Flir TG267 Vs Flir One Pro Vs something I don't know about.

[alexwhittemore]

Here's the long and short of it. I have a Flir One Pro, latest gen, iOS, which I very much like. BUT it's kind of a pain in the butt. Pros: Resolution, quality, and ease of sharing/using images (since they're already on your phone). Cons: battery life is garbage and always seems to be dead whenever you need to use it, requires using your phone which is a cumbersome non grab-n-go process. There seems to be a pretty big latency between image capture and display - besides just being slow framerate, seeing what's going on in real time is kinda hard. Did I mention battery life?

In a perfect world, I'd upgrade to something of comparable resolution (160x120) and 30hz framerate, but alas, I'm not made of money.

I noticed that the recently released Flir TG series looks awfully familiar, but probably fixes my gripes. The TG275/TG297/TG267 basically all have the same resolution, handheld form factor (which I think reduces my latency annoyance, but can't be too sure without having one in hand), MUCH better battery life, single-tool grab-n-go-ability, etc. I think they even bluetooth to your phone so exfiltrating images shouldn't be too much more of a pain compared to the Flir One? The best part is, the cheapest (267) is $500, right about the same price as the C2 but way better image specs. Best I can tell, only the upper temperature bound changes with price point, and the 267 for $500 gets you 380C, about the same as the Flir One.

So all in all, the TG267 looks like a great deal as a fully-integrated device with feature parity of the Flir One Pro, and way better performance than the comparably expensive C series units.

So like, if that's true, how do the C units still exist? What's the differentiation that you wouldn't just get one of those? Same with the E4 - it's $1000, has lower resolution and lower measurement range than the TG267 - why would anyone buy that? Just because it has wifi? What am I missing here?

Finally, since I know a lot of you have probably faced this exact same decision tree, are any of these HTI units comparable in features and price? I think I'm shying away from them because the ultimate image quality just looks worse than what the Flirs spit out, and I do find MSX valuable. But like, this HTI-19 for $60 more is 320x240 thermal - is the improved resolution worth it, or is it only worth it in comparison to the 80x60-for-$1k E4 type market? https://smile.amazon.com/Resolution-Infrared-Included-Lightweight-Comfortable/dp/B07MGZP12J/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=hti&qid=1580848025&sr=8-4

My gut feeling is that MSX, Flir ecosystem, bluetooth to phone, 380C upper bound for $500 beats 320x240 for $560 - am I wrong?

Would love to get your opinions in the "best-for-sub-$1k" market.

[Ultrapurple]

I can only offer my opinion on part of your question - whether the upgrade to 320 x 240 is worth it.

I would say emphatically yes.

My own opinion is that MSX is a 'fiddle' to disguise poor thermal resolution. The image below was taken on a 384 x 288 ThermApp imager with no trickery such as multiple exposures, extra noise reduction or, importantly, MSX.




Thermal cameras with 320 x 240 sensors and decent germanium lenses are becoming available - there are several 'camera dongle' types and a few all-in-one solutions for reasonable money (eg from Seek, although I'm not sure their lens or sensitivity is as good as the 320 x 240 or 384 x 288 dongles).

(I generally prefer working in black & white but a colour version would be just as crisp).

BUT

You don't say what you want to use the camera for. If you need accurate measurements then none of the sub-US$1k options are very attractive - you generally get poor(er) resolution than for non-radiometric cams and calibration accuracy can be poor. Mind you, even $50k cameras are less accurate than a good old dime-store thermometer (though of course they're non-contact devices, and a well calibrated camera will give repeatable measurements).

If, like me, you're mainly trying to make pretty pictures (or spot wildlife or somesuch) then I firmly believe that more pixels = better image (provided, of course, that the sensitivity is adequate).

[Ultrapurple]

It may pay you to have a look round the original thermal imaging gallery plus the second thermal imaging gallery that was started after the first one broke - you'll find a wealth of images taken with different thermal cameras using different techniques and it will give you some idea of what you can expect to achieve with the various hardware.

[alexwhittemore]

My own opinion is that MSX is a 'fiddle' to disguise poor thermal resolution.

I don't think that's an opinion so much as it's an objective fact - MSX very specifically exists to show you what you're looking at, when thermal resolution isn't high enough to give you an obvious picture of that.

And those ThermApp devices look excellent - AND like an excellent deal compared to other options in their spec range. My issue there is that they're also out of my price range by a handy margin. If I were looking to spend ~$1500, a thermapp might well be the call. In the mean time, "the best you can do for $500" leaves a trickier choice. Also, I'm not looking for a phone-based device. If I were looking for high image quality on a budget, I might reconsider that, but for now I want something comparable to the Flir One Pro but more usable.

The real question is, does the higher resolution of the HT-19 outweight what look like quality and usability shortcomings vs something like the TG267? And is there a much better mid-$hundreds option I should be considering apart from them? I'm worried that, yeah, the HT19 is higher resolution, but noisy and without MSX, still not so grab-and-go useful. Maybe I'm wrong.

Don't get me wrong - I appreciate the input! That is certainly a hearty sell for the ThermApp. I just probably can't justify that spend anytime soon. For instance - the first one in the gallery is a ThermalExpert Q1, which you have to request a price list for. I have no clue if it even comes close to my needs, even if the image looks fine.

And you're right - I should have been more specific about the use case. I'm definitely less interested in pretty pictures than I am in data collection, but of course, there's a lot of overlap. I use my Flir One for a bunch of around-the-house and engineering tasks. Spotting heat leaks in my buddy's house, spotting water leaks around the refrigerator or down the wall. Lately I used it to determine where best to add insulation to a hot tub for cost savings, etc. Also for board bringup and smoke test. I know a lot of people go with a Seek device, and sometimes a modified lens for that task to get closer focus and better utilization of the image area, but I don't feel a strong need for that. That's an area where better resolution would be nice, but over resolution I'd prioritize being able to quickly grab the camera and have a look. Like, "huh this board seems like it's getting hot - is that true?" - its annoying to assemble a phone dongle and try to get a stable image when there's a lot of lag. I'd rather grab a handheld and quickly be done with it.

Oh I guess I'd add - I use Vernier Thermal Analysis on iOS for some thermal experiments - it's unstable and annoying, so I'd like to do better, but being able to perform analysis on both images AND video is very nice. Something I'd like to have options for in a device, even if that means buying PC-side analysis software or something.

It may pay you to have a look round the original thermal imaging gallery plus the second thermal imaging gallery that was started after the first one broke - you'll find a wealth of images taken with different thermal cameras using different techniques and it will give you some idea of what you can expect to achieve with the various hardware.

Thanks for the mention - I certainly will! The biggest issue there is that stills convey a lot of info, but also lack a ton of info. Sure, the image is pretty, quality is good. But how much does that unit cost, can I still buy it, is it a PITA to use, etc? Lots to try to figure out just from a model number.

[Ultrapurple]

The ThermalExpert 384 x 288 resolution cameras use the same sensor as the ThermApp. That doesn't mean the image quality s necessarily the same - in fact, I have been very favourably impressed with results from the ThermalExpert cameras, particularly with Thermviewer driver software in place of the standard (supplied) driver app.

As far as grab-and-go cameras are concerned, I suggest the Seek Shot Pro or Seek Reveal Pro (both 320 x 240, both US$699) might be worth looking at. I've also recently come across the PerfectPrime range, which includes a couple of varieties of hand-held 320 x 240 all-in-ones at US$550 or so.

[alexwhittemore]

As far as grab-and-go cameras are concerned, I suggest the Seek Shot Pro or Seek Reveal Pro (both 320 x 240, both US$699) might be worth looking at. I've also recently come across the PerfectPrime range, which includes a couple of varieties of hand-held 320 x 240 all-in-ones at US$550 or so.

I had kind of forgotten about the Seek series - the shot pro and reveal pro look decent, and for the same price, I feel like the reveal pro at ~15hz fastframe is a good deal.

perfectprime I'm curious about - they fall into the same category as the HTI handhelds. I wonder about image quality/usability. Would love to hear from someone who has/loves one of them.

[Thomas]

I'm in the market for a thermal camera too. I will be using it for checking circuit boards, motors, gear boxes, power supplies etc. - and general use around the home. Pretty pictures are not interesting.
I think I have come down to the Flir TG267 or the Seek Shot Pro.
The TG267 seems like a step up from the TG165/7 series with its 160x120 resolution.

My impression is that the Seek is more noisy than the Flir. So the extra resolution is just noise? Probably not, but I am a bit concerned about this.
The Flir has free external analysis software with access to raw data from the camera.
The Seek is almost twice the price of the Flir (here in Norway). The Seek Shot (non-Pro) costs the same as the Flir.
The Seek has 4 emissivity presets only, the Flir has 4 presets plus custom adjustment of 0.1–0.99.

I'm leaning towards the Flir despite its lower resolution and smaller screen.

Anything else I should consider? Other cameras?

[Ridma]

Alex,

Your question is obvious and the same argument had kept me up at night. I always thought that something wasn't right with comparatively extreme lower price of TG 267 compared to models in Ex range (I have worked with E5-XT). Then I found out why!!!!

One word >>> Radiometric. . . . . .

TG 267 is just a spot meter and DOES NOT save 14-bit radiometric data like we expect it to like in Ex range cameras. What TG267 does is that it captures and stores data from that one SPOT on the screen at the time of capture and stores as JPEG (without 14bit radiometric data).

Ex range captures 14-bit RM data and enables post processing where TG267 is not meant for post processing. The capture, internal processing and storage if 14-b RM data is expensive and that finally explains the HUGE price difference in two models.

Saved me a good USD 500.

Hope it is now clear to you and I have explained what you wanted to know!

Ridma
Certified Thermographer

[alexwhittemore]

Alex,

Your question is obvious and the same argument had kept me up at night. I always thought that something wasn't right with comparatively extreme lower price of TG 267 compared to models in Ex range (I have worked with E5-XT). Then I found out why!!!!

One word >>> Radiometric. . . . . .

TG 267 is just a spot meter and DOES NOT save 14-bit radiometric data like we expect it to like in Ex range cameras. What TG267 does is that it captures and stores data from that one SPOT on the screen at the time of capture and stores as JPEG (without 14bit radiometric data).

Ex range captures 14-bit RM data and enables post processing where TG267 is not meant for post processing. The capture, internal processing and storage if 14-b RM data is expensive and that finally explains the HUGE price difference in two models.

Saved me a good USD 500.

Hope it is now clear to you and I have explained what you wanted to know!

Ridma
Certified Thermographer

UGH, Really!? It doesn't say ANYWHERE that it's a spot thermal camera, which is a whole range of products they sell! (Albeit, I think everything they market as a "spot thermal imager" is based on the Lepton 2.5 at half the resolution). Did you find that out first hand?

[Thomas]

From the Flir product page:

The FLIR TG267 takes you beyond the limitations of single-spot IR thermometers...

I think it is a thermal camera that doesn't export radiometric data. So you lose post processing.
I think it can still be useful for finding problems on circuit boards etc.

[mrprecision]

I was looking for a IR thermometers and bought a Flir TG267 and a Testo 865 to evaluate them. The result was, that I kept the Flir TG267 and the Testo 865 I have send back.

What I think about both products:

• Both have the same IR sensor resolution
• The Flir seems to be more sensitive, what also the datasheet shows (seems to be better for PCB's)
• The battery of the Flir couln't be changed (the housing has to be opend)
• The Testo cost arrount 900€, the Flir only 400€, less than half!
• The Flir has a USB 3.0, the Testo a USB Mico connector
• The Flir has also a optical camera, to combine the IR and the optical image (MSX). You cannot turn MSX off, if I want to turn off this feature I put something in front of the optical camera lense.
• The Testo 865 has a bigger screen, but the same screen resolution like the Flir
• The Testo has the possibility to change the min/max values of the scale
• The Testo has a SuperResolution mode, to increase the resolution (this works, but it is only possilbe with the Testo software)
• Both cameras show in the Windows explorer like a USB drive
• The Testo has a software to modify the thermal images in post process (nice, but I don't use it)
• The Flir has a wider angle, so you could come closer to the object (pictures of PCB's look nicer)
• The Flir saves only JPEG's, the files with temperature data (no post process)

I have tried to make the same images with both cameras. The images of the Flir I turned arround 90°, the images of the Testo I scaled down to the size of the Flir images to better compare the images. It is not possible to turn the MSX feature of the Flir off (I hate that there is no option), so I put something in front of the optical sensor do disable this feature and to only compare the optical sensor. I am using this camera for evaluation hotspots on PCB's. Out of my point of view the Flir is therefore the better choose.


















































Here two pictures with the MXS option on and off for the Flir (There is no option in the menue to deactivate MXS, so I put something infront of the camera):

[Vipitis]

You should be able to load the jepgs in FLIR tools and get an image without MSX, and all the measurements you want. It seems to be a Lepton 3.5. But with narrower fov than found on the FLIR One Pro or other integrated options. Making it much more viable for 160x120

[mrprecision]

You should be able to load the jepgs in FLIR tools and get an image without MSX, and all the measurements you want. It seems to be a Lepton 3.5. But with narrower fov than found on the FLIR One Pro or other integrated options. Making it much more viable for 160x120

On the Flir, there are only jepgs. I have tried the FLIR tools without success.

[mrprecision]

You should be able to load the jepgs in FLIR tools and get an image without MSX, and all the measurements you want. It seems to be a Lepton 3.5. But with narrower fov than found on the FLIR One Pro or other integrated options. Making it much more viable for 160x120

Can you please  if you can post process the jepgs in FLIR tools from the TG275. On the camera there are only jpeg images.

Here is a File:
https://www.schaeck.eu/download/eev/FLIR1000019.jpeg


Can you edit this file in Flir Tool? Maybe this camera doesn't support this feature.

[Fraser]

From the specifications it would appear that FLIR have limited the saved images format to JPEG with a only the spot temperature metadata. This suggests that the saved image is ‘flat’ JPEG and not Radiometric. The spot temperature is provided in the metadata but there is no option to read individual pixel temperatures or remove the  MSX overlay. Likely another case of FLIR marketing department setting boundaries on the capabilities of a product.

Fraser

[mrprecision]

From the specifications it would appear that FLIR have limited the saved images format to JPEG with a only the spot temperature metadata. This suggests that the saved image is ‘flat’ JPEG and not Radiometric. The spot temperature is provided in the metadata but there is no option to read individual pixel temperatures or remove the  MSX overlay. Likely another case of FLIR marketing department setting boundaries on the capabilities of a product.

Fraser

I have no problem with the limitation. The only bad thing is, that the MSX overlay cannot be deativated.