http://www.professionalequipment.com/product_images/159085_FLIR-B40-infrared-camera.jpg
Cool.
I wonder if Flukes models influenced this design.
Well, they could have at least increased the resolution on this model.
Kevin
Is the resolution as good or less than the B-CAM SD ??
Bill Mullen
It appears to be the same 120x120.
Kevin
The Fluke TiR resolution is 640x480, new Flir is only 120x120. Quite a difference! 
Not quite.
Detector type 160 X 120 focal plane array, uncooled microbolometer
The visual camera is 640 x 480
FLIR has 3 new cameras with a choice of resolution and price
(they all look like the BCAM SD used to)
http://www.professionalequipment.com/product_images/159085_FLIR-B40-illuminator-led-lights.jpg
I have only owned the BCAM SD (120x120) and the T400 (320x240). I would actually be interested in hearing from someone who has experimented with a camera that has either a 140x140 or a 180x180 resolution.
I guess I’m wondering is there that much of a difference between the three different resolutions to justify the additional costs.
Going from a 120x120 to a 320x240 was like night and day. Major difference!
I’d love to see some images from each of these camera resolutions.
Thanks for the post, John.
Kevin
120 X 120= 14,400 pixels
120 X 160 = 19,200 pixels
140 X 140 = 19,600 pixels
180 X 180 = 32,400 pixels
240 X 320 = 76,800 pixels
The more pixels the sharper the image.
Chuck
I wonder if this math works. 120 x 120 equals 14400 pixels and the 180 x180 equals 32400 pixels. That is a 100 % increase in the number of pixels. That would lead you to believe that you would see with twice the clarity. This camera also has a lower themal sensitivity - so it can detect smaller temp differences and has more pixels to associate with those detected temp differences. The image will be significantly better, especially during less than optimal conditions.
I have always said - buy more camera than you think you will need because you will regret it later if you don’t. Once you get a taste of the opportunity you will want to offer more applications and you will need a higher res and lower thermal sensitivity to offer those applications.
Wow -
Heck of a jump - From $5,000 to $8,000 for:
a laser pointer; small lights (I think we all carry flashlights); and better pixels. I’m impressed. I want them marketing my HI business.
As we all know the higher the number of pixels the sharper the image and the more temperature reference points in a full radiometric image. I would trade my upgraded FLIR imager for one of these new imagers in a heartbeat.
Anybody know what the Fluke TiR has for mega-pixels
120 x 160
So if I understand this megapixel thing correctly that would make the Fluke TiR about 19,200 megapixels vs the Flir B-50 at 19,600 megapixels OR the Flir B-40 at 14,400 megapixels ???
That makes the Fluke TiR at $4,495 less than the Flir B-40 at $4,995 AND really a lot less than the Flir B-50 at $5,995 - yet stouter than the B-40 and head to head with the B-50.
Am I seeing this correctly.
That’s the way I see it Dan.
I got to see and use one of the new B-60 Flirs for about 1 hour this weekend. It was nice, light, easy to use, etc. I liked its PIP new feature.
I had it and the Fluke TiR together, and quite truthfully, although I could see a little difference in images - I couldn’t fully tell a whole lot of difference in the images on the screens of each.
The Flir was lighter. The Fluke more rugged. Cost is $3500 more for Flir.
I would really like to see the B-50 in action since it and the Fluke seem relatively equal on pixels and are a lot closer in price AND the B-50 is upgradeable to a B-60 if you later feel the desire.