(video) Guy shows off FLIR infrared thermal video camera that he bought off Ebay.

See it via http://Muvy.org

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:05:35 -0800, Joe wrote:

See it via http://Muvy.org

Well, that's just silly. He could have bought an inexpensive Sony F707, F717,
F828, or H9 and obtained the same thing, only with high-resolution still frame
IR photography too.

"Jay Hamsen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:05:35 -0800, Joe wrote:

See it via http://Muvy.org

Well, that's just silly. He could have bought an inexpensive Sony F707,
F717,
F828, or H9 and obtained the same thing, only with high-resolution still
frame
IR photography too.

I somehow doubt it - those expensive germanium optics are there for a
reason.

On 11/7/07 8:05 PM, in article
, "Joe"
wrote:

See it via http://Muvy.org

He should have left the bag over his head, LOL!

On Nov 8, 8:44 am, Jay Hamsen wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:05:35 -0800, Joe wrote:
See it viahttp://Muvy.org

Well, that's just silly. He could have bought an inexpensive Sony F707, F717,
F828, or H9 and obtained the same thing, only with high-resolution still frame
IR photography too.

That is near IR. OK for white grass, TV remotes and imaging not quite
red hot cooker hobs as bright, but useless for seeing human body
temperature stand out against a similar coloured but cold wall.

Thermal imaging to see small temperature differences at body heat to
ambient temperature requires expensive germanium optics for longwave
thermal IR and cunning sensor hardware. The kit he had is surprisingly
good.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Nov 8, 3:44 am, Jay Hamsen wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:05:35 -0800, Joe wrote:
See it viahttp://Muvy.org

Well, that's just silly. He could have bought an inexpensive Sony F707, F717,
F828, or H9 and obtained the same thing, only with high-resolution still frame
IR photography too.


You obviously do no have a grasp or understanding about the technology
associated with FLIR, as witnessed by your silly comparison to Sony
products. Do a little reading before you post such drivel.

On Nov 8, 2:44 am, Jay Hamsen wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:05:35 -0800, Joe wrote:
See it viahttp://Muvy.org

Well, that's just silly. He could have bought an inexpensive Sony F707, F717,
F828, or H9 and obtained the same thing, only with high-resolution still frame
IR photography too.

The problem is that the term "IR" covers a much wider spectral range
than does visible. IR covers from about 0.8 micron out to 100 microns
(visible is about .4 to .7 microns). Thermal IR starts about 3.5 to 4
microns, and the best band for thermal imaging is in the 8 to 12
micron region.

IR CCD cameras (or visible cameras modified to IR) only show out to
just under 1 micron. The only heat radiation they will show is if
something is so hot it glows (maybe 700 to 800 degrees F). Silicon
detectors do not respond beyond that, and glass goes opaque.

Either 3.5-5 micron or 8-12 micron cameras require VERY expensive
detectors and LWIR transparent optics made of things like germanium,
zinc sulphide or zinc selenide.

When I was designing things cheap pyroelectric IR cameras went for
15 to 20 grand, and good systems went for 40Kbucks on up.