EEVblog #988 - FLIR ETS320 Benchtop Thermal Camera Review

[EEVblog]

Review of the new FLIR ETS320 Benchtop Thermal Imaging Camera designed for electronics and PCB use.
http://www.flir.com/ETS320/

[prof]

I'm a bit surprised that you aren't used to the FLIR tools already given that you seems to have used their products before. The in-camera UI is indeed very clumsy and limited so you pretty much always have to use the tools to get the interesting data out or analysed; nothing new there.

The annotation possibilities you're missing can be found in the report generator BTW and coincidentally that's exactly what they're there for.

[WN1X]

The fixed focus is a big fail considering the price

[tszaboo]

Based on the focal distance and field of view, and the lack of general ease of use, this is designed especially for Korean phone manufacturers with combustible battery packs.

[cmpxchg]

Presumably they figured they could fuse a chinese generic benchtop setup with the E8 platform, just slap a different lens on it and presto you have a new product category. Then they realized the optical camera needed for MSX no longer works properly at the distance but hadn't planned to do any actual engineering, so disabled & shipped.

[Bud]

I am pretty sure the reason for no MSX is because of parallax problem with  working distances that short. There is a physical offset between the thermal sensor and MSX camera, you can see it on your handheld FLIR. In the handheld they correct for parallax by having larger pixel count on the MSX camera and applying Y offset and correcting geometrical distortions to allign both images the best they can.
The hacked E4 can be set to MSX distances 10cm the shortest and with that the sides of the image already out of allignment compare to the image center because of parallax.

Edit: The SOB software not only require you to register but chances are it also calling home with your computer name and login name, same as Flir software for handhelds. This was pointed out a few times in other Flir threads on this forum.

[SNGLinks]

Would it be possible to compensate for emissivity by taking a shot of the object with it turned off when all parts are at the same temperature? Then use that to correct for varying emissivity.

[EEVblog]

Would it be possible to compensate for emissivity by taking a shot of the object with it turned off when all parts are at the same temperature? Then use that to correct for varying emissivity.

I can't see what not.

[HKJ]

Would it be possible to compensate for emissivity by taking a shot of the object with it turned off when all parts are at the same temperature? Then use that to correct for varying emissivity.

I doubt it, emissivity correction is how much ambient correct that must be applied and if all parts are at ambient then you cannot get that correction factor.

[EEVblog]

Would it be possible to compensate for emissivity by taking a shot of the object with it turned off when all parts are at the same temperature? Then use that to correct for varying emissivity.

I doubt it, emissivity correction is how much ambient correct that must be applied and if all parts are at ambient then you cannot get that correction factor.

But look at the image of an unpowered board that is all at the same temperature, different object appear to be different temperatures due to errors in the emissivity properties.
Surely this can be use as a baseline for compensation?

[HKJ]

But look at the image of an unpowered board that is all at the same temperature, different object appear to be different temperatures due to errors in the emissivity properties.
Surely this can be use as a baseline for compensation?

I suspect that is because your ambient setting is wrong. It is not really possible to get it fully correct in a normal room. Some surfaces works like mirrors and reflect temperature from other parts of the room and that part of the room may not be exactly what you have specified as ambient.

[Brumby]

I'm with Dave on this.

After all, a board at a room temperature of 20ºC is still radiating thermal energy at 293ºK - and I can't say I've seen emissivity specified as variant with temperature.

The trick, I would think, is to be able to interpret the room temperature snapshot and generate correction parameters to give an accurate result, pixel by pixel.

[maukka]

I suspect reflections would be a big source of errors even if that sort of room temp compensation was possible in the FLIR software. Especially on bare metal traces.

[HKJ]

I'm with Dave on this.

After all, a board at a room temperature of 20ºC is still radiating thermal energy at 293ºK - and I can't say I've seen emissivity specified as variant with temperature.

The trick, I would think, is to be able to interpret the room temperature snapshot and generate correction parameters to give an accurate result, pixel by pixel.

The emissivity coefficient says something about how much is reflect and how much is from the object, the ideal is a black body with e=1, it only radiates its own temperature, there is no reflections from that. Polished steel is at the other end, most of the emission is reflected from the environment, there is very little from the steel itself (e=0.07). When environment is at the same temperature as the object the coefficient do not really matter, because the reflect environment is same temperature as the radiation from the measured object.


And the emissivity coefficient can vary with temperature.

[Insoft]

Need a review on the Flir One and Flir One Pro

[Kleinstein]

To do an emissivity correction, the target and the environment need to be significantly different temperature.

The gold plated traces are very low emissivity, possibly below 0.01. Gold is used for IR mirrors and working really well there. So no way to measure the temperature of the gold plated parts.

The pumping action of the temperature looks odd, like trouble with automatic calibration / adjustments. It looks like it was not that bad in the beginning - so maybe the camera was starting to run hot, when powered over USB. This would be a big fail.

A point I would complain about is the limited distance from the stand to the camera. So no more than about 25 cm from the edge.

[Brumby]

A point I would complain about is the limited distance from the stand to the camera. So no more than about 25 cm from the edge.

The "throat" depth.  I noticed it too.  With the mast type mounting, there has to be a limit to this, but the question as to whether this would be an issue is one to be answered by each user.

I did think the lack of large area capability was a rather significant let down.  The re-focus "hack" for close-up was very good - and indicates to me that the fundamental features to allow for large area scenes are, in fact, in place.  Just need a longer screw thread cut.

[quarros]

This Camera needs a good articulating arm. The fixed focal distance is not that big of a problem if you can move it around freely and effortlessly.

[jonovid]

I would expect better from a $2000+ lab instrument, -more bang for the bucks!
not only expect to find a focus adjustment ring on the lens, but also tilting camera head for 90 degree angle work.
also I would expect the video screen to have a tilt adjustment too & have independent mounting bracket from the camera head unit.
also weight of the instrument stand should not be a problem for a $2000+ lab instrument, so what, if the shipping weight is up , its a $2000+ instrument, not a $40 USB microscope.   FLIR

[Wim_L]

I'm genuinely puzzled by this gadget. Why would anyone want a device like this, instead of a standalone thermal camera on an articulating arm (which can be fairly light, if it only has to carry the camera and not the keypad and screen), and connectors to use the camera with any standard screen or computer?