Author Topic: Flir E60 to E60+ (Read 4633 times)

Phoenix6478 · « **on:** January 16, 2022, 10:29:56 am »

Hello Everyone

I recently got a great deal on a used Flir E60 from Ebay. It is an old MK1 model (E60 0.10) with a 490XXXXX serial number.

I would like to upgrade it to an E60+ by turning off the noise generator and maybe adding some additional menu functions. However, my cam came with the latest (2.27.16) firmware installed. As far as I know, no one has ever attempted to hack the cam with this firmware version, I only know of the 2.23.14 version. Who knows what Flir has added into their latest firmware that prevents hacking.

Could someone please share the 2.23 Firmware with me? I have found some download links on the forum here, but they are all expired sadly.

Thank you in advance!

Best
Phoenix

Fraser · « **Reply #1 on:** January 16, 2022, 01:00:07 pm »

The upgrade to the Exx series cameras is much simpler than the latest Ex series upgrades that have to deal with FLIR anti upgrade measures.

The reason you are not seeing details of a Exx series 2.27.16 FW upgrade is because no one wants to risk using that newer firmware in case it cannot be upgraded and there may be no way back to the older firmware. In your case, you are already at firmware 2.27.16 so there is nothing to lose in attempting the upgrade. Remember, in these cameras you are only changing entries in the configuration files and not modifying the actual firmware file set

To see whether you can upgrade your camera to E60+ specification you just need to follow the guide for upgrading the Exx series cameras and see if the configuration files are still accessible and have the same content as the older firmware. If all looks the same then proceed to download a backup of the camera firmware and begin editing the configuration files. Once the files have been updated and the CRC checksum calculated, replace the old configuration file with the new one on the camera. If the camera does not like what it finds in the configuration file, it will default to its factory configuration file and you will lose some features until the original configuration file or corrected new configuration file is installed. The most common issue is people not getting the CRC calculation process right so the configuration file is seen by the firmware as corrupt and invalid, so ignored.

With regard to what FLIR MAY have done in the new firmware to prevent the upgrade, look at the E4 upgrade thread (Not the E4 WiFi version thread) and the version 2.1 onwards firmware countermeasures. You will soon know if FLIR have added countermeasures to the later Exx firmware as you will not be able to complete the standard upgrade process and will have to stay with the original configuration files fir the unit to operate normally.

I can supply the earlier firmware from my archive but I am not sure how you will persuade the camera to load an older version of firmware as FLIR may have taken steps to prevent firmware reversion. One trick was to change the firmware files identity to make it appear newer than the installed firmware. In your case it could be modified to 2.28.14 to fool the update validity checker. Reverting firmware to an older version does carry a risk so be sure you want to take that oath before trying it. The installation of any firmware image can carry the risk of bricking the camera. Modifying configuration files is far safer as the changes are easily reversed without messing with the firmware critical file set.

Hope this helps

Fraser

Fraser · « **Reply #2 on:** January 16, 2022, 01:06:37 pm »

I have just sent you a link to the Exx series V 2.23.14 firmware on my Google Drive.

Fraser

Paw85 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 16, 2022, 04:21:59 pm »

Great to see more users of the EXX thermal imagers!

I'll try helping if there's any questions, but was quite a few years ago since I updated mine.
If the update fails due to firmware preventions, you'd still have a great thermal imager as it's already at E60 specc!

Phoenix6478 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 16, 2022, 06:08:39 pm »

Thank you all for your quick replies and your help

@Fraser: Thanks for sending me the firmware! I was not aware that it is not straightforward to downgrade the firmware.

It seems that Flir indeed took some measures, I can't even connect to the E60 sadly.

I did exactly as described in this post: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/thermal-imaging/flir-e4-thermal-imaging-camera-teardown/msg561266/#msg561266

I installed the RNDIS Drivers and FileZilla. When I try to connect via FileZilla to the E60 I always get a connection timeout after 20s and the connection fails. I also get a little blue popup window on the bottom right corner of my screen telling me failed to configure ThermaCam.

I also tried out a different PC (both have Windows 10), but I get exactly the same issue also. If I look into the network settings the E60 has the IP 169.254.195.120 but not 192.168.0.2. But I think thats an autoconfigured IP since the E60 hasn't communicated with the PC yet. I can't connect to 169.254.195.120 either.

I am not sure about what else I could try, maybe I should just live with the additional noise, how much of a difference does it actually make?

Edit: I just got it running, I forgot the additional Flir device drivers. The noise really is noticeably better

Thank you again for your help!

Best
Phoenix

Fraser · « **Reply #5 on:** January 16, 2022, 07:27:49 pm »

Great news

Glad we could help

Fraser

Phoenix6478 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 17, 2022, 10:52:23 am »

Thank you! Here is a comparison in case you are interested, 1ir is before the removal of the noise generator and 2ir is afterwards. I tried to match the stretching of both images as good as possible and the span on both is 2°C. If you look at the ceiling you can see a big improvement in visible details.

Best
Phoenix

Fraser · « **Reply #7 on:** January 17, 2022, 11:31:42 am »

It is good to see this before and after comparison.Thank you

I was surprised to see the artificial noise generator active on the E60 camera when I first examined the configuration file from one. I can only assume that FLIR did not want the E60 to perform as well as a more expensive camera in the range above the Exx series.
When you buy the best model of camera in a particular series you do not expect it to have its performance deliberately degraded but clearly FLIR thinks differently

Thank you for proving that the newer 2.27.16 firmware does not contain countermeasures to the upgrade

Fraser

Bill W · « **Reply #8 on:** January 17, 2022, 05:02:24 pm »

Do the FLIR image tools allow you to measure standard deviation of pixel value ?

Might be a useful comparison

Fraser · « **Reply #9 on:** January 17, 2022, 06:36:47 pm »

FLIR Tools can do Temporal plots of a spot temperature but I am not certain that it is a single pixel at the spot temperature, or a collection of several pixels with averaging. The CSV export facility provides individual pixel values. I do not think FLIR Tools contains a specific temporal pixel deviation utility. FLIR Researcher 4 might have such a capability but I would need to look into that and I have no spare time at the moment

Fraser

Paw85 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 17, 2022, 06:38:36 pm »

That was a lot more noise than I would have thought would be there in the E60.
Agree with Fraser, would not have expected the top model to be held back like that!
Thank you very much Phoenix6478 for posting the E60 vs E60+ comparison.

Makes one wonder how the E60+ compares to their more expensive models in performance...

Fraser · « **Reply #11 on:** January 17, 2022, 08:58:30 pm »

I just collated the default noise injection settings on various FLIR thermal cameras.....

The injected noise is specified in mK and is shown at the end of the second configuration line.
Note that the "bx" suffix models have a lower injected noise setting to reflect the need for the clearer detail required in low Delta T scenes in building surveys.

The Noise injector value (in mK) is added to the Microbolometers baseline noise level so a 40mk Microbolometer with 90mK of added artificial noise will create a camera with an NETD of around 130mk. The quality of the microbolometer will dictate the baseline noise level to which artificial noise is added. The E4 may have a higher baseline noise level than an E40 for instance.
Just look at how much artificial noise is injected on the standard E4 camera.... 135mK !

The E4 NETD is stated as <150mk. Noise Injection = 135mK.
This suggests a baseline Microbolometer NETD of 15mK. This is not realistic.

The E8 NETD is stated as <50mk. Noise Injection = 5mK.
This suggests a baseline Microbolometer NETD of 45mK. This seems a reasonable figure.

The E30 NETD is stated as <100mk. Noise Injection = 90mK.
This suggests a baseline Microbolometer NETD of 10mK. This is not realistic.

The E40 NETD is stated as <70mk. Noise Injection = 60mK.
This suggests a baseline Microbolometer NETD of 10mK. This is not realistic.

The E60 NETD is stated as <50mk. Noise Injection = 35mK.
This suggests a baseline Microbolometer NETD of 15mK. This is not realistic.

B400 has no noise injection and an NETD of 70mK Seems reasonable.

T420 has no noise injection and an NETD of 45mK Seems reasonable.

T425 has no noise injection and an NETD of 50mK Seems reasonable.

T620 has no noise injection and an NETD of 40mK Seems reasonable.

The P620 NETD is stated as <65mK. Noise Injection = 60mK.
This suggests a baseline Microbolometer NETD of 5mK. This is not realistic.

Some of the above microbolometer baseline noise figures seem way too low to be likely in my opinion. Weird.
This suggests to me that the Noise Injection mK figure in the configuration file is not accurate and inflated compared to the real world injected noise. Either that or the claimed NETD of the cameras with noise injection is optimistic !

Infracam
No Noise Generator

i50
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.enabled bool true
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.targetNoiseMk int32 90

E4
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.enabled bool true
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.targetNoiseMk int32 135

E8
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.enabled bool true
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.targetNoiseMk int32 5

E30
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.enabled bool true
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.targetNoiseMk int32 90

E40bx
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.enabled bool true
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.targetNoiseMk int32 35

E40
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.enabled bool true
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.targetNoiseMk int32 60

E60(MK2)
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.enabled bool true
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.targetNoiseMk int32 35

B400
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.enabled bool true
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.targetNoiseMk int32 0

T335
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.enabled bool false
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.targetNoiseMk int32 0

T420
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.enabled bool false
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.targetNoiseMk int32 0

T425
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.enabled bool true
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.targetNoiseMk int32 0

T620
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.enabled bool true
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.targetNoiseMk int32 0

P620
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.enabled bool true
.caps.config.image.targetNoise.targetNoiseMk int32 60

SC 640
No Noise Generator

A655sc
No Noise Generator

Bud · « **Reply #12 on:** January 17, 2022, 09:20:26 pm »

Fraser,
Do you think the noise generator was purely a marketing ploy vs some engineering objective Flir was trying to achieve? I keep wondering about this question.

Bill W · « **Reply #13 on:** January 17, 2022, 11:24:33 pm »

Maybe the noise injection numbers do not account for the lens aperture ?

So yes 40mK noise on a 45mK sensor an F/1 lens is 85mK.
But the same '40mK' noise on a 45mK sensor with an f/1.4 lens would be 170mK

Bill

Fraser · « **Reply #14 on:** January 17, 2022, 11:31:40 pm »

I honestly do not know what the story is behind the noise injection but it is clear that it is a function that has the ability to degrade the image noise performance, so to me that has to be an engineering solution to a marketing requirement to artificially create a performance difference between the various cameras within a particular series and between ranges of camera. This is the only scenario that makes any sense as degrading a products performance is not normally something a manufacturer does without a very good reason, Be it longevity of operation or a specific requirement to meet a well defined objective. I remember talking to the VP of consumer products at FLIR about why the FLIR One G2 App did not offer a non MSX image option. He said the marketing team were very aware that the Seek Thermal competing camera had a higher resolution that could appear more detailed than that of the FLIR One G2. They had many meetings and insisted that MSX be permanently engaged to make the image appear more detailed than it truly was. They did not want the user to see the raw thermal image of the Lepton 160 x 120 pixel core. The marketing team have a lot of power in an organisation as they help to ensure good profits, along with the bean counting accountants of course

Many a product has been ruined by the combined efforts of the Marketing team and the Accountants.

I had another look at the figures I provided above and had a thought. It does not fit all cases, but could it be that the “Target Noise” is in fact a number that the camera should achieve after noise injection ? That is to say, in the case of the E4, the Target Noise setting is 135mK ands the stated camera specification is <150mK. With the expensive P620 the Target Noise is set to 60mK and the specification for that camera is <65mK.

This makes some sense until you look at the E60. That has a Target Noise of 35mK and a stated NETD of <50mK? 35mK is high performance from a microbolometer so why do we see improvement in the image when the Target Noise generator is disabled or set to 0mK ? ~~The E8 does not fit the theory either as why would FLIR set its Target Noise to 5mK…. An NETD that the microbolometer could never achieve !~~

I would suggest that a FLIR microbolometer would normally produce an NETD of between 40mK and 70mK in its factory released state (not tuned for highest NETD performance).

As I said in the post above …. It is all a bit weird !

Fraser

Fraser · « **Reply #15 on:** January 17, 2022, 11:58:35 pm »

From memory, I think the Exx series Service Menu contains a Noise test that displays the level of noise that the camera detects with a flat field present in front of the microbolometer. How accurate that test is, I have no idea. For someone who has the time, it might be possible to check the effect of adding different numbers into the Target Noise configuration line. Something as simple as setting it to 100mK would give a good idea of what is happening in the Target Noise system. An E40 would likely show a noise level of around 50mK in upgraded form, with no noise injection, so setting the noise to 100mK should result in either approx 100mK or 150mK on the internal noise test depending upon whether the Target noise figure is a TOTAL Noise or ADDITIONAL noise figure.

To be honest, I have never focussed my attention on the Target Noise Generator as I just switched it off on my E40. It is interesting to see that the target Noise Generator is switched on in some cameras that have it set to 0mK. Why not just have it switched off ? Some cameras do not even have a Target Noise Generator line in their configuration

Fraser · « **Reply #16 on:** January 18, 2022, 12:06:19 am »

Thinking back, I think we should ignore my entry for the E8 Noise Generator of 5mK. I think that is the number I set my camera to when experimenting with the a noise Injection setting and I saved it under “E8 backup” A true E8 camera may have a higher number in the configuration file. Sadly I do not have a backup of an E8 file system to check.

I will strike out the E8 details above.

Fraser

Phoenix6478 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 18, 2022, 09:14:52 am »

Thanks for the comparison table Fraser

I did a noise test in the service menu of my E60+ and I got around 38mK total noise while pointing the camera directly at my table. But I am not really sure if we are able to measure the noise properly, in the service menu it states that the cam needs to be pointed at a blackbody with uniform temperarure and you need to enter the blackbody temperature.

I think it is not that important that you point it at a blackbody with emissivity 1, using a typical 0.95 emissivity surface should only cause a small error. But the thing that is way more important is uniform temperature distribution on the surface I believe. My results varied by around 10mK depending on which surface I use. In order to get good results we probably need a target with very uniform temperature distribution, otherwise the camera can't determine the noise properly.

I know about this thread where a user noted up to 28mK NETD with a modified E40: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/thermal-imaging/flir-e4-thermal-imaging-camera-teardown/msg342315/#msg342315

I don't know if a proper measurement target was used so it might be inacurate, but maybe there is a difference in NETD performance between Flir sensors. On the next page an NETD of 18mK is stated for a modified E4, is that even possible with a standard microbolometer?

Best
Phoenix

Phoenix6478 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 18, 2022, 10:40:12 pm »

I did a test, just for fun I set the targetnoise on my E60 to 80. The total noise measurement in the service menu then showed around 90.

I also tried if there was a difference with the noise generator on but set to 0 vs. with the noise generator off and set to 0. As expected, there was no difference in noise performance, the result in both cases was ~40mK.

Best
Phoenix

Bill W · « **Reply #19 on:** January 18, 2022, 11:23:58 pm »

Quote from: Bill W on January 17, 2022, 11:24:33 pm

Maybe the noise injection numbers do not account for the lens aperture ?

So yes 40mK noise on a 45mK sensor an F/1 lens is 85mK.
But the same '40mK' noise on a 45mK sensor with an f/1.4 lens would be 170mK

Bill

Thinking again, I am far from sure you can add two independent gaussian noises like that......

Fraser · « **Reply #20 on:** January 18, 2022, 11:30:22 pm »

Phoenix6478,

Thank you for doing the test

That Noise Generator is a strange beast. Thank goodness it was easy enough to disable it

Fraser

katzenhai2 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 07, 2022, 02:17:46 am »

Quote from: Phoenix6478 on January 18, 2022, 09:14:52 am

I did a noise test in the service menu of my E60+ and I got around 38mK total noise while pointing the camera directly at my table. But I am not really sure if we are able to measure the noise properly [...].

My results varied by around 10mK depending on which surface I use. [...]

The specifications always contain information such as NETD <= 35mk. Doesn't that mean that the devices are no worse than 35mk but can also be better!? Depending on the surface at which the device is aimed.

DefDogs · « **Reply #22 on:** January 18, 2023, 06:40:54 pm »

Thanks for the topic and info! Wanted to do the same thing with my E60bx 0.10, FW 2.27.16, default noise injection 35.
Managed to do it mostly according to this guide https://www.eevblog.com/forum/thermal-imaging/flir-e4-thermal-imaging-camera-teardown/msg561266/#msg561266 with some obstacles though. Maybe it will be useful for newcomers.

The first one - my two win10 devices could establish connection only once, then failed no matter of reboot/reinstall. Win7 old laptop had no such problems.

No problems with new firmware, so I just edited my conf, didn't download other ones. In CRC01.exe step I googled how to run .exe from command line

then added a new CRC01 line to conf. Replaced the old one on camera, reboot. Done. What a nice forum and members you have

nikitasius · « **Reply #23 on:** October 23, 2023, 07:38:12 pm »

Quote from: DefDogs on January 18, 2023, 06:40:54 pm

Thanks for the topic and info! Wanted to do the same thing with my E60bx 0.10, FW 2.27.16, default noise injection 35.
Managed to do it mostly according to this guide https://www.eevblog.com/forum/thermal-imaging/flir-e4-thermal-imaging-camera-teardown/msg561266/#msg561266 with some obstacles though. Maybe it will be useful for newcomers.

The first one - my two win10 devices could establish connection only once, then failed no matter of reboot/reinstall. Win7 old laptop had no such problems.

No problems with new firmware, so I just edited my conf, didn't download other ones. In CRC01.exe step I googled how to run .exe from command line then added a new CRC01 line to conf. Replaced the old one on camera, reboot. Done. What a nice forum and members you have

That was mk1 or mk2?


EEVblog Main Site	EEVblog on Youtube	EEVblog on Twitter	EEVblog on Facebook	EEVblog on Odysee

Author Topic: Flir E60 to E60+ (Read 4633 times)

Share me