Talk:Forward-looking infrared

message: Does this have anything to do with the company FLIR?   Guerberj 22:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: The following was stuck at the end of the article, after the category tags. Perhaps someone can merge it into the text.--Srleffler 06:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: Do we really need this section?  I don't think there's a very large outcry over FLIR use. ZakuTalk 02:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weak Support: I'm new here but someone has pointed out some of the legal concerns; and I remember hearing about it on NPR a long time ago. It seems that law wanted to use thermal imaging devices to scan homes without a warrent, and the concern that this was an invasion of privacy. The wiki sword cuts both ways on this issue; an issue doesn't require a large outcry to have a meaningful place in the wiki, but its also not a democracy where everything gets fair representation. I'd say that it stays and hopefully someone knowledgable in the subject matter can improve the copy. - Davandron | Talk 03:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding Weak Support: As far as house searches are concerned, a FLIR device can not look through walls.  A FLIR device only detects differences in surface temperature.
I rewrote that section using the last edits... citing that case makes a lot more sense and is much less POV than simply saying "it's an issue that needs to be raised." ZakuTalk 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Citizen Privacy" 

message: Can someone please add content about what distinguishes first, second, and third generation FLIR systems? I have heard these terms used a lot, but have not seen what (besides manufacture date) it is that distinguishes them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.147.208.161 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First/Second/Third generation FLIR 

message: The distinction between FLIR and tracking systems is important when discussing the evolution of infrared detector systems. Whilst a sideways tracking system can be used to build up images, whether it could be called a camera is debateable, and perhaps not relevant to the article on infrared cameras. (I would suggest renaming the entire “infrared camera” article to something like “infrared imaging”, but that is a personal opinion.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.71.226.54 (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to add my support that merging the two articles is not a good idea, as to me they are separate topics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj cheetham (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Unsupport unless the entire topic was redone in the vein of "Thermographic Imaging". FLIR is specific edge case of a generic IR imaging device, usually alluding to "Look-Down" capability. It is often described as having narrow field of view hence the "looking down a soda straw" effect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowbert (talk • contribs) 04:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: do not support. Since its been a year and nobody supports the merge, I am going to remove it from the page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.172.42 (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding merging with "infrared camera" 

message: Wikipedia always seems to have odd idea on what to merge and what not to merge.  As far as I'm concerned, outside from a section of military use of thermal imaging, you should not merge a military article with one about imaging!  OMG!  
Nobodymk2 00:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia >_< 

message: how do you pronounce flir?  "fleer"? 98.192.200.202 (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: The content of this article is highly inaccurate, poorly written, and improperly sourced. The Talk Page contains more accurate and complete information than the article itself. Do not tell me I can fix it! I have written articles for Wikipedia that were much better sourced and formatted than this one and they were nitpicked to death for over two months until I gave in and deleted the entire thing, only to be told I could not delete it as it was no longer mine to delete! So would one of the moderators take a look as there are several, obvious flat out false statement about FLIR, along with a very bizarre amount of unrelated material included. 75.17.204.37 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  TALK PAGE vs CONTENT PAGE 

message: Was looking for info on the company FLIR which doesn't seem to have a page. Still, I think there should be a DAG page or at least a mention in the opening blurb that this article is about the technology, not the company of the same name.
2607:4100:1:0:0:0:0:2 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company / DAG 

message: I see someone else has already asked this, but hasn't gotten any response. Since I have two topics to mention, I figured a new section was the best choice. I always pronounced it as "flur", but with a more "i" kind of accent. "Flirr"? But I just saw an advertisement for a company selling infrared imagers that pronounced their name "fleer". Granted, it could just be for copyright/trademark issues, but I would like to know, because I went all through elementary school pronouncing "infrared" as "in-FRARED". It wasn't until I turned 13 or so that I realized that "infrared" is the same thing as "infra-red", and is pronounced the same. I still blush to this day when I think of it! =/ If the pronunciation is added, I'd also appreciate it if it was done in the good old fashioned way they do it in encyclopedias, sounding out each syllable. It seems like most wiki pages only give this new, supposedly "improved, universal" pronunciation method, but it literally looks like Greek to me, all those upside down letters and strange characters. Maybe they teach that in schools today, but they didn't ten years ago when I was in school. Never understood why they can't just give both, until the "old" method is officially, and de facto, obsolete.
Also suggesting that it might just be a convenient name is that fact that the devices are only thermal scanners. Does "FLIR" now refer to any device that doesn't take composite, "time-exposure" shots? Originally, it referred to a scanner that was fixed on the aircraft, looking "forwards". But now we have devices that can scan all around, yet they are still called "forward looking" scanners. Isn't a "side-scan system" still looking "forward" relative to its own scanners? If one aims a gimbaled FLIR pod to scan to the side or rear, is it still a "FLIR" system? It would be nice if it specified this..45Colt 06:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation, Part Deux, is it still "forward looking" in a gimballed mount? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Forward looking infrared. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070904211645/http://ausairpower.net/NCW-101-6.pdf to http://www.ausairpower.net/NCW-101-6.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified