Notice the phone book image. I literally just brushed my fingers across the page. That image was modified to approx 40% IR and 60% digital. The software will not go below .1 delta T, notice the two .1 delta T differences…WOW! I am trying to remember what I paid for the software to manipulate these images, but for some reason I don’t seem to be missing any money in my back pocket to account for.
Oh wait is that in JPG format? I didn’t think Fluke did that.
Stay tuned tomorrows lesson will be how to add an LED light and Laser pointer from the dollar store to your Fluke Ti series camera.
And I cannot figure out why the phonebook image has a span of 4F, specs say 4.6F. That is a favor in the camera if the 4.6F span is actually lower. Just for comparison sake the TiR1 (amazing building diagnostics unit) is 4.6F as well.
One last one, just because I think it is one of the better fusion pictures I have seen. That is the battery charger with one of the lithium ion batteries charging. 50/50 fusion and digital in this one.
Buy a mini LED flashlight, and you can get one with a laser pointer in the middle if you want, or just buy a seperate laser pointer. Wrap velcro around the flashlight and around the laser pointer. Then add velcro to the under side right and/or left of the camera. There ya go.
The LED light will be much brighter than any LED lamp that is internal on any of the cameras that come with them, plus you will not drain your battery. Battery life is about 1/4 to 1/3 with the LED lights on, on any camera.
As far as the laser pointer you will have to mess with it for the distance calibration. Just remember all cameras fall prey to this. If the laser pointer came directly out of the middle of the lens then it would actually work right, obviously that is not possible. So even the cameras that have them built in will be off at any distance shorter or longer than the distance at which it was calibrated for at the factory. I have used laser pointers on different cameras at 20ft plus, and they are low or high (depends if it is mounted below or above the lens) by approx 4ft at that distance.
You guys have been waiting all this time for that?
Sorry, I’m not very impressed…
Not impressed with that laser issue either.
I use the crap out of my laser, even when not taking IR scans, I have not seen any battery loss in my cameras.
Not Bright?
I can take a digital of my laser point across a 27,000 sf industrial building to highlight a hot spot on a buss gutter. If it were any brighter I’d have to wear sun glasses up close.
Hummm… strap on a laser flashlight to a camera that cost how much?
That will make my engineering clients sit up and take notice!
I was talking about the LED light David, not the laser causing battery life issues.
David, you are much smarter than that comment. A 27,000 sq ft building if square would be 164x164 approx. The center of the lens and the laser in an infrared camera are on different angles. How is it going to be dead on at say 6ft and 164ft? That is physically impossible. You could get a laser close if it was self leveling, which would also require some sort of mount, and would only work on a perfectly horizontal shot.
What the heck would your spot size be at that distance? Even at 150:1 aspect ratio you are still over an inch.
Personally I would not be strapping anything on to my camera, but if it is that big of a deal that people honestly think it does something for your inspections, then that is a much cheaper solution than spending an extra 1k-5k for the same image resolution and thermal sensitivity. If manufactures could actually put in a laser pointer that was accurate at all distances I guess I could somehow find a use for it, but I am lost as to what it would be. As far as LED lights, they are also pretty useless, even in dark situations for the digital camera. The ones in cameras are pretty weak and only put out enough light for a low quality digital image for a few feet at best. You do not honestly think they put high ISO digitals in these things do you?
Bottom line is, anyone can hate on the images or cameras all they want, there is no camera that can produce a 320x240 image at that sensitivity for less than $9k (brand new) in the world, other than the Ti32/TiR32. Fluke did a great job with the camera, and if you still decide to go with a FLIR you should still thank Fluke for bringing the prices down on your 320x240 FLIRs, the software and the lenses. If it wasn’t for the Ti32/TiR32 you would still be buying those for $16k-$20k+.
Yes there is a parallax between the laser in the center crosshair at close distances which I must mentally adjust for (or move the measurement spot crosshairs 3 “clicks” to adjust for closeup parallax). My laser is parallel with those crosshairs so the greater the distance, the less accuracy counts. If I have a 2 inch parallax at minimum focusing distance, the size of the laser spot at 200 feet is larger than the inaccuracy of the parallax. Personally, I can’t see 2 inches square at 200 feet.
320x 240; I perceived that camera to be higher resolution than that. I guess it was from reading all the posts discussing the data sheet propaganda! I guess in reality, those scans are quite good for that resolution and sensitivity. I just can’t seem to get past the low refresh rate I observed on fluke cameras during training. You move the camera and you have to wait for it to readjust. I guess they may have worked through that by now.
Your analogy that the cost of Flir cameras are being driven down by Fluke may or may not be accurate. You’re in the retail business so you should know better than I. I saw drastic price drops occur because of new models and product upgrades, Fluke just happened to be introducing their camera line at the same time.
I saved thousands of dollars by taking one step back in camera models twice. Even though I own an antiquated camera without all the bells and whistles (which I can achieve by other means), I own a 360x240 camera that I paid less for than those 180x160’s out there.
As for the laser pointer being useful, I feel it is invaluable in both taking and documenting the scans and communicating with your client. I would be more than willing to pay for this option than I would for fusion or PIP.
To each his own I guess. If I had to choose I would take Pip and Fusion over just about any other bells and whistles type of feature. We do a lot of electrical scans, and it is sure hard to hand a client a report with 100’s of panels, some of which have 50+ breakers, and have them pinpoint which breaker it is without fusion (example attached - images taken with a Fluke TiR4). With images like that thrown into the report it is very easy for an electrician to come back in and find the breakers vs full IR. Not to mention they can keep them on record and just about anyone can find these breakers again coupled with good panel records, in the future.
When I get a chance I will set up one of our higher end survey lasers (+/- 1/16" at 2800ft) and an IR camera with a laser pointer, both on a tripod, and show you what I am talking about as far as laser pointer accuracy. At your 164ft example it would not shock me to see the laser pointer in the camera off by as much as 12ft.
