Author Topic: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images  (Read 29684 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline havaloc

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 23
  • Country: us
SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« on: November 03, 2015, 08:34:47 pm »
I didn't want to post these in the long Flir or Seek threads, but here are some images of the same things from both a Seek Thermal and Flir One G2.  Enjoy!

6 and 7, the order is reversed. 
 

Offline havaloc

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 23
  • Country: us
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2015, 08:37:14 pm »
Some more...
 

Offline havaloc

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 23
  • Country: us
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2015, 08:38:24 pm »
Last ones...
 

Offline havaloc

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 23
  • Country: us
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2015, 08:44:37 pm »
2 and 3 - ceiling wall corner temperature difference
4 and 5 - timer and GFCI outlet
7 and 6 - stove, warm electronics powering clock
8 and 9 - eneloop charger
11 and 10 - heat vent next to fireplace
13 and 12 - another wall corner temperature difference
15 and 14 - ceiling fan remote receiver is warm
0 and 1 - water under floor?

General comments - Even when I 'disabled' MSX on the Flir, it was definitely more temperature sensitive and could pick up much more subtle temperature differences.  I disabled it by putting my finger in front of the lens.

The Flir does the calibration shutter click every 20-30 seconds, while the Seek does so every 3-5 seconds.  The Flir lasts about 45 minutes on battery, so not much, but enough.

While it looks like I might have cherry picked examples, in general, I could not find an instance where the Seek did better.  Yes, the MSX is definitely an advantage to the Flir, but I see no reason not to use it since it's there.

At the same price, it's hard to go with the Seek.  I do credit Seek however, with starting a competition with Flir, causing all of us to benefit.  One last Flir advantage, it works with Flir tools and the images also include a visual image you can slide up and down.  These images are both from the iOS version.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2015, 08:46:33 pm by havaloc »
 

Offline -jeffB

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 114
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2015, 08:53:40 pm »
Wow -- it seems like I got much better results than that from my (Android, original version) SeeK.

I was all excited to be getting a new phone that's directly compatible with the SeeK, but now my SeeK dongle has gone missing.  :( So, no counterexamples from my end just yet...
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4880
  • Country: nl
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2015, 09:01:25 pm »
I still don't understand why Seek doesn't do fusion. Pretending multispectral image fusion can still be validly patented in the general case is just laughable. You have to be naive, stupid or disingenuous to say otherwise. Even the reddest necks in Texas aren't going to agree with it.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2015, 09:15:43 pm by Marco »
 

Offline havaloc

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 23
  • Country: us
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2015, 09:06:37 pm »
I think you CAN get better results out of the Seek, provided the temperature difference is greater.  I was surprised how much better the Flir did.  I feel the Seek should be priced at about $150-$175 to output results like that, the Flir's utility is so much greater at the same price.  I still hope Seek stays in the game though.  Perhaps it's just the contrast that the Flir images provide against the Seek.  The Seek seemed pretty useful until I compared against the Flir.

Wow -- it seems like I got much better results than that from my (Android, original version) SeeK.
 

Offline encryptededdy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 358
  • Country: nz
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2015, 11:05:38 pm »
I think one of the places where the Seek could perhaps do better is night vision. But for thermography purposes (except on high temp objects), the FLIR One is much better.
 

Online Fraser

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9909
  • Country: gb
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2015, 11:17:41 pm »
@havaloc,

This is the first such side by side test I have seen. I am surprised at the SEEK cameras poor performance in this specific scenario. When I owned a SEEK it was the noise that ruined my images with low thermal contrast scenes. My F1G2 is not perfect but it does seem to pull out the thermal information from a scene very well. The MSX provides the context for the image. The usefulness of this should not be underestimated.

With regard to disabling the MSX I tried my finger over the lens but got better results with black insulation tape. FLIRs VP recommended opaque tape as well. I thought the visible light camera might ramp up its AGC and produce noise that messed up the MSX algorithm. It did not do so as FLIR deliberately made the MSX ignore low light camera data which might degrade the final image.

Thank you for doing this test. A test comparing the usual easy scenes such as a warm equipment power pack , cup of hot water and a view if a house would really help compare 'best case' scenario imaging. It would be interesting to see if the SEEK cameras higher resolution shines in such a simple scenario. The SEEK cameras noise issues will be less apparent with the larger temperature spans.

Fraser
Cogito, ergo sum
 

Offline havaloc

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 23
  • Country: us
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2015, 12:59:21 am »
Hopefully one of these fits the bill. 

Apple Airport Extreme
Leaf Blower


 

Offline havaloc

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 23
  • Country: us
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2015, 01:00:54 am »
Or

Pipes
Hot water in sink

 

Offline havaloc

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 23
  • Country: us
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2015, 01:17:58 am »
Hot stove for contrast.
 

Online Fraser

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9909
  • Country: gb
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2015, 02:25:51 am »
@havaloc,

Many thanks.

Sadly I cannot see any benefit from the SEEK cameras higher resolution. The Seek camera produces an inferior image to the F1G2 when used with the OEM software.

Thanks again for taking the time to produce these images. Seek have some work to do on their image processing, but then we already knew that. The F1G2 produces good images for its price point and resolution. FLIR's knowledge of image processing wins the day.

Fraser
Cogito, ergo sum
 

Online all_repair

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 654
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #13 on: November 04, 2015, 02:54:19 am »
Please educate me further on this.  Is it just a software function that Seek can reduce the span, and increase on its sensitivity on the presentation of the captured view?  Yesterday, in the course of troubleshooting a problematic welder on site, I got problem seeing what I needed in a quick and a sure way with my Seek Compact.  MSX and more sensitivity would help a lot for yesterday's need.

I was leaning towards Seek Reveal previously, now I may have to consider a FLIR C2, or FLIR 1  (I got a E4)

[@Fraser, Thank you for replying below.  By saving a post, hope to keep the SNR of this thread higher  :P ]
« Last Edit: November 04, 2015, 03:24:34 am by all_repair »
 

Online Fraser

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9909
  • Country: gb
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #14 on: November 04, 2015, 03:12:45 am »
Reduction of span usually increases contrast in the image of a thermal camera, but in the case of the SEEK camera I do not know what causes the low contrast images. It could be a span issue, or it could be noise masking the required information and the image processing software just flattening the whole image.

The SEEK owners on the SEEK Camera thread may know more as they have been developing better software to get the best out of the camera.

Fraser
Cogito, ergo sum
 

Offline sgken

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 4
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #15 on: November 04, 2015, 04:52:43 am »
How does the MSX perform in total darkness?

Ken
 

Offline encryptededdy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 358
  • Country: nz
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #16 on: November 04, 2015, 06:58:22 am »
How does the MSX perform in total darkness?

Ken
It doesn't. The FLIR One's visible light camera isn't the best and won't work even in low light.
 

Offline frenky

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 972
  • Country: si
    • Frenki.net
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #17 on: November 04, 2015, 09:04:26 am »
@havaloc:

Could you please make some more comparison shots but with seek palettes "amber" and "indigo" so that comparison with flir will be better.
(Probably "amber" is the most similar to flir palette)

I think I made this one with "indigo":
« Last Edit: November 04, 2015, 09:10:00 am by frenky »
 

Offline sgken

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 4
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #18 on: November 04, 2015, 06:21:42 pm »
How does the MSX perform in total darkness?

Ken
It doesn't. The FLIR One's visible light camera isn't the best and won't work even in low light.


So, basically, this is one area the Seek outperforms the FLIR. It's higher resolution in a low/no light situation when MSX doesn't work.

Ken
 

Offline havaloc

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 23
  • Country: us
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #19 on: November 04, 2015, 07:43:06 pm »
Four images.  Flir w/ MSX, Flir w/o MSX (lights off), Seek Amber, and Seek Indigo.

How does the MSX perform in total darkness?

Ken
It doesn't. The FLIR One's visible light camera isn't the best and won't work even in low light.


So, basically, this is one area the Seek outperforms the FLIR. It's higher resolution in a low/no light situation when MSX doesn't work.

Ken
 

Offline havaloc

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 23
  • Country: us
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #20 on: November 04, 2015, 07:44:51 pm »
USB Hub.  Flir MSX, Flir No MSX (finger over sensor), Seek Indigo and Seek Amber
 

Offline frenky

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 972
  • Country: si
    • Frenki.net
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #21 on: November 04, 2015, 07:59:37 pm »
Thank you for this.
This comparison clearly shows that even without MSX and with lower resolution F1G2 images still have more details and less noise then Seek:


« Last Edit: November 05, 2015, 11:46:15 am by frenky »
 

Online Fraser

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9909
  • Country: gb
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #22 on: November 04, 2015, 08:01:07 pm »
Sadly from what I can see here, only the greater temperature range of the SEEK cameras beats the F1G2. In all the SEEK images in this thread, the noise issue dominates the scene. This appears to be just poor image processing by the software. There may be better imaging possible with more efficient noise processing algorithms and filters.

Unless a user actually needs temperature imaging above the capabilities of the F1G2, I can't see a good case for buying a SEEK camera at this time.
It should be noted that MSX is an enhancement and is not an essential part of the thermal image. 160x120 resolution is still capable of producing decent images that may be recognised.

Fraser
Cogito, ergo sum
 

Offline frenky

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 972
  • Country: si
    • Frenki.net
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #23 on: November 04, 2015, 08:04:05 pm »
It seems that even Flir has some room for improvement. See the noise levels on this image with and without MSX:
« Last Edit: November 04, 2015, 08:05:40 pm by frenky »
 

Offline havaloc

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 23
  • Country: us
Re: SEEK vs Flir One G2 Images
« Reply #24 on: November 04, 2015, 08:24:15 pm »
On the one you quoted, I used the finger method to shut off MSX.  On the battery charger, I used a dark room.  I think the noise introduced may be from me not quite getting it dark enough, I didn't want to get fingerprints on the visual lens, so I didn't press on it, so some light got in, and I think that's not helping the noise situation.

It seems that even Flir has some room for improvement. See the noise levels on this image with and without MSX:
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf