From being on this forum for many years and working on many thermal imaging cameras, I see two distinct users of thermal imaging technology. I come from a background of using thermal imaging technology in an industrial setting where much of the work is about looking for thermal anomalies. I care about the data and it must not be corrupted by too much processing if it is to be trusted. I classify myself as a time served Industrial thermal camera user who just happens to also be a component level repair tech with a great interest in imaging technologies. There is also a different type of thermal imaging user these days though. With the advent of affordable thermal imaging technology for the general public, I have seen a huge increase in users who are less interested in the pixel data and it’s accuracy, and more interested in the visual (cosmetic) aspects of the thermal imagery being collected from a scene. These users need an image that is full of spatial detail whilst not being cosmetically damaged by noise and image artefacts. They tend to be the more artistic users of the technology. We have seen thermal imaging used in wildlife broadcasts and this sets a level of expectation amongst ‘amateur’ users of the technology. The BBC in the UK used state of the art long range Galileo thermal imaging equipment from Leonardo for some of their best wildlife thermal imagery, but this was a large heavy camera mounted on a military style truck ! It offered very high resolution, optical long range continuous zoom and a Stirling Mechanical cryo cooled imaging array. The imagery was understandably impressive as it was basically military "cost no object" specification equipment being used. Some artistic users of thermal imaging equipment hope to achieve a similar level of imaging performance from relatively low resolution cheaper thermal imaging equipment. When I say “cheaper”, it can still be many thousands of Dollars, yet unable to produce very low noise long range thermal imagery for “pretty pictures” seen with the cooled Galileo cameras. Users who buy sub $1K thermal imaging systems are often disappointed with the image quality produced due to low resolution, high noise levels and over-processing of the image. The over-processing of the image is often the result of the manufacturer trying to suppress noise from a 12um microbolometer in an attempt to present a pretty picture to the user. It is still possible to produce some pretty pictures with such cameras, but just not in the same class as a cooled Galileo camera.
I came from an era when early AGEMA thermal imaging scanner type cameras cost over £100K and my 3 bedroom house cost only £50K. The technology was somewhat primitive in operation (mechanical scene scanning) and very specialist in nature. The imagery was good for what we needed but far from “pretty pictures”. Move forward in time and, as with all technology, the equipment became more capable and advanced, whilst the cost was reduced and the technology more available to users who previously could not justify the expenditure. Modern users of the technology are blessed to have such a wide choice of performance and price in the marketplace. Sadly, for those who need the best possible low noise imagery for “pretty pictures” applications, they face costs far higher than, for instance, an Industrial Thermographer like I used to be. I could do my job well with 320 x 240 pixels and either a cooled or uncooled thermal camera. The noise performance of Industrial quality thermal cameras was good, but likely not good enough for the most discerning of artistic users of the technology operating in lower Delta T scenes. When it comes to cost, we know that Pixel count has a significant impact and there is also the matter of pixel size and its effect on the microbolometer die dimensions. If a user wants large, high signal to noise ratio, VOx pixels combined with high resolutions exceeding 640 x 480 pixels, they will be facing very high cost for both the microbolometer and the optical block that illuminates it. Where image detail is concerned, we have to consider the pixel count and the lens systems field of view. In industry we can opt for a decent resolution of say 320 x 240 pixels and combine that resolution with a relatively narrow field of view lens to provide the required IFOV. Now an artistic thermal videographer has a real challenge on their hands as they will likely want more pixels on the sensor array, lower noise levels plus a wide field of view lens that acts against the improved sensor arrays resolution increase ! A bit of a nightmare. I can see why artistic users of thermal imaging equipment desire MegaPixel low noise imaging arrays with continuous zoom lenses….but that is one heck of an expensive shopping list in the World of thermal imaging ! Your local military may hold such technology, but it is not what the generalist market tends to provide. The cost of such a camera is also stratospheric !
As already pointed out, most traditional thermal imaging tasks may be completed with 640 x 240 pixel imaging arrays or even far fewer pixels. The choice of lens can make all the difference in terms of the detail captured in the thermal image. You cannot escape the fact that you get what you pay for in many technology markets and thermal imaging is no different. The lower cost products will normally use lower performance components to save on the BoM cost. They may then use clever techniques in hardware and firmware to compensate for the lower quality performance of the system and mask it inadequacies for many users. It is when such “budget” equipment is deployed in more demanding use scenarios that its limitations and the manufacturers compromises become visible.
The OP appears to be asking about a similar camcorder style camera to that which he used Circa 2011. I believe that camera was likely the FLIR P series that offered the desired interchangeable lenses. That was/is a very capable camera intended for Industry. It has an excellent quality, large pixel, microbolometer feeding thermal scene data into an advanced computer that applies careful noise management to the image that is presented to the user on displays and in saved images. It would be described as professional thermal imaging equipment and it is no surprise to me that this model of camera has been used in BBC wildlife mobile deployments. It is a strong performer with a choice of lenses for differing scenarios. Sadly the price reflects this professional status and a well used 640 x 480 pixel example of this camera can easily cost North of £5K and remember… this is a circa 2010 technology camera that will, likely have seen a lot of use. £5K is cheap compared to its original cost however. £50K is not unusual for professional thermal cameras of that era. The lenses had similarly high prices associated with them and £5K each was not unusual.
Well I think I have said enough on this topic for now
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
