Author Topic: Improving thermal sensor resolution by vibrating/moving sensor while shooting  (Read 2008 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bap2703

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • Country: io
The depth of field is too shallow so it's hard to compare because the focusing dominates the blur


Superresolution should work better at hyperfocal distance than for macro work.
 

Offline SilverSolder

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2491
  • Country: 00

Very cool set of tests!

With a 640x480 native sensor, it will probably move by one pixel between each shot just sitting on a tripod...  e.g. with a 36 megapixel camera, it is totally impossible to shoot the exact same set of pixels twice, the camera just has to move by a tiny fraction of a bee's d!ck...   ;D     

Even with a high resolution DSLR, you can benefit from making a focus stack (i.e. you aren't trying to fix a bad sensor, you are trying to get a deeper depth of field).

Looking at the image in the original post, it seems to illustrate that with a very low resolution sensor like the Seek, the "manual superresolution" adds a lot more value than it does to a higher quality thermal camera.  (At the cost of adding a lot of time and work to the process.)

 

Offline Ultrapurple

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 658
  • Country: gb
  • Just zis guy, you know?
    • Therm-App Users on Flickr
@bap2703 - yes, you're right, hyperfocal would be a lot better. I simply didn't think of that when I was sitting at my desk tinkering with the Pi! I'll do something outside when I have a spare moment. I shall be intrigued to discover whether I can produce the 'same' image shot-to-shot on a tripod (plus or minus image noise).

Agreed on the focus stacking. I have an old camera that has this built in (it isn't terribly good) but a friend who does a lot of product shots has a modern mirrorless camera that does in-body focus stacking and is stunningly good.
Rubber bands bridge the gap between WD40 and duct tape.
 

Offline SilverSolder

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2491
  • Country: 00

[...]

Agreed on the focus stacking. I have an old camera that has this built in (it isn't terribly good) but a friend who does a lot of product shots has a modern mirrorless camera that does in-body focus stacking and is stunningly good.

I like the in-body focus stacking idea.  Might eventually make it into a thermal imager near you?  :D
 

Offline frogg

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • Country: us
I think there's a pretty long practical history of this approach working with raster imaging on FPAs across a broad variety of wavelengths...there's definitely no reason why this wouldn't work with LWIR.

I think the real challenge is to create a method that would create accurate radiometric high resolution images.
 

Offline SilverSolder

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2491
  • Country: 00
I think there's a pretty long practical history of this approach working with raster imaging on FPAs across a broad variety of wavelengths...there's definitely no reason why this wouldn't work with LWIR.

I think the real challenge is to create a method that would create accurate radiometric high resolution images.

Sometimes photographers put a color chart somewhere in the scene, to get accurate colors.  How about putting a device with a known temperature (or two or more known temperatures, to give a range) in the 'thermal scene' to act as a reference for a radiometric image?  That way the imager doesn't have to be perfect.
 
The following users thanked this post: frogg

Offline bap2703

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • Country: io
I think the real challenge is to create a method that would create accurate radiometric high resolution images.

You mean from the software tools available to hobbyists?
 

Offline frogg

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • Country: us
You mean from the software tools available to hobbyists?

Well, I mean a freely available closed form solution (mathematical and/or algorithmic) with associated source code, plus supporting hardware.

I guess if I am a hobbyist with deep pockets, I could just buy Ultramax. But that's not what I want. I don't just want to buy some dude's product. I want all the source code, theory, and knowledge. :)
« Last Edit: June 20, 2020, 05:09:18 pm by frogg »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf