…meaning not “tweaked” with the software. Basic iron or grayscale pallette. Trying to get a feel for the resolution when it comes straight from the camera.
Not sure if I optimized any of those or not. But you adjust the range manually on the camera if you want. I find the the auto range setting works fine for most home inspections in typical conditions.
What is modified?
Basically an image where span was adjusted outside the auto range to highlight defects
Of those five the only one that I might have optimized was the first one. I am pretty sure the others were all straight as seen on the camera.
I VERY rarely will mess with range onsite for the typical home inspection related scan. The TiR1 has a really nice onboard screen and is generally more than good for me to tell what I am seeing onsite, and make my call on the problem. If I optimize something in the software it is only for the benefit of the client, to make things standout, particularly as we get into less than optimal temperature differentials.
The only time you should have to adjust outside of the auto span is because there is a non-subject in the scan that is too hot or cold and throws the auto exposure way out there.
Not to “highlight” and make “extreme” case out of nothing…
The subject matter should always be “tuned” to provide accuracy.
I still don’t understand your reasoning?
Ar you testing Auto response between cameras?
No secret agenda David. I’ve upgraded my camera fleet to include a TIR32. It hasn’t come in yet and may take a few weeks to arrive. I own 2 FLIR cameras and I’m just curious about the differences between them besides the obvious. Given that my FLIR’s have been used primarily in the “point and shoot” mode, I wanted to see Fluke images in the same mode.
I suppose you could say that I have a new toy, can’t play with it, and I’m just bored 
Send out some shots when it arrives! 
Like Christmas eve when your parents won’t open presents till Christmas Day! 
I got in on the webinar today…it’s an impressive camera for the price.
Getting frustrating eh David. We have had our order in now for almost 2 months. A little birdy told me ours might ship October 1st. I have already played with one, so at least it isn’t as big of a cliff hanger for me.
JJ
How was it?
Amazing. I didn’t really get a chance to mess around with all its new features, and never got to strap on any of the extra lenses. Although I saw them. Just looking at the base image, it is better than a TiR4. They list the thermal sensitivity at 50mk, but I would argue it is much better. At least the unit I saw.
The company that Fluke bought was Infrared Solutions. That is where the flex-cam design came from. The Ti series is a revamped version of the Insight camera. They made a camera a few years back that was <50mk. Back then that was unprecedented. There was a company out there that really marketed their cameras to the pest control industry. They would order in batches of the Insight and black body test them. It was not rare for them to get down to the low 30’s and once in a while high 20’s on thermal sensitivity. I bring this up, because Fluke obviously has the technology after buying the company. It wouldn’t shock me if the Ti32 or TiR32 units actually tested a lot lower than 50mk. The 50mk might be one of those worst case senerio things they publish just in case someone wants to call them out on it. Just my 2 cents after messing with the camera.
One fact that seems to get lost with Fluke when infrared discussions come up about them. They simply make the best test and measurment devices in the world. Ask any electrician, network guy or anyone that uses test & measurment equipment. 95% of the time they will tell you Fluke is the best you can get. Many electricans won’t even consider anything else. Why would they have anything but that same type of mentality when manufacturing IR cameras?
JJ
OK…I’m “Jones-ing” now. Get your act together Fluke and send me my camera.
