US$17.29 (which is very good, shipping from USA is normally the most expensive location to buy from).

Duties and GST charges USD$55 (This is about right because the GST plus the customs handling free would be more than this and I have no idea what if any duties would be in it too).

So total was US$322.28 landed in 4 days.

Damn... ~$10 USD less and then no duties.

I always found it stupid to count shipping charges in the cost of the item... I'm not importing the shipping am I?

[thefamilyman]

encryptededdy I agree.
I got something from eBay once that was under the GST threshold.
But when it arrived in NZ I get a call from customs that i have to pay GST on the damn thing!
The exuberant shipping costs from USA coupled with the item value pushed it over the GST threshold so I had to pay GST on the item AND the shipping! Plus their stupid customs handling free to.

[Ben321]

All this debate could be solved very easily. If FLIR won't tell you, you could buy a spare FLIR One V2, and break it open, and then put the actual focal-plane array microbolometer under a microscope. Then count the number of sensor sites you see vertically, and count horizontally. That will give you the true resolution.

This debate was going on before anyone had gotten their hands on the gen2, breaking one open was not an available option.  It's been more or less settled by now.

What method was used to determine the number of physical pixels on the microbolometer? I wouldn't trust advertisement wording from FLIR. They could say 160x120 resolution, but it might just be 2x upscaled from 80x60 resolution (done in camera) and then another 2x upscaling to 320x240 done by the camera app (as seen by the fact that thermometric JPEGs from it have a thermal resolution of 320x240) for a total of 4x upscaling. I'd like an actual horizontal count and vertical count of sensors on the chip, from somebody who's broken one open, and had a microscope handy to count the number of sensors. And he wouldn't have to count them all (10s of thousands of sensors), just horozontaly and vertically (a couple hundred counts). This should be a fairly easy task, and is really the only technique I would consider foolproof.

That can't be done without destroying the sensor, as you can't see through the germanium (or other LWIR transparent material) window on top of the sensor with a optical microscope. By removing said window you destroy the sensor.

I don't think FLIR would lie about the physical resolution of the sensor, but I guess it doesn't hurt to check.

The entire lens etc. is larger in the new 160x120 lepton so I think it's logical to believe that FLIR have moved to a 160x120 12um sensor (as stated in their datasheet I posted in the other thread) vs the old 80x60 17um sensor.

Yeah, I know it would destroy the sensor. But since these FLIR One for Android units are only $250, it would be reasonable to buy a spare, to break open to do this measurement. It's not like the $25000 T640. Has anybody at all broken one open and counted the individual sensor pixels yet?

[tomas123]

the cropped result:

overlay 120x90


overlay 160x120

the old sample images told us, that the Flir1G2 is not 160x120.

Today I got my own Flir1G2 and I found the solution between the differences between visible resolution of Flir1G2 and the lepton sensor specs:

The Flir1G2 give us a cropped image of RAW sensor!!

You can simple test it with the Flir One SDK. There is a sample app (compile it with Android Studio) which show you the real sensor image without fake noise etc.
select "Thermal Linear Flux 14 Bit Image"

As attachment two images from my notebook:

(1) a flir radiometric image with the FlirOne.app (= SDK)


(2) and at the same position two screenshots from my android device


Look at the keyboard and you see the difference in field of view (FOV) and thermal resolution!!

The Lepton 3 sensor is great 
and compare with Seek 

[tomas123]

On the screenshots of  "Thermal Linear Flux 14 Bit Image" there are no mystic artifacts.

On this radiometric image of Flir1G2...

... I see the same fake noise like on my old Flir1 Generation 1 images

look at the movements of the fake(?) noise:


...and on some images are partly visible patterns!

[Fraser]

@Tomas123

Very interesting. As you say, the images produced by the SDK app are far superior to those of the Android consumer APP. The weird noise and patterning may well be similar to the tactics employed by FLIR on the E4 to degrade its performance compared to its stable mates.

As I have already mentioned in another thread, I believe that FLIR have been very careful to not make the F1G2 too good. If it were to offer a better image than some of the semi pro cameras they sell, it would upset the marketing strategy. It is interesting to note that the MSX is permanently on as a direct result of them wishing to produce a better image than the SEEK cameras. It would have been better to not degrade the APPs image with mosaic noise etc.

The good news is that FLIR released the SDK to the community so at least better performing APPs may be possible. It is also good to see that the SDK offers images that have not been degraded.

Thanks for this insight into the SDK capabilities. If you, or anyone else, decide to write and sell a better APP for the F1G2 Android, I will buy it

Fraser

[tomas123]

@Fraser
I hope, that I post since years some useful informations about Flir cameras in this forum.
And I'm a little bit frustrated that only a very few users do the same ( special thanks to old friend Aurora  )

I got my Flir1G2 today and I'm the first who compiled the Android SDK ...

cynfab made the first step to decode the usb protocol with an OpenVizsla FPGA-based USB sniffer

There is some RE going on, just not as obvious as in the early E4 and Seek days.

Attached is a annotated dump of the first few seconds of usb activity between a F1G2 and the F1 Android app.
It's not finished.
There may be inaccuracies.
There is much more to uncover.
This is a long way from a stand alone PC program.
Your mileage may vary.
blah, blah, blah.

[encryptededdy]

Wait... so the FLIR One android app saves a cropped image?

That completely explains the issue with not getting 160x120 from our tests.

It also looks like they add extra noise then do noise reduction, thus generating the weird artefacts...

What I don't understand is why the image is cropped. It makes no sense to do this, they could just downscale? Perhaps the visible camera is not wide enough? (Because Lepton3 is wider than Lepton2, and so they could be reusing the same visible camera FOV matched to Lepton2) - they also need the visible camera to be wider to allow for the parallax correction for MSX.

[tomas123]

Perhaps the visible camera is not wide enough? (Because Lepton3 is wider than Lepton2, and so they could be reusing the same visible camera FOV matched to Lepton2) - they also need the visible camera to be wider to allow for the parallax correction for MSX.

cropping a thermal sensor is a pain for every engineer and only a marketing decision
the vga camera is a low cost part

see self (from same flir image)
... and yes, the FOV of real camera is a little bit short

thermal image


embedded real image

[NathanFowler]

On Nov 09 2015, FLIR released into the Apple App Store a new version of FLIR Tools.  This version's changelog states it added support for the F1G2, "various bug fixes", and support for another FLIR device/model.  This version removes the ability for one to disable MSX and only use IR.  Prior to this version I was able to disable MSX and not have to endure the MSX noise in dark conditions.  Where the icon used to be to enable only IR and disable MSX blending is now an option to transition between MSX or the visible light only camera.

This is a substitution in useful functionality and a reduction of features.  I am in the process of reverting the older version using iFile.  If you use this feature, I would recommend one does not update if you have the F1G1.  I now see what you Android users feel, what a waste to lose this feature, something I used regularly.

[Redshift1340]

On Nov 09 2015, FLIR released into the Apple App Store a new version of FLIR Tools.  This version's changelog states it added support for the F1G2, "various bug fixes", and support for another FLIR device/model.  This version removes the ability for one to disable MSX and only use IR.  Prior to this version I was able to disable MSX and not have to endure the MSX noise in dark conditions.  Where the icon used to be to enable only IR and disable MSX blending is now an option to transition between MSX or the visible light only camera.

This is a substitution in useful functionality and a reduction of features.  I am in the process of reverting the older version using iFile.  If you use this feature, I would recommend one does not update if you have the F1G1.  I now see what you Android users feel, what a waste to lose this feature, something I used regularly.

Thanks for the heads up! I use that feature all the time and would've been pissed to lose it.  That's some serious BS, it's one thing to force us to keep MSX on in the FLIR One app but taking away the option to remove it in FLIR tools is total crap.  I hope someone comes out with a better app using the SDK soon and fix all this cropping, noise and MSX junk FLIR has stuck us with.

[NathanFowler]

Glad to have saved you, I wasn't able to restore the prior version using iFile.  I ran into some new 'Bundles' stuff introduced after I got out of the iOS scene and back into it for the FLIR One.  Thankfully I do still have the IPA from 1.5.2 saved in VirtualBox and am working to get this back on the iPhone.  I hate the iOS ecosystem and the very misleading changelogs that don't reflect what's actually changed.

[NathanFowler]

Wow, what a nightmare.  Remind me next time to make sure I have the IPA.  A few magic tricks with SSH into the iPhone, several out of state/syncs later, a few soft reboots, a few hard reboots, quite a few stuck "installing" issues, a few tears, and I'm back on 1.5.1.  Yep, not losing this IPA for sure; glad to be able to disable MSX again.  What a disaster, I have no idea why they would remove this feature that *many* use.

[OrBy]

On Nov 09 2015, FLIR released into the Apple App Store a new version of FLIR Tools.  This version's changelog states it added support for the F1G2, "various bug fixes", and support for another FLIR device/model.  This version removes the ability for one to disable MSX and only use IR.  Prior to this version I was able to disable MSX and not have to endure the MSX noise in dark conditions.  Where the icon used to be to enable only IR and disable MSX blending is now an option to transition between MSX or the visible light only camera.

This is a substitution in useful functionality and a reduction of features.  I am in the process of reverting the older version using iFile.  If you use this feature, I would recommend one does not update if you have the F1G1.  I now see what you Android users feel, what a waste to lose this feature, something I used regularly.

I don't own a One (v1 or v2) but if FLIR decided they were going to remove thermal only from my E4 you bet I would be asking for a full refund + shipping on the device. Attached image is what I think of removing features...

[encryptededdy]

Luckily the latest Android version (also has "improved FLIR One integration") still retains the same options... for now. It even adds a new blending mode, thermal fusion.

[encryptededdy]

cropping a thermal sensor is a pain for every engineer and only a marketing decision

Yeah, I don't even... Cropping a 160x120 camera image? Really?

[NathanFowler]

Luckily the latest Android version (also has "improved FLIR One integration") still retains the same options... for now. It even adds a new blending mode, thermal fusion.

My sincere apologies if I missed it earlier, can you share and/or link a example?  I was thinking (based on past posts) where FLIR Tools did not support turning off MSX blending on Android.  Honestly, looking at Tomas' work the SDK is amazing.

[encryptededdy]

Luckily the latest Android version (also has "improved FLIR One integration") still retains the same options... for now. It even adds a new blending mode, thermal fusion.

My sincere apologies if I missed it earlier, can you share and/or link a example?  I was thinking (based on past posts) where FLIR Tools did not support turning off MSX blending on Android.  Honestly, looking at Tomas' work the SDK is amazing.

[tomas123]

The Flir1G2 give us a cropped image of RAW sensor!!

You can simple test it with the Flir One SDK. There is a sample app (compile it with Android Studio) which show you the real sensor image without fake noise etc.
select "Thermal Linear Flux 14 Bit Image"

As attachment two images from my notebook:

(1) a flir radiometric image with the FlirOne.app (= SDK)


(2) and at the same position two screenshots from my android device


Look at the keyboard and you see the difference in field of view (FOV) and thermal resolution!!

The Lepton 3 sensor is great 
and compare with Seek 

I uploaded the self compiled SDK app for Android.
Try the "Thermal Linear Flux 14 Bit Image" mode:

http://www.file-upload.net/download-11032220/FlirOneSDK.apk.html


http://developer.flir.com/android-platform-guide-flir-one/

Descriptions of Rendered Frame Types

ThermalLinearFlux14BitImage
Linear 14 bit image data, padded to 16 bits per pixel. This is the raw image from the thermal image sensor.

ThermalRGBA8888Image
Thermal RGBA image data, with a palette applied.

BlendedMSXRGBA8888Image
MSX (thermal + visual) RGBA image data, with a palette applied. This shows an outline of objects using the visible light camera, overlaid on the thermal image.

VisualJPEGImage
Visual JPEG image data, unaligned with the thermal.

VisualYCbCr888Image
Visual YCbCr image data, aligned with the thermal. This image has been cropped and adjusted to line up with the thermal image. You can use this for blending in ways other than MSX.

ThermalRadiometricKelvinImage
Radiometric centi-kelvin (cK) temperature data. Note that is is in centi-kelvin, so a reading of 31015 is equal to 310.15K (98.6ºF or 37ºC).

[tomas123]

an interesting detail:

Inside the android sdk app (see post above) there is an simulator which works without a real FlirOne.
http://www.file-upload.net/download-11032220/FlirOneSDK.apk.html


The images for the simulator are real Lepton Sensor (raw) USB frames on which you can switch the view between large FOV "Thermal Linear Flux 14 Bit Image" and the cropped Flir "Thermal Image"

You can import the images with PS / Open as ... "Photoshop Raw *.RAW"

see PS screenshot (it's a rotated coffee cup)

... there are 4 lines with additional informations 

as attachment 10 frames (see file sampleframes.zip inside the SDK app):
 *-lep => Lepton Frame 164x120
 *-vis  => jpg image from vga camera, simple rename to *.jpg

[tomas123]

with the images from simulator, there you can excat show the crop factor

I selected frame 50 from sampleframes.zip inside the SDK app

overlay from Lepton 160x120 with the Flir Radiometric JPG file


I zipped the original radiometric image, because the file size limit is 1MB. Unzip and open it with Flir Tools.

[havaloc]

Are you sure?  I'm still able to disable MSX in photos with Flir Tools

This version removes the ability for one to disable MSX and only use IR.  Prior to this version I was able to disable MSX and not have to endure the MSX noise in dark conditions. 

[NathanFowler]

Are you sure?  I'm still able to disable MSX in photos with Flir Tools

Apologies for not being more clear, in live capture this feature is no longer available, something I used often.

[tomas123]

clarification of crop factor:
 
inside the SDK there is a precompiled Flir binary .so

Code: [Select]

> cd FLIROneSDKBundle\FLIRONEExampleApplication\app\libs\flironesdk\libs
> strings -n 5 libjnidevicewrapper.so | grep -i crop
...
_Z9CropImageRKN4FLIR14CResourceValueEdiiRS0_


seriously: The sdk app has crop factor switch.
If you unplug the Flir One and then start the SDK.app then all simulation images are uncropped.
If you plug in the Flir One then the simulation get the config values from the real camera and simulation images are cropped!!

see attachments (images from SDK simulation):
- both images from simulator loaded in FlirTools.app to shrink the file size
- very crazy: FlirTools for Android resize the image to the crop factor
   

see the difference in image size and calibration values
Planck R1 = 16528.178 is my real Flir1G2 

Code: [Select]

>exiftool -Pla* *
======== FLIROne-2015-11-10-19-42-17+0100.jpg
Planck R1                       : 18453.355
Planck B                        : 1460.6
Planck F                        : 1
Planck O                        : -7003
Planck R2                       : 0.013993904

======== FLIROne-2015-11-10-19-44-55+0100.jpg
Planck R1                       : 16528.178
Planck B                        : 1427.5
Planck F                        : 1
Planck O                        : -1307
Planck R2                       : 0.012258549
conclusion:
Flir has a scale factor, a crop factor and noise to depreciate a thermal sensor !

from Flir Ex config file:

Code: [Select]

.caps.config.image.settings.enabled bool true
.caps.config.image.settings.IRwidth int32 320
.caps.config.image.settings.IRheight int32 240

.caps.config.image.targetNoise entry
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.enabled bool true
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.targetNoiseMk int32 5

[encryptededdy]

see PS screenshot (it's a rotated coffee cup)

... there are 4 lines with additional informations 

More info about the 4 lines of addtl' information: http://media.wix.com/ugd/53cdb6_5191be73d1c943d78d2e1a095cb7f3b8.pdf

[frenky]

Seek and Flir have a "similar" problem.

Seeks sensor is really bad so they are using fake images for marketing to make it look better.

On the other hand Flir has a really good sensor and they have to cripple it so that it doesen't output too good images.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

[NathanFowler]

So -- looking at this image in "Live" mode using FLIR Tools on iOS 1.5.1 this is pretty much what I see -- the linear division in the highlighted 'red section in the image.  This also occurs in the exact same spot on FLIR Tools in "Live" mode with MSX blending disabled.  I wonder what the cause for this is?

tomas, this is your image attached

[tomas123]

"Live" mode using FLIR Tools on iOS 1.5.1 this is pretty much what I see -- the linear division in the highlighted 'red section in the image.

Which Flir Camera do you mean?
I only know the live mode of Flir Tools Mobile App with the Flir Exx serie over WLAN.

edit:
I checked it myself.
Flir 1 G1 for Iphone:  [ + ] Livestream in FlirTools
Flir 1 G2 for Android: [ -  ] Livestream in FlirTools

[tomas123]

seriously: The sdk app has crop factor switch.
If you unplug the Flir One and then start the SDK.app then all simulation images are uncropped.
If you plug in the Flir One then the simulation get the config values from the real camera and simulation images are cropped!!

the corresponding code snippet in UsbCommunicator.java sendConfigDataToSimulatedDevice()

Code: [Select]

public void sendDataToDevice(byte[] data, ProtocolType protocolType)
{
  if (this.IS_SIMULATED) {
    switch (protocolType) {
    case CONFIGURATION:
      sendConfigDataToSimulatedDevice(data);
      break;
    }
  }
  else {
    UsbEndpoint destinationEndpoint;
    switch (protocolType) {
    case CONFIGURATION:
      destinationEndpoint = this.configWriteEndpoint;
      break;
    case FILEIO:
      destinationEndpoint = this.fileioWriteEndpoint;
      break;
    default:
      android.util.Log.w("UsbCommunicator", "Attempted to send data on knosupported protocol!"); return;
    }
    UsbEndpoint destinationEndpoint;
    sendData(destinationEndpoint, data, data.length);
  }
}


[tomas123]

see the difference in image size and calibration values
Planck R1 = 16528.178 is my real Flir1G2 

Code: [Select]

>exiftool -Pla* *
======== FLIROne-2015-11-10-19-42-17+0100.jpg
Planck R1                       : 18453.355
Planck B                        : 1460.6
Planck F                        : 1
Planck O                        : -7003
Planck R2                       : 0.013993904

======== FLIROne-2015-11-10-19-44-55+0100.jpg
Planck R1                       : 16528.178
Planck B                        : 1427.5
Planck F                        : 1
Planck O                        : -1307
Planck R2                       : 0.012258549
conclusion:
Flir has a scale factor, a crop factor and noise to depreciate a thermal sensor !

from SDK:
as attachment the defaults for virtual camera (simulator) with full resolution

calib.rsc (compare with exiftool output of first image above)

Code: [Select]

.calib.extRBF.ds120C_weRB_apNOA_fiNOF_le.B double 1460.6
.calib.extRBF.ds120C_weRB_apNOA_fiNOF_le.F double 1
.calib.extRBF.ds120C_weRB_apNOA_fiNOF_le.J0 double 7003
.calib.extRBF.ds120C_weRB_apNOA_fiNOF_le.J1 double 71.459686
.calib.extRBF.ds120C_weRB_apNOA_fiNOF_le.R double 18453.355

[Lord of nothing]

Can someone make Outdoor BW Picture? 

[m98]

Nice Project! 

[Lord of nothing]

I look out for an cam for my Helmet. 

[Ben321]

Inside the android sdk app (see post above) there is an simulator which works without a real FlirOne.
http://www.file-upload.net/download-11032220/FlirOneSDK.apk.html

When I press the snapshot button, where do the files get saved to?

[maxbot]

Some new shots, created with the Lepton3 inside the DIY-Thermocam and the ThermoVision software from Joe-C:

http://www.diy-thermocam.net/thermal-images/

I am also selling the Lepton3 as a single module now: http://www.ebay.de/itm/262517167556?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1558.l2649