What is the largest contributor to cost of thermal imagers? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2017, 10:08:21 pm
content: Is it the price of manufacturing them? Or is it more a situation of "they sell it for that much because they can"? I ask the second question, because I know most uses of thermal imagers are for industrial/security/military users, and those users have a lot of money to spend, and are willing to spend it. So basically are thermal imager producers artificially inflating prices, because their primary customers are willing to pay that much? Or does the price they are selling it for actually reflect the cost of manufacture?I got to thinking about this because even though FLIR's consumer line of products (the FLIR One), is not intended for professional usage, it still is very expensive compared to visible-light cameras of comparable resolution. Again, this could be for 2 reasons. Either it really does cost this much to make a thermal imager, or they are afraid that professionals will start to buy the cheaper consumer-level products, if these consumer-level products are significantly cheaper than the professional ones (thus they are forced to keep the prices of even the consumer-level products artificially high).Also, while FLIR still uses VOx sensor chips (which use more exotic materials and manufacturing processes), I've heard that it was discovered by scientists within the past few years that microbolometers could be made entirely out of Si (silicon). This means that no longer do they need to create part of the chip with silicon, and part with VOx, and then combine the 2. Now they can make the entire chip (both the sensor portion, and the circuit portion) out of the same material. This could HUGELY drop prices, but I've not heard of any thermal imager manufacturers actually taking advantage of this new microbolometer manufacturing technique.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2017, 11:03:05 pm
content: Quick answers1. Lens and Microbolometer remain expensive, even to OEM's. £600 for a relatively simple microbolometer and lens pair is not unusual when bought in large quantities.2. LEPTON uses smaller microbolometer die and thin Silicon lenses to reduce production cost. Exact production cost not known.3. Amorphous Silicon Microbolometers are already in use throughout the industry. Very common and performance has improved greatly making then a worthy competitor to VOx in many applications.http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2011/04/ir-detectors-amorphous-silicon-bolometers-could-surpass-ir-focal-plane-technologies.htmlFraser

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 12:21:58 am
content: Quote from: Fraser on May 10, 2017, 11:03:05 pmEven so, the price is artificially high, because of who the primary purchaser is. The primary purchaser of these devices is the military, police, security cameras (for highly guarded facilities), medical usage (to quickly detect fevers in large groups of people). All of these primary purchasers, have a lot of money to spend, and are willing to spend it in huge quantities to buy relatively simple technology (remember the joke about the military spending $1000 on a hammer). FLIR (and other thermal imager companies) are aware of this, and jack up the price (often 100 times what the product is worth). Now the suppliers of raw material (such as the miners that work in germanium and vanadium mines) know that their customer (companies like FLIR) is going to be selling their technologies at HUGE prices, so the suppliers of raw materials also artificially jack up their prices. A pound of germanium or vanadium is actually worth about $10 to $20, but because of the fact that companies like FLIR are willing to pay more for it (as they are also willing to sell their products for insane prices), the price of germanium and vanadium is now artificially high (I believe between $5000 to $10000 per pound). In actuality, germanium isn't worth a lot more than silicon (which I think costs about $7 to $15 per pound).This means that thanks to the military, and police, and other groups of people with high end usage of the technology, the entire chain from raw material to final product, is now more expensive than it is ACTUALLY worth. Because of the difficulty in manufacturing some of the parts, a thermal imager has an actual worth of between 2 to 3 times the price of a visible light camera with the same resolution. Standard visible light CMOS webcams are worth about $25 for 640x480. Thermal imagers are worth about $50 to $75 dollars for 640x480, but because of the high end users like I mentioned above, the lowest cost for a 640x480 thermal imager is about $5000. This means, at the very least, companies like FLIR are making a 9900% profit margin! And the germanium and vanadium mining companies are likewise making a similar profit margin (their main customers are thermal imager producers, so these 2 particular mining industries can get away with this crap). This is FAR more than most industries, which usually make about between a 200% and 500% profit margin from the products they sell. And because the mining companies are in on it, there's no way for other companies to compete against FLIR (or other large thermal imager manufacturers) because the raw material is also so expensive. Unless you have a germanium mine and vanadium mine in your own backyard, and can mine it yourself, you will never be able to build cheap thermal imagers, in order to compete with the "big boys" like FLIR.At least that's my theory.Quote

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 12:52:20 am
content: They're also very low production relative to visible light cameras. Mobile phones are cranked out by the billions, production of CMOS camera chips is HUGE and costs have fallen to practically nothing. While thermal imagers are a lot more common than they were, they are still produced in numbers that are orders of magnitude smaller.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 09:51:19 am
content: Ben321,Some facts about Germanium lenses.......1. First you have to grow a large perfect single Germanium crystalRemember you are growing metal here !2. The crystal is sliced into blank 'pucks'3. The 'puck' is placed in a diamond lens cutting lathe and shaped4. The Germanium is now the correct lens profile and is carefully polished5. The specialist AR coatings are Deposited onto the Germanium lens surfaces, front and back.6. The best Germanium lenses are hand polished and every stage is carefully controlled by human inspection to ensure the optical quality of the finished lens.This whole process is VERY expensive and the AR coating can be a very expensive operation.This is why Germanium lenses tend to be used only on the more expensive cameras. Cheaper cameras now use an IR transmissive Chalcogenide glass that may be moulded to shape, so avoiding the expensive lathe turning process. Chalcogenide IR lenses still have the AR coating though.As has been stated, scale of production does have a major influence on manufacturing prices and, of course, profit margins do play a part.Fraser

author: Ice-Tea
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 10:13:13 am
content: The whole "they charge this much because they can" is fundamentally flawed. In market where there is competition, the price will go down if it can. Unless the market is rigged, but there are laws against that.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 10:45:36 am
content: Regarding professional customers and your view of their effect on prices.....1. The professional customers paid for the development of the technology and we owe a debt of gratitude to them for that. Without Military investment the thermal camera would likely not be what it is today.2. Professionals expect value for money. They do not have bottomless pots of money in most countries. I worked in the professional world and pushed hard for price reductions and alternative approaches to problems to reduce cost. Those working in the professional world tend not to be idiots throwing money at problems...... with some notable exceptions of course! We try to get what we want at the best price so that our fixed budgets go further or we can afford more of a developed product. I was a hard task master with designers on that front.3. Specialist product development is expensive and low yields, or relatively small production runs, create high manufacturing costs. The Military and some other professional organisations present manufacturers with challenging specifications that not only have to be met..... but also proven using testing and quality control stages during and after production. Making a guaranteed specification product to Military standards can be both involved and expensive. We understood that when inviting manufacturers to provide tender bids for projects and could often see the inexperienced manufacturers underestimating the production costs. They did not understand how rigerous the finished product testing would be. They did not often get the projects as they did not have the required experience.4. The cost of thermal imaging components has tumbled in recent years. We have never had it so good. You need to think about this situation from the manufacturers perspective......1. Design a thermal camera around current sensor technology or develop and produce a new sensor.2. Design a camera format that meets the intended market segment3. Buy in any parts or design skills not available 'in house' (expensive)4. Produce prototypes of the design and test for issues5. Refine the design, software and hardware to address any isssues found6. Retestbproduct and carry out UAT7. Manufacture the product8. Advertise the product (can be expensive)9. Sell the product through distribution channels10. Support the product (can be expensive)Now all of the above may seem no different to any other commercial operation producing a product, but think of the scaling for the thermal camera production market. The thermal camera marketplace, both civilian and military, is small when compared to say digital camera or mobile phone production. The thermal camera manufacturer often has higher production costs due to low yield or small scale production of parts, and yet still has the development and distribution overheads to recover.Take a look at the fire fighting thermal camera market...... it is a specialist high quality product that needs much investment in the development stages, yet the market for the product restricts both the numbers sold and the price that may be asked due to modern budget restrictions. A bit of a nightmare for the camera developer and manufacturer. They have to balance their up front development and production costs against how long it will take to recover said costs at X% profit margin per camera, plus the expected market life of the product before the competition introduce a model that casts theirs into the market shadows. Nightmare.Finally. A basic manufacturing challenge.......1. An OEM develops a product 'A' at a total cost of 'X' in development and production investment.2. Product is sold at profit margin 'Y'3. How many of the product must be sold for profit 'Y' to cover development outlay 'X' and start creating real profit ? This must account for up front production costs and use of cash reserves to manufacture the product.4. Whilst selling product 'A' amount 'Z' is needed to pay for the production. Where does this money come from ? Initially, cash reserves but then sales profit income offsets this.5. Whilst selling product 'A' the market continues to develop newer technologies and designs. The OEM must be developing new product 'B' whilst selling current product 'A'. This development must be financed by cash reserves and some of the profit coming from sales of product 'A'. This in turn increases the number of product 'A' sales needed to maintain company financial viability.A company that is not developing product 'B' whilst selling product 'A' will likely fail when a competitor offers a better product, and impacts the sales of product 'A' before its development and production costs are recovered.Is it any wonder that product 'A' has a significant profit margin over its actual intrinsic value and production cost ? Looking at the above, I think not. Cash flow is the all important 'life's blood' of a high tech manufacturing company.Who would want to be a manufacturer eh ?Sorry to write so much but I thought it would help you understand why thermal cameras cost so much more than you expect. Hope this was interesting/helpfulFraser

author: nidlaX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 01:55:41 pm
content: Quote from: Ice-Tea on May 11, 2017, 10:13:13 amThat is entirely dependent on how competitive the market is. How many large format microbolometer manufacturers can you name? And manufacturers of the optics?

author: -jeffB
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 06:52:51 pm
content: Quote from: Ben321 on May 11, 2017, 12:21:58 amForgive me, but this is silly.What leads you to believe that a pound of germanium or vanadium is "worth" $10-20? Germanium is produced in 1/20 the quantity of gold, and production of silicon is 40 THOUSAND times greater.What determines the "worth" of a substance if not themarketfor that substance?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 07:08:33 pm
content: Quote from: Ben321 on May 11, 2017, 12:21:58 amWhen did they start mining germanium? It has been produced from coal fired power station soot since the start of the semiconductor industry. There was a substantial industry refining it from soot in the heyday of germanium semiconductors. As they were displaced by silicon, the refining production flow was in place and ready to serve the thermal camera industry. Market prices had been established in a competitive consumer environment, and they were not low.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 07:16:03 pm
content: A nice paper with pictures of a Germanium crystal being 'grown'https://science.energy.gov/~/media/np/pdf/sbir%20sttr/SBIR%20STTR%202012%20Meeting/Day2/Hull_Big-Crystal-SBIR-Meeting-Oct-1-2012-presentation-for-Website.pdfMore pictures of various Germanium crystalshttp://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/606/1/012012/pdfTime lapse video of growing crystal......http://youtu.be/CozXv9UcG1AFraser

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 07:54:30 pm
content: Quote from: nidlaX on May 11, 2017, 01:55:41 pmAnd that's another problem. There's almost no competition in the thermal imager market. There used to be FLIR, and Inframetrics, and Thermovision, and Agema. Though there were more companies at the time (this was many years ago), the technology was still relatively new and the manufacturing process was more difficult, so things cost more back then than now. However, things could still cost less now than they actually are costing now, if those other companies still existed. But they don't. First, Agema and Thermovision combined to create the Agema Thermovision company. Then Inframetrics and Agema Thermovision were both bought by FLIR. Now there is only one large manufacturer in the industry. That company is FLIR. There is basically ZERO competition now, as FLIR is the only major company that makes and sells this stuff. FLIR is literally a monopoly, a BLATANT VIOLATION of the US antitrust law. The US government needs to make the market more competitive, by breaking up FLIR, in the same way that they broke up the Bell telephone company.Yes, there are small companies like Thermal Expert, and Seek Thermal, but they offer almost no competition to FLIR. Those companies make much smaller quantities of thermal imagers, so they can't offer any price reduction from large quantity sales. And also, because they pose no risk of serious competition to FLIR, FLIR can keep selling at their high prices. The result, is that no market forces currently exist to force either FLIR, or these other small companies, to lower their prices. What we need now is another major competitor to FLIR. We need a company that can have a price war with FLIR, forcing the overall price of thermal imagers down to what their actual true value is.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 08:19:35 pm
content: Ben321Take a breath and just think a little about what you are saying.You are upset because the sorts of cameras you desire are not cheap enough. i.e. Consumer grade products that as yet are not mass produced in China by factories that act like slave labour camps.There is a whole world of thermal imaging camera manufacture you are choosing to ignore ! You have already commented on Military end users.... they do not just buy FLIR made products you know.There are several large companies who would take great issue with your view that FLIR are now the only player in mainstream Thermal imaging camera manufacture..... some of them do not advertise themselves as they have no need and the military OEM's tend to be a little less obvious. DRS is such a company. They make many of the cameras fitted in U.S drones !http://www.drsinfrared.com/There is plenty of competition in both the professional and consumer markets.The Chinese are now using ULIS (French) microbolometers in their own camera chassis.FYI the following countries are significant players in thermal camera manufactureUSAUKIsraelKoreaAustraliaFranceAnd before knocking FLIR too badly, understand that the likes of AGEMA and Inframetrics were relatively small companies and vulnerable to market variances. FLIR did buy up the expertise in an effort to improve their products. They recognised the skills in the companies that they purchased. There may be little love lost between employees of this companies and FLIR senior management but FLIR wee smart. Take a look at FLIR's company statistics...... they are still not a large company. They are a specialist who provides what the professional customer base wants and so they are still I. Business. It has been touch and go at times though. You do not tear apart a very specialist company that is providing what the world needs and doing it well. That would effectively threaten the existence of the company.For those unaware, not all FLIR products are made in FLIR factories. Some designs are outsourced and just the microbolometer core is a FLIR product as that dictates the imaging performance of the system that will bear the FLIR name.Please do not get too focussed on the consumer thermal camera market or what you can, and cannot, afford. Sadly there are plenty who can and will willingly pay for specialist high quality equipment. Such equipment requires expensive development, and so investment in R&D. That R&D is not being done by cheap design engineers in China, it is at expensive hourly pay rates in the West !Fraser

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 08:26:26 pm
content: Quote from: Fraser on May 11, 2017, 09:51:19 amGlass visible-light camera lenses also commonly use AR coatings, and I don't think it costs a lot more to coat germanium than it does to coat glass. Also, I can see through uncoated glass, so likewise a thermal imager can see through uncoated germanium. Without the AR coating, transmission is like 95%, but with it it's like 99%. It's not a significant decrease in transmission of your lenses if you (as a thermal image manufacturer) choose to not coat your lenses. Uncoated lenses should work for most applications, certainly if you are trying to create a consumer-level thermal imager (as FLIR One is supposed to be).Also, germanium lenses aren't that expensive if you buy them from eBay. If I was a manufacturer of thermal cameras, I'd just buy the parts to manufacture my camera from eBay. Probably the only part you CAN'T get on eBay is the microbolometer-array chip itself. Check out this eBay entry for germanium lenses this guy is selling:http://www.ebay.com/itm/Germanium-Lens-PCX-Thorlabs-LA9410-F-1-2-Dia-f-15-mm-IR-AR-8-12-m-CO2-Laser-/111231059741?hash=item19e5e3471d:g:RA4AAOxypNtSnTCjThe price is only $27.95 per lens.The lenses are half-inch diameter with a 15mm focal length, and are AR coated for 8-12um. A lens of this size would easilly be suitable for a small thermal imager (like a consumer-level handheld "snapshot" camera, just one based on LWIR instead of visible light). Currently (as of my time of posting this), there are still 10 in stock, and he's already sold 71 lenses. Though they are unmounted, if I was a manufacturer of thermal imagers, I'd buy these from this guy on eBay, and then just mount them at my factory as part of my thermal imager manufacturing process. At these prices for the lens, the only more expensive part would be the microbolometer-array chip. If I used a cheaper silicon microbolometer (rather than the more expensive VOx type), it would probably cost me only about $500 to make a 640x480 thermal imager. I'm guessing that a 640x480 microbolometer-array if it's the cheaper type (silicon) it would probably cost about $400, and the rest of the parts for the camera would probably cost only $100, for a total of $500. I could then sell it for $600, and make a $100 profit.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 08:34:31 pm
content: FLIR staff and financial details...... I see no evidence of a monster anti competition company demanding unreasonable profit margins. Take a look for yourself. As I said, FLIR have had some financially challenging times in the past. It is a tough market to be in.http://quotes.wsj.com/FLIR/company-peopleFraser

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 08:36:00 pm
content: Quote from: Ben321 on May 11, 2017, 07:54:30 pmIf anyone wanted to enter the market you can be sure they'd sue if they needed... but no one does, not because FLIR is to powerful, but because there is not enough to be gained in the market - there's a reason others folded.Just realise that the average Joe doesn't need or want/care about a thermal camera. There is simply no market for the number of units it would take to significantly reduce the prices.Then, we all know the crap we get when the race to the bottom starts.Just do like everyone else and fund your project correctly, whatever that is, if it can be perceived to be worth that it will.If you need $300 1280x720 sensors for your project's cost-to-value ratio to become satisfying you can straight away deduct that your project is probably not worth doing in the first place.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 08:39:03 pm
content: Ben321,Sorry but you are making an ass of yourself.Uncoated Germanium has a transmission figure of around 46% increasing to around 96% when a high performance AR coating is applied.The AR coating is nothing like that found on visible light cameras and it is very expensive to do well.Germanium lenses are expensive. Please stop arguing that they are not. The chap selling the Thorlabs lenses is a fellow member of this forum. They are being sold off way under cost. You cannot make a commercial thermal camera from eBay sources... that is just plain crazy talk.You really do need to do a bit more research before making these statements. It is making you appear ill informed and a little silly. Sorry but that is how you are coming across. Please at least Google your 'facts' before spouting them !

author: bap2703
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 08:39:58 pm
content: Quote from: Ben321 on May 11, 2017, 08:26:26 pmWith germanium it would be more like 95% with AR and 50% without Well that was my too late post of the day

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 08:47:21 pm
content: Well I am fed up banging my head on this particular wall. I tried to explain the thermal camera manufacturing process and its hidden costs but I honestly think I wasted my time and I hate doing that.Nothing more from me in this thread .... it is just a waste of time if the OP either does not read it, or chooses to ignore the content.Looking forwards to seeing him produce a real VGA thermal camera for $500.I think a company called Mu had a similar ideaFraser

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 08:48:16 pm
content: I promise you, if obscene profits were available in this industry, someone would be diving in and sharing the wealth. Maybe even Ben321.In addition to the factors mentioned already there are real cost drivers for these imagers that don't apply to visible cameras.1. Good performance in the bolometer requires a vacuum package. Not required for visual sensors.2. Good performance requires very fast optics, usually F1 or lower. Cheap visual cameras have F4 or higher optics, and the fast optics are very spendy.3. Lots of extra signal processing. Non-uniformity in visual sensors is minor and stable. Fundamental signal to noise ratio is far higher in visible sensors. Visual cameras start being expensive when demanded to operate under starlight, which is in essence the standard operating condition for thermal imagers.4. Almost everyone expects calibrated performance (temperature of pixel). In the visual world this is almost never required.5. Optical materials for the visible band have been under development for literally thousands of years, means that the knowledge depth is incredible. The infrastructure for visible materials benefits from products that range from cameras, eyeglasses and windows on through decorative materials. The combined market is several orders of magnitude larger than the thermal market. Even simple learning curves would justify factors in price difference. The infrared world has been in work for roughly a century, and in the 5 to 14 micrometer band that is used for low end thermal imagers the development is really less than 50 years old.6. Even for silicon bolometers, the process is non-standard so yields cannot be expected to match the yields of finely tuned high volume silicon production.Finally, ben3211 look into the index of refraction of germanium. It explains why you MUST anti-reflection coat, while you can get away with out coating many visible optical materials.

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 09:08:44 pm
content: Why isn't FLIR really targeting the consumer market, as well as the professional one? The consumer market doesn't need nearly as high of a quality-control on its products, so there would be fewer devices deemed to be defective by consumer standards (even if those same devices would be considered defective by a professional standard, such as too many hot/dead pixels). Yes, they make the FLIR One, but it still feels more like a semi-professional "prosumer" type product, rather than a true consumer level product. I say that, because the price is still high for what it is. It is a camera that has a 160x120 imaging sensor in it. Not even cheap webcams have such low resolution, but the price is like $500 (they actually raised it some recently, as it used to be about $300). Now a full professional level 160x120 thermal imager would cost something like $2000, but $500 is still too much to be considered consumer level when you are talking about the tiny resolution of 160x120. A true consumer level 160x120 camera should cost about $25.Yes, as pointed out, the prices are high because of the difficulty in manufacturing some of the parts, but that cost could be brought down if they manufactured the FLIR One in quantities that reflected an actual desire to reach the consumer market. I'm talking about manufacturing over 1-million FLIR One units per year, driving down costs to about $25 per unit, so as to actually make the device attractive to the average consumer. One might say that the consumer has no interest in the technology, but the reason behind that is 2 fold. One is the huge price, and the other is that the average consumer has probably never even heard of the FLIR One. When was the last time you saw an ad on TV (like during an ordinary "commercial break" between segments of a TV show) which advertised the FLIR One? I've not seen even ONE such ad. Nor are they selling them at major brick&mortar stores (like Target and Best Buy). It seems that FLIR really isn't putting much effort into reaching the consumer market, even when they claim that the FLIR One is for the consumer market.Here's what FLIR needs to do if they ever hope to truly have 2 separate product lines (one for professionals, and another one for consumers) :step-1) Start an ad campaign on TV, internet, newspapers, billboard signs along the side of the road, etcstep-2) Crank up the output from their FLIR One factories, so as to manufacture large enough quantities that they can drop the sales price to $25 per unitstep-3) Drop the price to $25 per unit, in anticipation of the millions of people who will want to buy the FLIR One (as a result of them having seen the ads that FLIR put out in step-1)step-4) Send the product out to major brick&mortar stores like Target

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 09:23:45 pm
content: What consumer market? Ok there are us nerds on eevblog and a few other like minded people but what is your average mass market consumer going to do with a thermal camera?You just don't seem to get it!

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 09:38:27 pm
content: Yeah I think I'm pretty far from the average consumer, I mean I've got a whole closet full of test equipment but even I don't have a thermal camera. It's something I'd like to have some day, and I don't doubt that I'll see $100 thermal cameras in my lifetime but I think it's going to be a while yet. Personally I'll probably buy one when I can get a reasonable 320x240 or better yet 640x480 for ~$500, I'm going to predict within the next decade that will be possible.I still remember when green laser pointers were exotic and cost $2500, I said I'd buy one when they were $50 to which a good friend of mine said they would probably never get that cheap. Now you can buy one for under $10 shipped from China.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 09:42:40 pm
content: Quote... and I still can't think of a legitimate reason to justify me buying one!

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 09:46:54 pm
content: Because lasers are cool!I can't really think of a *need* for a laser pointer but I've been fascinated by lasers for as long as I remember. I still recall the excitement of getting to play with a 0.5mW HeNe laser when I was a kid. To see light behaving in that way was almost magical. They're not nearly as exciting anymore but I still have a collection of HeNe lasers in red, yellow and green, and solid state lasers in red, green, blue and violet. One of these days I'll finish building the compact whitelight diode laser I started ages ago.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 09:58:07 pm
content: Now I did build a 0.5mW He-Ne laser (still got it in fact) and yes, that wasreallycool! I used to shine it at the sky on foggy nights like a massless lightsabre. I did experiments with the kids, played around with lenses, never quite got around to holography etc. That was fun - I'd built it.Something handheld from China that's nowhere near as collumated as the He-Ne and that's so powerful that it's going to get the police knocking on my door if I even think of shining it outside or at the sky for fear of catching an aircraft or a neighbour. Nah, I can't see the attraction in that. Much like your average consumer's reaction to a low res thermal camera in fact.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 10:27:08 pm
content: Most of the "pointer" style green lasers are under 10mW, they look a lot brighter to the eye than the red from a HeNe but they're still not massively powerful. While not a pointer, I do have a ~1.2W 445nm diode laser, that's something that really does need care. It will set paper on fire from across the room and the spot on a wall is incredibly bright. Enough reflects off dust in the air that it does look like a light saber.

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2017, 07:23:54 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on May 11, 2017, 09:23:45 pmThat's the job of a company's advertising division, to advertise their product, to make consumers want products they never even knew existed before. You know how I first found out about thermal imagers? I found out by watching TV news many many years ago, and either in a story about military or police I saw thermal camera footage. I thought that was so cool, to be able to see objects by their heat. Unfortunately a catalog of equipment I found from Davis Instruments (I think that was it) showed a 320x240 thermal imager for over $20000, so I figured it would be impossible to get one, at least at that time, but hoped it would come down in price. I figured thermal imager technology would eventually come down in price to the point it matched the prices of equivalent visible-light cameras, once the technology worked its way into the mainstream consumer market.I don't think I'm the only person who would love to have a thermal imager, just for the "coolness" factor alone, and would be willing to spend a REASONABLE amount of money to get such a device. I think there's a HUGE untapped consumer market out there (of people who first became aware of such technology from news reports on military or police, and/or playing action video games with thermal scopes in the game) who would just love to buy one, but are only held back because of the prices. I think FLIR and other similar companies are making a big mistake by not recognizing the existence of this market. If they sell 1000 units of 640x480 thermal rifle scopes to the military for $5000 each, they make $5,000,000 for that run of the product. If they sell 100,000 units of 640x480 consumer-level thermal camera for $50 each, they also make $5,000,000 for that run of the product. These companies don't seem to recognize that by creating a consumer line of product at a much cheaper price, and reaching a wider audience with the consumer line, they are effectively DOUBLING their profits. The problems with these companies is they don't think outside the box (the box of assuming that thermal images will only be bought by professionals) enough, and in the process they not only deprive consumers of really cool stuff, they also deprive themselves of making more money. I can think big, more than FLIR's marketing executives can it seems, and can recognize this absolutely HUGE untapped market that FLIR (and other sellers of thermal images) is COMPLETELY ignoring.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2017, 07:51:05 pm
content: QuoteHuh?An advertising division has to havesomethingto work with (not to mention return of advertising spend). For a mass consumer to want something like that, they'd have to be relate to some meaningful (to them) use for it. You can't just invent a demand out of thin air.An uninformed mass market consumer today would expect it to be Full-HD like their camera and their TV. To be able to take funny pictures of the kids - and be able to recognise them. They ain't going to be very impressed with 320x240!

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2017, 08:07:52 pm
content: Compared to CCD or CMOS visible light sensors the micro-bolometers are relatively large and complicated 3D structured parts. They are more similar to the DLP chips used in video beamers. So these chips will have a relatively high cost, even if build in higher quantities. Despite high volume the DLP chips are also still quite expensive. So if you want to compare to optical sensors - it is not the CMOS sensor for the smart phone, but more the 50 Mpixel full frame sensor used in high end cameras.Using a vanadium oxide layer is only a minor point - the costs of the material essentially does not matter. The problem seems to be that normal chip manufacturers don't like vanadium in the process, just like people doing paint jobs don't like silicone oil. Still i don't expect a large price drop in avoiding vanadium. Once they have there own line to produce the sensors with vanadium, they can stick to it.Germanium crystals are expensive - at time at the university, single crystal germanium was about as expensive as gold. The AR coatings might be more complicated and are definitely non standard materials and made in smaller quantities than than normal optics. With a machined lens, the need for a reasonable large aperture (e.g. F/1) is not such a big deal, as one can do a non spherical shape. Higher lens errors are acceptable as the resolution is not that high. It is only that an F/1 lens is relatively thick.However for the lens, there is in principle the option to go for a reflective optics with gold coating, and only a thin window for protection.Due to the high price the quantities are low and the price is even higher. However the sensor and lens will be expensive anyway - so the quantities will never be anywhere to that of true consumer products. Due to the small numbers the electronics part also gets a relatively high price.There are a few cheap ones, that add to a phone - but performance is not very good.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 12, 2017, 08:43:52 pm
content: Quote from: Ben321 on May 12, 2017, 07:23:54 pmGood. But still, 99.99% of people don't give a shit about it, and even if you gave them an HD thermal imager for free they'd use it once, throw it in a drawer and forget it. They aren't even going to pay $100 for it, so given the investment it would take to come up with a $100 thermal imager that still wouldn't reach any new audience anyway it's would be completely stupid to commit to it, it would be nothing but commercial suicide.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2017, 08:50:45 pm
content: I have to agree there. I mean think about what your mom would use one for, mine would probably play with it a few times and then put it in a drawer as suggested above. Most people have no real use for a specialized tool like this. Most even slightly geeky types would have fun playing with it for a while but sooner or later the novelty would wear off even for most of them. Once you've had a look through a thermal camera at everything you can find, what real use does a non-DIY person have for it? Most people aren't going to add insulation to their own houses, even fewer are going to be repairing equipment where using a thermal camera to locate faults will help.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2017, 12:07:41 am
content: There is a potentially large market for thermal imaging cameras - as security cameras. The current widely marketed solution using the near IR sensitivity of silicon and including IR leds in the camera for illumination has serious flaws.In order to capture that market the thermal imagers will have to perform very well compared to current low end thermal imagers. Probably 640 x 480 resolution or better and maintain the 50 mK or better sensitivity. I think the 9 fps rate that avoids trade restrictions will be adequate. I for one think that we are a long ways from seeing such a product that can be manufactured at a price point that lets it take over the market.That said, I have been wrong before. LCD displays took over from CRTs far faster than I thought possible.

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2017, 08:01:20 am
content: Quote from: Gyro on May 12, 2017, 07:51:05 pmWhat about 640x480? If they expect full 1080p, then maybe FLIR should realize that this kind of thing really would be in demand by the general public, and make a device that does 1080p thermal imaging using the cheapest parts they can (use chalcogenide instead of germanium for the lens, and amorphous silicon instead of VOx for the sensor), and sell it at only twice the cost of manufacturing (making 100% profit margin) instead of 100 times the cost of manufacturing (9900% profit margin). This would allow them to make it in huge bulk quantities, and I bet if they did it right with proper marketing to millions of buyers, a 100% profit margin would be easily possible even if they sold it at only $500 (I'm guessing the true manufacturing costs for a 1920x1080 thermal imaging camera, using amorphous silicon sensor and chalcogenide lens, would be about $250, meaning that selling it at $500 would give a 50% profit margin).

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2017, 08:08:29 am
content: Quote from: james_s on May 12, 2017, 08:50:45 pmNot just look through it, but take pictures and video as well. It would give a whole new dimension to getting pictures and video. A person might want to get pictures at a tourist attraction or take senic pictures on a trip. With a thermal camera, all this can be done in a completely different wavelength, giving completely new images that could be considered very artistic. I'm gessing that the day that high resolution thermal imagers cost as much as visible light camera, will be the day that people on vacations take not only their regular camera with them, but also their thermal camera. It will be just as common to see people pulling out a FLIR to get pics of their friends as it would be to see them using a regular camera.Has FLIR even attempted to do market research on this matter? Or do they just make the assumption that thermal imagers will never be something that the average consumer would want.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2017, 08:31:38 am
content: Quote from: Ben321 on May 13, 2017, 08:01:20 amTo get a reasonable sensitivity (without using extreme cooling) a thermal camera needs a large sensor. Even with cooling the sensor pitch can't be smaller than about 15 µm because of diffraction. So a IR sensor for 1 MPix resolution would have to be rally large, like 10 times the current usual area. Such a large sensor would also be very expensive not just 10 times, more like 100 times, as the yield would be minimal.In this size range chalcogenide glass is no more an option, as the lens would be too thick. It only works with thin lenses where some absorption can be accepted. Germanium lenses would be too expensive too (e.g. 30 time the weight) and will likely suffer from to much chromatic aberrations. So it would essentially need high class reflective optics instead. Such a large optics would also need accurate focusing as the depth of field would be really small.So if you build a low cost 1080p IR camera it might end up at $250K not $250 - normally it would be more something NASA would be glad to get a for a few millions.I don't think a thermal camera would be such a good idea for security cams: With the limited resolution they could only check a very limited range. Also the pictures are not easy to use: it is essentially impossible to recognize someone from a thermal image. Though this might actually be an advantage when privacy laws do not permit conventional cameras.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2017, 12:43:46 pm
content: Vanadium is not exactly a low volume material, most steel does have a small amount of Vanadium added to improve ductility, so the worldwide use is pretty high, 61000 tons of it. Even if a FLIR camera used a frame made from solid Vanadium, it would still be a drop in the demand. There is about as much as there is copper, so it is not exactly rare, and most comes from steel slag and from other slags and oil shales.http://metalworld.co.in/feature0307.pdf

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2017, 01:48:10 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on May 13, 2017, 08:31:38 amExisting large market security cameras are low resolution. Until recently they were NTSC or PAL. Slightly better now. Good for facial recognition at a few meters, but good for detecting intrusion and the like out to a few dozen meters. Except at night where the NIR light system brings detection back to a dozen or so meters. If detection could be pushed back out to 20-30 meters there would be real value.I agree, facial recognition suffers in thermal IR, but that isn't the core use. Unfortunately all of your cost comments are valid, so even 640 x 480 is a low cost pipe dream.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2017, 07:56:38 pm
content: Quote from: Ben321 on May 13, 2017, 08:08:29 amI think you are quite out of touch with the consumer market and you are also making a lot of assumptions regarding the manufacturing. Thermal images of scenic pictures would indeed be a novel thing with some artistic value but the novelty is going to wear off very quickly for most people. There are already lots of thermal pictures available, the technology has existed for decades but you don't see them in art museums or hanging on walls in ordinary people's houses. Most people just don't have much interest in this sort of thing, most people don't even own a camera anymore other than the one built into their mobile phone. I've had the opportunity to borrow a Flir camera a couple times and it was fun to play with but I have no real justification to actually buy one. Inexpensive consumer products are not really viable until you get into the hundreds of thousands of units sold. Visible light digital cameras are cheap because the sensors are made in *billions* for mobile phones and many tens of millions for other devices. This is just never going to happen with thermal imagers. A thermal camera is a very specialized niche product, I know it's something that fascinates you but talk to people in some non-engineering/geek forums and maybe you'll start to realize that most people are just not interested.

author: Ice-Tea
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2017, 08:47:24 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on May 11, 2017, 10:57:03 pmEven then they are still held at bay to they point where they use up their scale advantage. Which, I'm guessing, is less pronounced as the 1/2 you use as an example.

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2017, 07:56:22 pm
content: Quote from: cleaningOut on May 14, 2017, 05:39:06 amI do have a thermal imager. I have a FLIR One. However its battery is no longer holding a full charge. It now maxes out at about 90% charge, so I'm looking to get a new one, and when I do, I want it to be better than the FLIR One (not gonna spend my money on another device that loses 10% of its max-charge level in only one year). However, I'm not gonna spend more than I payed for the FLIR One on my next thermal imager. So if FLIR wants to keep my business, they better lower their prices. However I can't find any competitors that really push FLIR to do this (lower their prices). That's why I'm disgruntled at the prices of thermal imagers.Quote from: cleaningOut on May 14, 2017, 05:39:06 amAnd yes, I could easily see thermal imagers being true consumer products. It may be "just" a novelty, but so are the filters that people can apply to their pictures on Snapchat (a HUGELY popular app on cellphones). One person here said their mom would have no interest, but that's the previous generation. The real reservoir of customers for FLIR (and other thermal imager companies) to tap into is the CURRENT generation. I can easily other people in my generation wanting a thermal imager, just because of the "cool" looking pictures you can get with one, and the fact that they start looking even "cooler" when you start applying palettes to them (rainbow, ironbow, etc). Again, I think there's a really big market out there that remains untapped by FLIR and other similar companies.

author: bap2703
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2017, 08:30:01 pm
content: Do you understand that the cost of a product is not just a mater of will ?For the mass market you envision, thermal imaging just for fun, it might be cheaper to do image recognition on a regular visible picture and calculate how a thermal image should look like. (for this use you might not need to see the actual thermal properties, just displaying something more or less expected would be enough)Cheaper: just use a "thermal imaging" look up table without image recognitionhttps://www.photofunny.net/cat-image-processing/thermography_photo_effect

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2017, 01:28:00 am
content: Ben321, it occurs to me that you are engaging in the same deceptive practices that you accuse the makers of thermal imagers of doing. The title of this thread asks what the cost drivers in thermal cameras are, and you expand on this question in your opening post. But you have rejected every answer you have received. I spent two decades of my career in this field (not with FLIR or any of its ancestor companies) and have less expertise on this than at least three of the others who have responded. There are real physics answers for cost differences. They have been mentioned.Can the cost come down if these devices were produced in larger quantities? Of course. Would they come down to the same levels as current visible cameras. No, not even if they were produced in the same volume. And the largest credible volumes are still factors lower than for visible cameras.Now you have come up with a specific complaint - the battery cost and life. If this is a real issue for you, and you really feel that FLIR is either incompetent in battery design or charging inordinate margins you can rebuild the battery yourself using cells of your choosing. Of course you may find that you can't source small quantities of cells of the right form factor and capacity but that is just an opportunity for you make your own insane profits by marketing your battery replacement properly to get the required volume.You have said one thing that makes sense. That you will vote with your dollars and not buy another FLIR product. Good choice for you. Hope you are happy with the new camera. I will be happy to buy your old one as long as you are not trying to get an insane amount of money for it. How about $250?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2017, 02:52:34 am
content: 10% loss of capacity after a year is reasonable for a lithium ion battery, especially if it was kept fully charged or exposed to elevated temperatures. I'm pretty sure you can replace the battery if you want to, I have not attempted to take apart one of these units myself but I doubt it's all that difficult.

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2017, 10:55:59 am
content: Ben321, I don't understand why you are so het-up by FLIR's pricing.Considering these are, and are likely to remain niche products I think the prices are pretty amazing. I own the FLIR One that plugs onto the bottom of my iPhone - it's fxxking amazing for the £160+VAT I paid for it!!Sure I have my criticisms of the design (I have to remove my iPhone 7 from it's Otterbox to use it), but the quality of the build and the quality of the images it's superb. It's unlikely that FLIR make much money (if any) on this unit at this price - so I guess they are experimenting at the low end of the market to see if there is demand (or trying to ensure no other manufacturer gets a grip and bootstraps themselves upto the table to eat FLIR's lunch). Full marks to FLIR.Ultimately, if you feel so strongly about it, then raise a few $ and develop your own product from scratch (including the microbolometer?), several have tried - who knows, perhaps you'll succeed (and I'm not trying to be mean here!).

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2017, 03:54:44 pm
content: I have to wonder about the requirement of plugging it into a smartphone though. I mean as cheap as digital cameras are these days, surely they could have just built a standalone camera for not much more? The sensor is the expensive part and that's required either way.

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2017, 05:40:13 am
content: Quote from: james_s on May 15, 2017, 03:54:44 pmThey do have a standalone version of the FLIR One. It's called the C2 (and now a newer one callled C3). Both C2 and C3 though cost about $300 more than the FLIR One though. I assume this has to do with the fact that it has its own built-in LCD screen and its own microcontroller (it now has to fill the 2 roles that the FLIR One offloads onto the cellphone, processing the image, and displaying the image). Keep in mind though that both the C2 and C3 have the 80x60 resolution (same as the original iPhone case style FLIR One). There is not yet (as far as I know) any standalone thermal imager made by FLIR which uses the 160x120 Lepton-3 chip.

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2017, 06:04:22 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on May 15, 2017, 01:28:00 amI think FLIR realized the potential of the FLIR One to take away customers from buying more expensive FLIR devices, if it had a battery that lasted as long as other FLIR devices. Therefore, I believe they intentionally sabotaged the FLIR One by giving it a battery with a VERY small capacity (so that running it continuously for about 30 minutes nearly completely drains it), and a VERY fast rate of deterioration (so that in only a year it only has 10% of its original capacity), to prevent it from competing with other more expensive FLIR devices. The cheapest 160x120 thermal imager that FLIR produces (other than the FLIR One gen-2) is the E6, which costs $1999.As for replacing it myself with a different battery, that would be very hard. The FLIR One has no screws to remove, so opening it is anything but a simple operation. It would instead have to have the case pried open which will chip and damage the case. I'm pretty sure that the battery itself is soldered to the circuit board, so to replace it would require desoldering the old one soldering in a new one. If done incorrectly, the heat from soldering on the circuit board could cause damage to other nearby components. FLIR doesn't even sell a battery replacement service (where you could pay to have them replace the battery for you). You just have to run out of battery, and then spend another $400 to buy a new FLIR One. Nope, I'm not gonna do that. I'm not going to wreck my current one, but I also won't buy a new one when its battery finally dies and becomes unable to take a charge. I also find that it leaks charge. So I keep it plugged in to the charger 100% of the time, when it's not in use. Otherwise what I found was that if it reaches 100% charge, and then you leave it disconnected for a day or so, even if I NEVER turn it on, it drains down to about 80%, because the next time I turn it on I discover that it that the battery indicator says 80%. I discovered that last year when I first bought it. So now (unless I'm using it), it's plugged into a 5V USB charger permanently, to make sure it's always has maximum charge (100% when I first got it, but now about 90%, as the maximum has decreased by about 10%). This means that when I go to use it, it always is as charged up as possible. Though this constant maintaining it in its charged state, I will admit, may be a contributing factor to its decrease in capacity (I've heard that keeping a battery always fully charged can in some way damage it, and decrease the battery's lifetime). Of course that is mainly FLIR's fault, because the battery's charge lasts so short of a time when in use, that if you don't start out with full charge during an imaging session, you significantly cut short your imaging session. That's also why I'm unhappy that now it no longer holds up to 100% charge, and I blame FLIR for that, because I would never have been forced to keep it constantly charged, if the battery had a larger capacity to start with. If it had a larger capacity to start with, it wouldn't matter if I started an imaging session at 80% or 90% charge, because it would still last for like an hour or two. I'm forced to maintain a full charge constantly on the battery, because it lasts about 30 minutes at full charge, and about 25 minutes if it has like 90% charge. That 5 minutes less during an imaging session can be the difference between getting a picture of something, and running out of battery just a couple minutes before that something that you wanted to get a picture of. So with such a small battery in the device, it must ALWAYS be kept at maximum possible charge. Of course now with the overall lifespan of the battery reduced, I have to also adjust how I use the FLIR One. Not only do I now need to keep it always at max charge, but I now also need to frequently turn it off between getting sets of pictures, and only turn it back on immediately before I want to take a picture of something. This is completely unsatisfactory, and is why I will never again buy a FLIR One.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2017, 09:50:35 am
content: Quote from: Ben321 on May 14, 2017, 07:56:22 pmYou already have a thermal imager. Use it. It is not an android phone, you dont need to replace it.Quote from: Ben321 on May 16, 2017, 06:04:22 amGuess what, batteries dont like that. You ruined your device by your lack of competence, and you complain about a technology that you dont really understand by the cost of raw materials?I have glasses, they are really expensive. The lens are made by the swiss, from sand. I dont understand why it is that expensive, sand is really cheap.But anyway, you reminded me again, why I dont design stuff for the consumer market. Flir was probably reminded also.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2017, 10:35:15 am
content: FLIR One is really easy to open. Just read the teardown threads. A sharp spudger or knife is all that is required. The rear case inser is held in place with simple double sided adhesive tape and not with glue. FLIR could have used a nasty glue as these units are not considered repairable. Thank goodness they did not.The battery is a small foil pack and has a tiny connector on the leads. It is not soldered to the PCB. Fitting a new battery would require the transfer of the connector onto the new battery leads.FLIR marketing intended the FLIR One to be a consumer grade gadget and not a serious thermal camera for themographers. The initial advertising using cartoons and superhuman viewing abilities shows that. It was a toy, nothing more, nothing less. It filled an area of the market in which FLIR had virtually no presence. FLIR needed a response to the SEEK Thermal device and they were very careful to ensure that it was 'good enough' without damaging sales of their Ex series etc. It has MSX permanently enabled in order to counter the SEEK Thermal cameras higher resolution. FLIR are very aware that the consumer market tends to just judge such a product by the image produced and did not want people to see just a scene of thermal splodges. The MSX provides context and improves the user experience.I can advise that there was much discussion within FLIR on the design and capabilities of the F1G2. It was good enough for the market that it was intended for ...... the hipster and gadget addict. To think it was intended for anything more serious could lead to disappointment. FLIR wanted to increase their market presence amongst common consumers and sales were massive when compared to their more expensive products. Thankfully we, on this forum, have found more serious uses for this little camera and clever people have written better applications for it that pull out the very best performance from the hardware.If you take a look inside the FLIR One you will see a very nicely constructed device. Proper screws are used to hold the PCB in place, not hot melt glue such as found in cheap Consumer grade products. FLIR took care with their design and product quality and to suggest they deliberately used a sub standard battery is, quite frankly, silly.Now to SEEK Thermal.......SEEK Thermal came into being with one intention..... to build the most affordable thermal camera for the masses. It was to be the VW Beetle of thermal imaging. They intended to design the lowest cost thermal camera ever but maintain a decent resolution and build quality. Quite a challenge and I applaud their efforts. They worked with the Fabrication house to build the smallest and cheapest microbolometer possible for their project. It ended up as a basic uncased die that was wire bonded directly to the PCB !SEEK decided to start fresh with a new 12um sized pixel microbolometer development. This was the smallest pixel size available and was used to reduce the die dimensions to reduce production cost. Almost every part of the SEEK camera was carefully cost reduced to enable end product to be sold at the lowest possible price whilst still recovering the investment in it within a reasonable period of time.The SEEK Thermal camera sent shock waves through the industry in terms of its resolution and pricing. FLIR felt it had to respond and so released the F1G2 at a price intended to directly compete with the SEEK Thermal product. Their MSX was an advantage and the SEEK camera suffered from image gradient issues and high noise levels. It was a David and Goliath situation. If SEEK could have found a way to make their camera cheaper, they would have done so.I hope this information is of interest. I got much of it directly from those inside the companies (not sales reps) so believe it to be accurate.Finally, have a think about the FLIR One Gen 2 resolution........Many low end FLIR products now contain the LEPTON imaging core. It is a marvel of engineering and soooo tiny. I personally love it and it is the way forwards in consumer grade thermal cameras as it is so easily integrated into a host. BUT most of the products contain the 80 x 60 pixel LEPTON 2. So why did FLIR fit the 160 x 120 pixel LEPTON 3 into the FIG2 ? ...... simple, they had little choice. They were intending to compete directly with the higher resolution SEEK Thermal camera and 80 x 60 pixels would have no chance of doing that in the consumer market. The MSX feature was used to make consumers believe the images had as much, or more detail than the SEEK camera. Simple marketing. Make no mistake, FLIR were gunning for SEEK Thermal and if they could have made the F1G2 a cheaper retail price, they would have done so. They were using their best LEPTON core in it and that was not cheap.Fraser

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 16, 2017, 11:36:06 am
content: Quote from: Ben321 on May 14, 2017, 07:56:22 pmI doubt they have any interest in keeping your business.The business they want to keep is that of people who buy a F1 to play with, understand the potential, then buy a higher end device they recognise the value of for doing whatever thing they now consider it would be useful for, which is what actually pays the bills and which you've thoroughly demonstrated you had no intention of doing. Again, if whatever you want to do with a thermal camera cannot pay for a good thermal camera at this point in time then you should probably question that project's interest.The F1 is likely not making a lot of profit. For such a company as long as it breaks even it's a worthwhile marketing investment.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2017, 11:47:35 am
content: Totally agree with you Kilrah,FLIR want their name to be recognised as a market leader in thermal imaging. The F1G2 could be considered a sort of 'lost leader' to , as you say, introduce people to the world of thermal imaging. They also hope that the name FLIR will stick in peoples minds going forwards. FLIR actually gave away Lepton based complete cameras, with LCD screen, at a US trade show as a sort of brand promotion. Sadly I never managed to get my hands on one. IIRC, the PCB inside that 'freebie' became available as a development board.FLIR have some smart marketing people but sadly they sometimes mess up an otherwise excellent product in order to maintain product range capability demarcation.Fraser

author: Bill W
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2017, 01:44:57 pm
content: Quote from: Ben321 on May 16, 2017, 06:04:22 amBen,Your faith in the battery indicator is also a problem here. There is no accurate gauge in the F1G2, so all you have is a rough indication based on measuring cell voltage. Go measure the run time new and every 3 months and plot that.The discharge curve changes over time as well as absolute capacity.For this type of cell, 70% capacity after 300 cycles is normal, your micro-charging regime will not be helping that and as already mentioned storing full and hot (due to the charger dissipation) will be making it even worse.If i was FLIR - it would be WARRANTY VOID, but there probably isn't a battery warranty anyway.Bill

author: ir.ukrm
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 12:18:50 pm
content: Two years later, thermal imagers have become cheaper, and more and more people use this technology.

author: TE-V1
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: August 16, 2019, 02:49:56 am
content: Quote from: Ben321 on May 11, 2017, 12:21:58 amTwo years on and they are a lot cheaper now...As a business customer Thermal Expert offered me the 640x480 TE-V1, with a Umicore 19mm f1.0 lens, and a full accessory set, plus a Xino heavy duty outdoor case, for just £1860. But because I paid by Paypal it came to about £2000...Still a lot cheaper than a Flir equivalent though. They are still offering most of their thermal cameras and kit at sale prices, so grab a bargain while you can.