Actual resolution of Flir One V2

[jadew]

It's 80x60. 

His Flir One is first gen , now we need the same picture from thew new Flir One.

[TopLoser]

It's 80x60. 

His Flir One is first gen , now we need the same picture from thew new Flir One.

This is not a good test. I can take a low resolution image of a single line and apply multiple smoothing, dilation and erosion passes to it to give a very high resolution image at the end. The same techniques applied to multiple parallel lines would result in a very different result.

[tomas123]

EDIT: just added a diagonal view, probs from too far away to be useful but here it is anyway

looks like 120x90

all steps:

Code: [Select]

//extract RAW and resize 300%
exiftool -b -RawThermalImage diagonal\ from\ app.jpg > v2.png
convert  -define png:swap-bytes=on v2.png -auto-level -filter point -resize 720x 720x960.png

//stretch level
convert 720x960.png -level 0,25000 720x960.png

//get palette
exiftool diagonal\ from\ app.jpg -b -Palette > pal.raw
convert -size 224X1 -depth 8 YCbCr:pal.raw -separate -swap 1,2 -set colorspace YCbCr -combine -colorspace RGB pal.png
convert 720x960.png pal.png -clut 720x960color.png

// 120x90 (x8 -> 960x720)
convert -size 8x8 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,7"  -draw "line 0,0 7,0"  8x8.png
convert -size 720x960 tile:8x8.png -transparent white grid8.png
convert 720x960color.png -page -2-2 grid8.png -flatten overlay-120x90color.png
convert overlay-120x90color.png -crop 200x200+300+100 crop-120x90color.jpg

//  160x120 (x6 -> 960x720)
convert -size 6x6 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,5"  -draw "line 0,0 5,0"  6x6.png
convert -size 720x960 tile:6x6.png -transparent white grid6.png
convert 720x960color.png grid6.png -flatten overlay-160x120color.png
convert overlay-160x120color.png -crop 200x200+300+100 crop-160x120color.jpg

the cropped result:

overlay 120x90


overlay 160x120

[NathanFowler]

It's 80x60. 

 

[tomas123]

all steps

Code: [Select]

//extract RAW and resize 300%
exiftool -b -RawThermalImage from\ app.jpg > v2.png
convert  -define png:swap-bytes=on v2.png -auto-level -filter point -resize 720x 720x960.png

//get palette
exiftool from\ app.jpg -b -Palette > pal.raw
convert -size 224X1 -depth 8 YCbCr:pal.raw -separate -swap 1,2 -set colorspace YCbCr -combine -colorspace RGB pal.png
convert 720x960.png pal.png -clut 720x960color.png

// 120x90 (x8 -> 960x720)
convert -size 8x8 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,7"  -draw "line 0,0 7,0"  8x8.png
convert -size 720x960 tile:8x8.png -transparent white grid8.png
convert 720x960color.png -page -2-2 grid8.png -flatten overlay-120x90color.png
convert overlay-120x90color.png -crop 300x200+100+700 crop-120x90color.jpg

//  160x120 (x6 -> 960x720)
convert -size 6x6 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,5"  -draw "line 0,0 5,0"  6x6.png
convert -size 720x960 tile:6x6.png -transparent white grid6.png
convert 720x960color.png grid6.png -flatten overlay-160x120color.png
convert overlay-160x120color.png -crop 300x200+100+700 crop-160x120color.jpg

the cropped result:

overlay 120x90


overlay 160x120

[TopLoser]

EDIT: just added a diagonal view, probs from too far away to be useful but here it is anyway

looks like 120x90

all steps:

Code: [Select]

//extract RAW and resize 300%
exiftool -b -RawThermalImage diagonal\ from\ app.jpg > v2.png
convert  -define png:swap-bytes=on v2.png -auto-level -filter point -resize 720x 720x960.png

//stretch level
convert 720x960.png -level 0,25000 720x960.png

//get palette
exiftool diagonal\ from\ app.jpg -b -Palette > pal.raw
convert -size 224X1 -depth 8 YCbCr:pal.raw -separate -swap 1,2 -set colorspace YCbCr -combine -colorspace RGB pal.png
convert 720x960.png pal.png -clut 720x960color.png

// 120x90 (x8 -> 960x720)
convert -size 8x8 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,7"  -draw "line 0,0 7,0"  8x8.png
convert -size 720x960 tile:8x8.png -transparent white grid8.png
convert 720x960color.png -page -2-2 grid8.png -flatten overlay-120x90color.png
convert overlay-120x90color.png -crop 200x200+300+100 crop-120x90color.jpg

//  160x120 (x6 -> 960x720)
convert -size 6x6 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,5"  -draw "line 0,0 5,0"  6x6.png
convert -size 720x960 tile:6x6.png -transparent white grid6.png
convert 720x960color.png grid6.png -flatten overlay-160x120color.png
convert overlay-160x120color.png -crop 200x200+300+100 crop-160x120color.jpg

the cropped result:

overlay 120x90


overlay 160x120

Looks like this coin has 3 sides!! 120x90 would certainly fit in with Flirs statement that it's an improved Lepton but reluctance to state what the physical resolution is.

Thanks very much for your valued and objective input thomas123

[tomas123]

Maybe the group should suggest what they regard as a suitable comparison image.

Good image would be one without MSX and with straight (under angle) lines going from one side of the image to another. (Without any gaps on the sides)

Like this:

yes, see my experiments with a heating wire from last year:

after the sensitivity tests above it's time to make a resolution test

I used a 0,2mm heating wire and took some photos from 1m distance of the diagonal wire.
To avoid optical crosstalk I only heated the wire 5 Kelvin.
 
First the screenshots from Flir Tools. Here you can check the minor temperature differences (crosstalk)

E40 (hacked to 320x240 pixel)



Flir One (80x60 pixel)

we can see, that the noise level from the Flir One by a 6 Kelvin scale is very good (compared to the Seek Thermal infrared camera) 
please note the cold spots around the wire (artefacts from upscaling to 160x120??)


now some steps with imagemagick and exiftool to extract the raw values
As overlay a grid, to show the real size of one sensor pixel.
For better viewing I resize a sensor pixel to 8x8 screen pixels

Flir E40 (image IR_3115.jpg with 320x240 sensor pixels)

Code: [Select]

//extract RAW
$ exiftool -b -RawThermalImage IR_3115.jpg > IR_3115.tif

//auto-level and resize (without interpolation!) to 8x8 pixel size
$ convert IR_3115.tif -auto-level -filter point -resize 2560x wire6.png

//draw one square with size 8x8
$ convert -size 8x8 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,7"  -draw "line 0,0 7,0"  1.png

//enlarge to 320x240 squares of size 8x8
$ convert -size 2560x1920 tile:1.png 320x240.png

//overlay grid with image
$ convert wire6.png 320x240.png  -compose overlay -composite IR_3115ov.png

//crop a part of 640x480 => 80x60 sensor pixel
$ convert IR_3115ov.png -crop 640x480+800+700 IR_3115ov-crop.png
this is a crop with the size of 80x60 sensor pixels ( crop to same size like Flir One)
(the full image download as attachment)
one square = one sensor pixel of Flir Exx

the result is really sharp (thanks to good optics of the Flir Exx)
Wow


Now process the image from the Flir One ( IMG_3353.JPG )
Flir converts the RAW values of the Lepton Sensor from 80x60 to 160x120 Pixel.
I still make a overlay grid of 80x60 Pixel. As result you see 4 extrapolated pixels in one 8x8 sensor square.

Code: [Select]

//extract RAW
$ exiftool -b -RawThermalImage IMG_3353.JPG > wire.png

//change byte order, auto-level and resize (without interpolation) to 8x8 pixel size
$ convert  -define png:swap-bytes=on wire.png -auto-level -filter point -resize 640x IMG_3353.png

//draw one square with size 8x8
$ convert -size 8x8 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,7"  -draw "line 0,0 7,0"  1.png

//enlarge to 80x60 sensor pixel squares
$ convert -size 640x480 tile:1.png 80x60.png

//overlay grid with image
$ convert IMG_3353.png 80x60.png -compose overlay -composite IMG_3353ov.png
one square = one sensor pixel of Flir One

Well, the result is definite poorer, as the 80x60 crop of the Exx ...
... but the Exx is a reference design.

I think this a good result for the price of the Flir One.
Please note the above described cold spots around the wire.
Edit 19.11.2014
better use this code with transparent png's

Code: [Select]

$ convert -size 8x8 xc:none -stroke gray -strokewidth 0  -draw "line 0,0 0,7"  -draw "line 0,0 7,0"  1.png
$ convert -size 640x480 tile:1.png -transparent white grid.png
$ convert largeimage.png grid.png -flatten overlay.png

[tomas123]

Looks like this coin has 3 sides!! 120x90 would certainly fit in with Flirs statement that it's an improved Lepton but reluctance to state what the physical resolution is.

Thanks very much for your valued and objective input thomas123

maybe the sensor is 160x120 and the Flir firmware reduce the resolution to 120x90 (like Flir E5)

but in my post above with Flir E40 you can see, that the lens quality is a major factor for high resolution

[Fraser]

Well I have received a response to my resolution query lodged with FLIR:

My Question was:

"Hi,

I have pre-ordered the 2nd Generation FLIR ONE for Android and need to clarify something about the new cameras thermal specification. I have already been advised that the new LEPTON produces 4X the resolution of the old 80x60 core, but this could be achieved through interpolation within the ROIC.

I own and use several FLIR thermal cameras and for my applications I need true 160 pixel x 120 pixel physical (optical) resolution from my cameras. That is to say, interpolation from 80x60 up to 160x120 would not work for me.

Please will you confirm the physical pixel count of the Microbolometer used in the new 2nd Generation Lepton core

Kindest Regards

Fraser"

The response from FLIR CS was:

"Hi Fraser,

The lepton core does have the higher resolution but the FLIR ONE outputs a VGA image with the MSX applies. I confirmed and I was informed that this will work for you.

I hope this answers your question, I will go ahead and close your ticket but if you have any more questions or need more information, please feel free to reopen the ticket by responding to this email or logging into the support portal.

Thank you for contacting FLIR ONE Support "

Well that was not the response I was hoping for. I specifically asked if the microbolometer was physically 160x120 or interpolated from a lower resolution.

The answer should have been either. Yes, it is 160x120 or No, it is interpolated from X

I get suspicious when an OEM tells me something will "work for me" yet will not provide a specific confirmation of the physical specification.

Gee this is like getting blood out of a stone 

I will ask a VERY direct question now. Namely please conform whether the 2nd Generation FLIR ONE  microbolometer is 160x120 PHYSICAL Pixels.

How about someone else having a go ? If enough people ask, we might get a straight answer on this matter ?

Aurora

[tom66]

Perhaps ask for the total number of thermal pixels... is it at least 19,200?

[Fraser]

This is my next question to FLIR support.

"Dear FLIR support,

Thank you for you previous response, but I do need confirmation of the 2nd Gen FLIR ONE microbolometer specification.

Please will you answer this direct and simple question:

Please confirm that the 2nd Generation FLIR ONE microbolometer uses an array of 160x120 PHYSICAL Pixels and that these are active in the images produced.

If not, please state the arrays physical pixel specification.

I am sorry to be so pedantic but this specification is VERY important to my application (which is not use as a simple phone thermal camera).

Kindest Regards

Fraser"


Its a simple question so if FLIR Support cannot answer it, they are either not qualified to be support officers or have something that they want to hide. I am not into conspiracy theories but it is almost as though the FLIR staff do not know the specification of their new product, or if they do, are unwilling to release such.

Aurora

[Fraser]

Just a received a response from FLIR in in the USA    That was super fast, I only just sent the question !  I wonder if they are reading this thread ?

"Hi Fraser,

From the information that I have received the second generation of the FLIR ONE uses an array of 160x120 PHYSICAL Pixels and that these are active in the images produced"

So there you have it. The best I can do on the support front. A confirmation that the microbolometer is 160x120 active physical pixels.

Aurora

[jadew]

Good job!

[NathanFowler]

Time to order a 2nd gen =)  Thanks Fraser, much appreciated.

[Trax]

How reliable should it work with any android phone?

There are only a few phones listed on flirs website,
I have a LG Optimus X4 HD

Do you think I can order without worrys or make sure I will be able to return it if my handy does not likes it?

[mikeselectricstuff]

Just a received a response from FLIR in in the USA    That was super fast, I only just sent the question !  I wonder if they are reading this thread ?

"Hi Fraser,

From the information that I have received the second generation of the FLIR ONE uses an array of 160x120 PHYSICAL Pixels and that these are active in the images produced"

So there you have it. The best I can do on the support front. A confirmation that the microbolometer is 160x120 active physical pixels.

Aurora

The second question - is the lens up to the job of the increased resolution..?
Hard to tell from the photos if it's the same size as the previous version

[Trax]

Just a received a response from FLIR in in the USA    That was super fast, I only just sent the question !  I wonder if they are reading this thread ?

"Hi Fraser,

From the information that I have received the second generation of the FLIR ONE uses an array of 160x120 PHYSICAL Pixels and that these are active in the images produced"

So there you have it. The best I can do on the support front. A confirmation that the microbolometer is 160x120 active physical pixels.

Aurora

The second question - is the lens up to the job of the increased resolution..?
Hard to tell from the photos if it's the same size as the previous version

I think it must be, the lens is part to the lepton sensor itself. It would be pointless to develop a new sensor and provide it with a inadequate lens.
A good sensor and a bad lens can be expected I think only if this are separate parts that can be changed.

[Trax]

PS: can the flir one be operated on a PC like the seek can?

[Fraser]

@Mike,

Sadly I am not an optics expert so can offer no definitive comment on this. The lens is a significant factor when it comes to producing a decent image, and I do know that Megapixel visible light cameras benefit greatly from Megapixel quality lens. No its not just sales jargon. Megapixel lenses are just better quality than non Megapixel types.

When it comes to the FLIR ONE I am thinking along the lines of a cheap Web Cam. I have seen some pretty awful cheap and nasty 320x240 webcams that have lenses so small that you think they are actually using a pin hole. Yet they still mange to produce a reasonable image. I had a specialist security system that contained a camera having an on die glass bead lens of only ~1mm diameter. That camera still managed to produce a 320x240 visible light image, albeit a fisheye type, so full of distortion (note to self... (find that camera in my attic and show it on this blog  )

I am not sure how small a lens can be at 160x120 resolution before it seriously impacts on the image produced.

We do know that lens will be either GASIR or or some similar cheap to manufacture process. The quality of the lens material could be an issue as I know that GASIR is not as good as Germanium when used in thermal camera lenses.

All interesting stuff. I don't think I will batter FLIR Customer Services with any more probing questions for the moment though 

As a side note, I originally wrote to FLIR customer support and they redirected me to a dedicated FLIR ONE team with its own support staff. It would appear that the FLIR ONE has its own enclave within the greater FLIR company. This is clever thinking as the target market for the ONE cameras is far more likely to ask lots of support related questions. Having such an enclave takes this load off of the support staff who look after Industry etc.  Maybe that is why my simple, but technical, question caused an issue. Maybe the support team are expecting questions along the lines of "how to I install the application?, how to I charge the camera?, does it work under water ?, will it work with my XYZ phone" etc etc

Asking about Pixels probably made some poor support officers brain explode 

Aurora

[dadler]

Just a received a response from FLIR in in the USA    That was super fast, I only just sent the question !  I wonder if they are reading this thread ?

"Hi Fraser,

From the information that I have received the second generation of the FLIR ONE uses an array of 160x120 PHYSICAL Pixels and that these are active in the images produced"

So there you have it. The best I can do on the support front. A confirmation that the microbolometer is 160x120 active physical pixels.

Aurora

Spectacular. Thanks for all of your efforts ferreting out this info.

Now it is waiting time:

1   FLIR ONE for iOS
Est. Delivery Date:   Jul 24 - Aug 3, 2

[TopLoser]

Another one of these was delivered to me today, must have pressed the 'buy' button a few times too many last week.

I think the lens quality is what is holding the sensor back with this new version - the reason why it was difficult to determine the physical pixel resolution from pictures taken and why thomas123 thought 120 x 90 was the physical resolution after all his calculations.

I've taken pictures of various detailed and complex scenes with a Testo 875 (physical 160 x 120 but BIG adjustable focus lens) and the new Flir (tiny fixed focus lens). I took them from 1.5m distance so the Flir should have been in focus, I adjusted the Testo to get the sharpest image.

Testo blows the Flir out of the water, despite having identical physical resolution - the optics are just so much in its favour.

The little Flir is so cute though, and so convenient to use for undemanding little jobs around the house.

[Fraser]

@Toploser,

To be fair though..... the TESTO is a very different beast to the 2nd Gen FLIR ONE. Its is more akin to the FLIR Exx series and it has a physically huge high quality microbolometer compared to the LEPTON. The 875 is an industrial grade thermal camera, it wasn't significantly better than the FLIR ONE I would be very worried. Your assessment of the TESTO lens is spot on though. It is a multi element large chunk of diamond turned Germanium costing a significant part of the cameras several Thousand Dollars cost.

A fixed focus lens is a compromise solution by necessity and it will never compare well to the sharp focus capability of a variable focus lens.

I also own a TESTO 875 and it is a nice camera 

Aurora

[TopLoser]

The new Lepton sensor seems to be pushing the limits of the existing lens, Flirs next step forwards will have to be improving the optics, they've reached the tradeoff point now.

[Fraser]

Indeed, the LEPTON is very small indeed. FLIR have done well to design and build such a compact core.
I note that larger lenses appear to be available for the 80x60 LEPTON as Digikey sell several models of LEPTON now. Sadly it is unlikely to be an easy retrofit onto the FLIR ONE because of the built in shutter that IIRC sits in front of the objective and not behind where it is found on conventional TIC's.

If the new 160x120 core can actually perform well with better quality lenses, it will make a lovely core for experimentation. Let us hope it delivers  better image than the SEEK microbolometer when it comes to some more demanding targets such as PCB components.

I highly recommend that you consider spending around £10 on a 12mm, or greater diameter, Chinese ZnSe Plano Convex CO2 laser lens. Pick an FL that suits your needs, but I recommend a 100mm to start with. Such a close-up lens, when placed in front of the ONE's objective, will provide excellent images of small targets  You can almost make a thermal microscope with the shorter FL lenses 

Aurora

[encryptededdy]

How reliable should it work with any android phone?

There are only a few phones listed on flirs website,
I have a LG Optimus X4 HD

Do you think I can order without worrys or make sure I will be able to return it if my handy does not likes it?

It probably won't work properly on your phone. It has a NVIDIA Tegra SoC which is notoriously difficult for screen recorders and other things that read from the frame buffer.

It'll be very likely the live preview / video recording functions won't work. Picture taking will probably still work though.