New IR FLIR Fussion - $5000

[John McKenna]

http://www.professionalequipment.com...2-all_product1

[Michael Larson]

Cool.

I wonder if Flukes models influenced this design.

[Kevin A. Richardson]

Well, they could have at least increased the resolution on this model.

Kevin

[Bill Mullen]

Originally Posted by krichardson

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

[Kevin A. Richardson]

Originally Posted by bmullen

Is the resolution as good or less than the B-CAM SD ??

Bill Mullen

It appears to be the same 120x120.

Kevin

[John Evans]

The Fluke TiR resolution is 640x480, new Flir is only 120x120. Quite a difference!

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jevans

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

Data sheet

[John McKenna]

FLIR has 3 new cameras with a choice of resolution and price
(they all look like the BCAM SD used to)

120x120 = $5000
http://www.professionalequipment.com...2-all_product1

140x140 = $6000
http://www.professionalequipment.com...2-all_product2

180x180 = $8000
http://www.professionalequipment.com...2-all_product3

[Kevin A. Richardson]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

FLIR has 3 new cameras with a choice of resolution and price
(they all look like the BCAM SD used to)

120x120 = $5000
http://www.professionalequipment.com...2-all_product1

140x140 = $6000
http://www.professionalequipment.com...2-all_product2

180x180 = $8000
http://www.professionalequipment.com...2-all_product3

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

[Chuck Lambert]

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

[Steven S. Ramos]

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.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

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.

[Chuck Lambert]

Originally Posted by dbowers

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.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

Anybody know what the Fluke TiR has for mega-pixels

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by dbowers

Anybody know what the Fluke TiR has for mega-pixels

120 x 160

Specifications