Flir TG165 Lepton  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2014, 02:38:16 am
content: For those who like to talk about thermal cameras:http://www.flir.com.au/instruments/content/?id=64755Will be in todays Mailbag.Basically a spot laser thermometer with a Lepton sensor for visual cues. It can't measure from the Lepton.Datasheet:http://www.eevblog.com/files/FLIR-TG165/TG165_Datasheet.pdfFluke VT02/VT04 comparison + FLIR ONE:http://www.eevblog.com/files/FLIR-TG165/TG165_Comparison_FINAL.pdf

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2014, 05:37:22 pm
content: As I have stated in the mailbag thread the TG165 is a disappointment. A 1 pixel IR thermometer merged with a LEPTON coreFrankensteins monster comes to mindMy comments from the Mail Bag thread reproduced here:----------------------------------------------------For anyone wondering what lives inside the FLUKE VT02, I did a teardown a while back.It is very different (inferior) technology to that used in the TG165. A low resolution pyro-electric staring array, called the Redeye 6A captures the images and these are interpolated up to higher resolution. IIRC the Redeye 6A is a 31x31 pixel array that is used in a 15x15 pixel format in the VT02 and 30x30 format in the VT04. The Redeye 6A uses technology similar to the original BST arrays and requires a shutter (chopper) wheel to interrupt the image.All becomes clear when you see the teardown that I did.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/fluke-vt02-thermal-camera-visual-thermometer-teardown/msg467641/#msg467641The VTxx series are FIXED FOCUS on both visible and thermal cameras, Depth of focus is similar to the E4. The wheel that looks like a focus control is just the lens cover that rotates to protect the lenses and releases the trigger lock..The TG165 is a different beast BUT I have issues with the temperature being measured by a pretty much bog standard pyroelectric IR thermometer....very old school and a technique used in older fire fighting cameras, but they had a much smaller pyrometer FOV. The VT02 and VT04 read the radiometric data from the Redeye 6A so you measure what you see without parallax error issues and close-in working on PCB's is possible. The use of a single pixel pyrometer in the TG165 is fraught with measurement error risk as is the case with the conventional IR thermometer technology. With the FOV having a direct effect on the target area size with distance, it is essential to achieve 100% or greater illumination of the pyrometers view to avoid errors creeping in. This is why thermal cameras are so effective....they show you on the screen exactly which cluster of pixels are making the measurement. For me, the TG165 is a disappointment as surely the microbolometer could have provided adequate measurement accuracy ? Or maybe not. Is this the LEPTON cores Achilles heel ? Poor measurement accuracyAs Dave stated, the TG165 is aimed at a specific market and is well designed for that. However I would expect many to buy the superior E4 instead ? The standard resolution is the same, MSX is included and the E4 is a superior camera in most (all?) respects.As for the VT02 and VT04, I suspect continued sales will only be due to buyers wanting FLUKE branded equipment ! My two VT02 prototypes were bought only out of curiosity-------------------------------------------------------------------

author: hlokk
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2014, 05:58:56 am
content: What kind of minimum focus distance does it have for useful measurements? E.g. say you want to measure a hot regulator on a 5-10cm board, would it be suitable, or start getting too close to get any meaningful results?

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2014, 12:15:23 pm
content: Fluke repriced the VT02 at around $250 (on the Fluke website athttp://www.flukeonlinestore.com/4253599.htmland Amazon had it at 250 and now has it at $300) so it is no longer a direct competitor to "real" thermal cameras such as the FLIR E4 nor to the FLIR TG165 (which is priced similar to the VT04 at ney under $500).For me, $250 is justified as a "household maintenance" expense. $500 is a stretch (not that the scope and 3d printer and coffee machine did not exceed that price but they all were expected to be much more useful on a daily basis to me than an IR thermometer -Perhaps I'll be proven wrong).Perhaps FLIR will react and reprice the TG165 at $250-300 to compete with Fluke for a place in the household tools market?At the price for the VT02, the question is it a better solution than a spot IR thermometer with reasonable performance? For example, while I am fond of the Fluke 561, and it does have a K type input (which I don't use that often), but at $160 or so add 90$ and you have some visuals (no longer have to do as much "back of mind" cone size assessments) and even keep some simple, 15x15 household metrics in colorful reports. (That is not to imply that a $7k Fluke or a $1k FLIR won't be even more useful, but the price is prohibitive...)

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2014, 01:26:30 pm
content: In my personal opinion, any form of thermal differential visualisation is better than a conventional IR spot thermometer. As you say, you get to see the thermal landscape, even if at low resolution. I own several spot thermometers and even a professional AGEMA industrial spot thermometer for preventative maintenance. The AGEMA is very accurate, and logs Delta T over time, but I would still use a temperature imaging system in most common scenarios.Have you seen my VT02 teardown yet ? I paid GBP125 each for my units which I was happy to do as I was curious about what lived inside them. $250 for a new Fluke VT02 is an improvement on the original price. As I have stated, I do not like the design principle of the FLIR TG165.If you can possibly afford it, I would still recommend a FLIR E4, even at 80x60 resolution. It gives you far more than a VT02. Apparently ZORRO offer great discount offers if you live in the USA.There is another device that I was looking at yesterday. Its been around a while but may be of interest to you. It is the differential visualising Black & Decker TLD100 IR spot thermometer that projects a red, green or blue light onto the target surface, colour dependant upon the Delta T against a user set reference and selectable deviation range.http://www.blackanddecker.com/power-tools/TLD100.aspxIt sells for GBP25 on Amazon in the UK. Not a bad price.Aurora

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2014, 05:17:13 pm
content: I looked at the TG165 as well but without a calibrated readout it is just as informative as putting your finger on a circuit. Not worth the money IMHO.

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2014, 07:15:01 pm
content: Thanks for the reply. I did see your teardown of the VT02 (as well as the E4 teardown) and was amused at the spinning disk (reminded me of old US military IR imagers with the wheezing spinning mirrors, vector MCT detectors of around 100 pixels and gas cooling) - The real thing still beats anything out there! (I am biased: One of my undergrad projects 25 years back was in VLSI fabrication trying to establish some parameter of metallized deposition adherence to MCT using hall effect and IR LASERs on tiny chucks of MCT.)I cannot justify to myself the cost of the E4 (even with discount). What I can say is - if the VT02 proves (to me) that IR Imaging is very powerful in the household and my (or our family's) hobbies - then I may start looking for a better imager - right now it is a curiosity tool which I hope becomes an essential tool.I expect home use of imagers to be similar to 3d printers: I built a mid price rep rap one - and it is a nice novelty and I designed and built stuff with it (even test gear - like a very useful current loop for a clamp ammeter) - but it has yet to prove to be an "essential" household tool albeit it did get some nephews somewhat interested in electronics - that in itself is worth the cost.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2014, 10:40:37 pm
content: AssaflGood reasoningI use thermal imagers for work and 'play' so I am just used to having them available. As you say, your need may not justify the more expensive models.I bought the SEEK thermal camera module for use on a smart phone. That has yet to mature as a product. I bought a used Motorola MOTO G to use with it. That phone cost GBP26 as its phone function does not work. All other functions including Wi-Fi work. Have you considered buying a cheap used iPhone 5 in similar condition and adding a FLIR One? The FLIR ONE price has dropped recently and it outperforms the VT02.Hope you find something that provides decent performance.Aurora

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2014, 09:10:11 am
content: I have an iPhone 6+ so the seek is the only option. Time to learn more about it.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2014, 01:45:00 pm
content: The SEEK is a $200 medium resolution thermal camera that has broken new ground. It is the cheapest thermal camera available in terms of resolution/$.SEEK thermal aim to produce a thermal camera for the masses and they have been partially successful in that aim. There is certainly a lot of interest in the concept and it will put pressure on thermal camera prices. Unfortunately the co-founder and CEO of SEEK Thermal died recently and how much effect this will have on teh company is not yet known. Their communications with potential customers and and software updates is presently poor.SEEK Thermal may have been a victim of their own success as the product appears to have shipped in its thousands so it may have been more successful than this start up company had envisaged. On a positive note, a good user base appears likely.The Android software is best described as a Beta version as its noise and gradient suppression is very poor at this point in time. New software may correct this situation but as stated, communications from the company are poor on such matters. They had promised a new software release but when they made it available for download it was found to be fatally flawed and was quickly withdrawn. Not a great sign for the future as UAT would have easily spotted the fault (massive temperature errors and no better noise/gradient reduction.There is an excellent thread covering the SEEK camera on this forum. well worth a read.I still have high hopes fro the SEEK camera as it has much potential. I just hope that SEEK Thrmal can get their act together and sort the teething problems.Aurora