This is wild.
Was on job this AM and termite guy just bought one of these Flir 1’s (said he paid $250-$260 to go on his Galaxy S5 phone).
My asst today has a 6 yr old (Flir i50). The Flir 1 took better pics and showed up better than the i50.
Anybody seen one of these $250 Flir 1’s
You can get a new one for $150 on eBay
It’s a great general camera though many here may disagree. I use the iPhone 5s which stores the pics and uploads directly off my phone picture files onto my reports.
The FLIR i50 has 140x140 resolution with 100 mk rating.
The FLIR ONE first generation has a resolution of 80x60 with the little white
outline that the MSX feature adds. It looks really nice to the eyes, but the white
lines add nothing to to the thermal detection capabilities.
Agreed, MSX is a great feature… but unfortunately, can make a scan look better than it is.
$150 for iphone / $250 for android.
Good Point … Its MSX makes it look GOODER than it is BUT looks GOOD
Is gooder a word … Probably not.
No but maybe gooderer is :mrgreen:
The FLIR ONE second generation has a resolution of 160x120, but FLIR is not
revealing the mk rating (red flag). The optics are cheaply made and the battery
life goes south really fast. It is not endorsed by FLIR as a professional level camera.
Sooner or later, a client is not going to like the idea that your thermography
equipment is a cell phone. Not a good way to build a respectable reputation.
John …
Its pathetic BUT …
In my area never had client or realtor, etc ask about type of camera, resolution, was I certified, if so with whom, etc, etc.
All they ever ask is “how much if being done as a stand alone service” OR “why do you charge when the other certified inspectors do it for free with a home inspection”.
So far, you have not been using a cell phone as your IR camera… based on what you have said.
Also, if you miss defects during an inspection… no one cares… until the **** hits the fan.
Dan, You can add MSX to any regular thermal radiometric scan using Flir software if needed…
Here’s a collage of FLIR One (gadget) vs Testo 885-2 (tool). This was a scan of the same area, from the same location, 15 seconds apart.
William …
Nice
I notice that the picture from the Flir has some of the chandelier lights, which changes the range of temp displayed, and therefore the ability to show small variation in temperature. This is not a fair comparison. Was it deliberate, or was this unintentional?
Fair question.
I would think that the chandelier lights would help make the anomalies stand out because of the greater temperature differential.
Bull…
You can’t see the other “blue” or “yellow” anomalies either!
The point* that even you are making* is that the sensitivity sucks.
I got my hands on one of these pieces of crap at the FLIR convention in Nashville and started looking around the room and based upon my experience found what appeared to be air duct leakage in the ceiling. I pointed this out to the FLIR salesperson who said “no that’s not a leak”. I commenced to pick up a 660 and showed her three places where the air duct was leaking within the same area (not just the blue fuzz).
MSX makes all the difference in the world. But it is deceptive.
Yes, you can see stuff. But you also miss stuff.
To use your FLIR 1 you have to tell your home inspection clients not to turn any of the lights or appliances on in the house so that you can look around. You probably also have to do it at night so there is no solar loading that the camera might see and block everything else out.?!
Nice points, David. Some of the reasons I do not use IR in any home inspection. Just too many variables, and if you go to court, any lawyer will have your hide for breakfast.
IMHO, you need to spend the money and get a good IR, and junk the rest.
The chandelier lights are in the FLIR image just because it was the only way to try and capture the leak in the far top right from that angle. So no, nothing was deliberate in trying to hide anything. If anything, I was trying to take an image from the same point of shoot that was going to catch the multiple leaks in the ceiling. FLIR just happened to not catch all the leaks.
What I was trying to point out is that a FLIR One should in no way be utilized as a tool for a home inspection, unless you are a glutton for liability.
William-if you want to settle the stupid accusations, you can simply tune the thermal scan to the same span as the other.
If the camera is capable of detecting the anomaly, it’s still in there regardless if you can see it or not.
I wanted to do that, the problem is there is no span indication on the FLIR One, so I’d be guessing it. I’ll mess around with the Testo image later.
