Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Economy thermal imager?

  • Thread starter Fester Bestertester
  • Start date
F

Fester Bestertester

Jan 1, 1970
0
There are instructions on the 'net I've seen for removing the IR filter from
a digicam's digitizer chip so as to allow recording of the IR spectrum.

Commercial thermal imagers are thousands of dollars. They don't seem to be
anything more than a digicam with a broader spectrum (IR) sensor.

Can such a modified camera be used as a cheap thermal imager for industrial
purposes, such as looking for hot spots in equipment? Some application where
the temperature difference is large.

Thanks.
 
M

Martin Brown

Jan 1, 1970
0
Fester said:
There are instructions on the 'net I've seen for removing the IR filter from
a digicam's digitizer chip so as to allow recording of the IR spectrum.

Commercial thermal imagers are thousands of dollars. They don't seem to be
anything more than a digicam with a broader spectrum (IR) sensor.

A *much* broader spectrum out to long wave IR and also a silicon lens.
Glass does not transmit the wavelengths needed for thermal imaging.
There is a good reason why they are so expensive.

You can do near IR with a modified digicam and a low pass filter -
enough to make diagnosis of foliage diseases in trees perhaps but
nothing like enough to see temperature differences unless the target was
almost at red heat. I doubt if a soldering iron would show up at all on
a normal digicam CCD in the IR.
Can such a modified camera be used as a cheap thermal imager for industrial
purposes, such as looking for hot spots in equipment? Some application where
the temperature difference is large.

You can buy relatively cheap non contact IR thermometers and use a servo
to scan one to build up a low resolution thermal image.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
J

Jupiter Jaq

Jan 1, 1970
0
There are instructions on the 'net I've seen for removing the IR filter from
a digicam's digitizer chip so as to allow recording of the IR spectrum.

Commercial thermal imagers are thousands of dollars. They don't seem to be
anything more than a digicam with a broader spectrum (IR) sensor.

Can such a modified camera be used as a cheap thermal imager for industrial
purposes, such as looking for hot spots in equipment? Some application where
the temperature difference is large.

Thanks.


More likely, you need to PLACE an IR filter in front of a camera image
chip, and boost its gain.

If you know where your hot spots develop, you can mount properly pointed,
dedicated IR sensors without the need for imagery.
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0


Those are the transducers themselves. Not much good on their own. All
appear to sport a Germanium window, though the first one has a small
cartoon superimposed over it.

Harbor freight sells nice IR thermometer units. You can get the
fresnel jobs and point at the target from the right distance, and remove
the need to "scan" a rudimentary image. like some have described. It
would sense the change anywhere in its field of view.
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
The Sony Exview B&W CCD have response beyond a micron. Since a
digital camera or camcorder will have a RGB matrix, only a fraction of
the pixels will have IR response, so the low resolution of NTSC camera
isn't all that crappy since at least all the pixels will have some
response.

You can see a soldering iron in the dark with one of these exview
CCDs, but this is only because the iron is stinkin hot and the black
body radiation has a long exponential tail. That is, you don't see the
peak of the thermal image. Averaging the image helps since you are
dealing with a noisy signal.
<http://www.supercircuits.com/Security-Cameras/Specialty-Security-
Cameras/PC164C>

Don't set your expectations too high as far as thermal sensing goes.
Otherwise, these low light cameras are pretty cool, certainly on par
with gen 1 NV.
Might as well buy the real IR imagers that the security camera folks
are pushing now, if you are going to do that.

I think they sell them by the box at Frys'.
 
J

Jupiter Jaq

Jan 1, 1970
0
raytheon imagers show up, but I could never find one of the 240x320
cadillac deville ones,

320x240 ain't shit (the wide aspect is always first).

Mikron and FLIR were the Cadillacs.
 
J

Jupiter Jaq

Jan 1, 1970
0
And raytheon's cheapest bolometer was the one in the deville front
grill,


Oh WOW! I thought you were actually calling a Raytheon imager product
"The Cadillac" of the crop kind of thing. I totally missed that you were
referring to it actually being a product installed onto a Caddy.
there is a complete system from the car on ebay starting at
200$ right now, probably will be 400$ or more when the auction is
done.

I agree 320 is a waste of time, but he's asking for a hobby system.

There are many out there, but shopping for the right price to get a good
value is difficult with the online world.

Hell, even at Fry's you cannot examine a working item more than half
the time. I hate that sight unseen crap!
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
There's a reason a FLIR costs $10K.

John

Yeah... it is called greed, and the knowledge that most of your buyers
are rich government funded factions.
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
The detector is pretty exotic, and the retail price of the germanium
lens is a couple of $K.

FLIR recently bought Extech, and has a new, lower-price thermal
imager.

John


It would not surprise me if they did not buy Mikron next. I am sure
they are feeling the sting. Mikron's owner invented the resistor
bolometer transducer in 1960.. k. Irani.

OOOPS!

In 2007, Mikron Infrared was acquired by LumaSense Technologies, Inc.
With offices around the world, LumaSense Technologies develops ...

Just found that. Anyway, Mr. Irani was a cool guy.

Mikron is a cool company. Well, hot really... on average.

http://www.mikroninfrared.com/downloads/mikronproductportfolio.pdf

They got some pretty tight stuff, and I think FLIR buys gear from them
for calibration.

Best looking outdoor camera housings I have ever seen.
Really nice instruments now, compared to the Aluminum tube days when I
was there. We did not have powder coat back then.

Wow. Nice info sheet!

http://www.mikroninfrared.com/AboutBlackbodySources.aspx

and this one has some nice references at the bottom.

http://www.mikroninfrared.com/contentnonav.aspx?id=232
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
Thermal imagers are getting cheaper, and will continue to do so, I
hope. Sub-$1000 one of these days maybe. Even a 100x100 pixel imager,
maybe with a plastic lens, could be mighty useful.

Our FLIR cost about $10K a couple of years ago and it was worth it.

Harbor freight has about five different sense model, but I wouldn't be
surprised if a cheap Chinese model didn't show up eventually.

Back when all there was was what we had, and that was only 4 fps and
ran on a 386, and had no out to NTSC option that we could even record
from... it was $90k+

At the same time, Fischer Price sold a B&W "toy" camera for $150 that
could have a Ge or Pyrex lens or filter put on it, and it would do IR
very nicely.

We all thought that was pretty funny, thinking how mere color added
$89.9k to the price.

Well... that and a nice arrangement with a little cup of Liquid
Nitrogen. It was a real thermal imager.

Now, they have room temp jobs. Your $10k unit is cheap by comparison.
The industry sure has come a long way since '87.
I'll bet you could get a real nice one from Kikron. Those ones with the
LCD "flap" in the back... They looked nice. Likely about $7k though.
Still a very REAL instrument, where some seem more like an "also show" to
the party. Quantifying accurately should be a requisite. Mikron does
that well. Not sure about some I've seen. I am sure that FLIR also does
nice, and true (as it were) instruments.

There are some though that are wide in their accuracy window, and
calibration seems and end to end thing, instead of being corrected along
the entire scale. Mikron sells nice Black Body calibration sources too.
Many can be made NIST traceable.

I still find it funny that I used to dope up a basketball with high
temp silica "plaster of Paris", then wrap nichrome coils around that,
then more "plaster". Then slice the sphere in half to get the ball back
out. Reform the sphere. bake it all. and add a radiation port to it (a
ceramic tube). Surround the outside with fire brick used for kilns.
Suspend all that in a big rack with the tube pointing out the front.

Add about 2500 Watts, a line cord (X Large) and a pid controller,and you
have a precision black body source that can make about 4000 degrees F
inside the globe. Those high temp sources are far more precise. They
vary little. A small black body source that uses a painted surface
(which they also sell) is harder to keep a uniform temp across it.
They have FLIR calibration sources now that are cool (hot) and stable
across a huge surface, which is very hard to do.

Mikron Or their parent, has also seemingly found a way to get better IR
focus than others.They have some pretty crisp detail going. I do not know
if you looked at the pdfs or not.
 
P

Paul Keinanen

Jan 1, 1970
0
There are instructions on the 'net I've seen for removing the IR filter from
a digicam's digitizer chip so as to allow recording of the IR spectrum.

Commercial thermal imagers are thousands of dollars. They don't seem to be
anything more than a digicam with a broader spectrum (IR) sensor.


The peak wavelength for a black body radiator is simply inversely
proportional to the absolute temperature. At 6000 K (e.g. the Sun) the
maximum wavelength is about 0.5 um (yellow). The silicon camera
sensors have some kind of response to 2-3 um, corresponding to 1500 ..
1000 K. Humans and room temperature furniture are around 300 K, thus
the radiation peak is around 10 um, thus, ordinary glass is not very
transparent and ordinary silicon cells are useless.

The radiation drops quite quickly, when going from the peak towards
shorter wavelengths, but still this explains why the eye (400-700 nm
response) can detect some weak dark reddish radiation from object with
only 1000 K temperature (black body radiation peak at 3000 nm).

Paul
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
White light at 1200 C? What a maroon. I think she applied the
conversion table backwards. Tungsten bulbs run 2800-3300 K.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

What color temperature is maroon? I bet her face is red.

John
 
P

Paul Keinanen

Jan 1, 1970
0
? 727°C? I remember from pottery classes in school that you get into a fierce
cherry red by that high. Nice confirmation here:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/alumpics/htchar1.gif

The human eye is very bad in detecting absolute colours, due to the
"automatic white balance adjustment" so you really need a reference
chart at the same illumination level to reliably compare colours.

Apparently the Draper point at 798 K seems to be some standard for
visibility of hot objects, but I have not found any references how
this is actually determined.

To get a good general overview how the radiation behaves on short
wavelengths, it is a good idea to plot the black body radiation on a
log/log scale, e.g. figure 10 in
http://ceos.cnes.fr:8100/cdrom-98/ceos1/science/baphygb/chap3/chap3.htm

Look at the 800 K (Draper point) curve, which has a peak at about 3,5
um and look at intensity at 0.7 um (the nominal limit of human
vision), the magnitude is about 5 orders of magnitude (50 dB) below
the peak.

At 1500 K, the peak is at 2 um and the intensity drops only 1.5 orders
of magnitude (15 dB) at 0.7 um but the absolute level at 0,7 um is 5
levels of magnitude (50 dB) above the value for 800 K at that
wavelength.

Compare this with the sensitivity of the eye
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/efficacy.html

For normal illumination levels (photopic vision) the nominal 700 nm
limit is somewhat arbitrary, since the sensitivity is doubled (+ 3 dB)
every 10 nm when going from 770 nm down to 670 nm, a total increase
about 30 dB. In that wavelength band the 800 K black body radiation
intensity drops about 12 dB and the 1500 K radiation drops about 5 dB
in that region, so the stimulus is strongest near the shortest end
(670 nm) of that band.

However, the absolute level of 800 K and colder objects is very low
and a dark adapted eye (scotoptic vision) is required, however the eye
is insensitive to deepest red at these levels. Practical values
starting at 700 nm and the response doubling every 10 nm down to about
580 nm.

The scotopic vision is of course black and white and if in a dark room
an object is heated, a glow will be observed, when there is sufficient
power below about 700 nm, but you can just tell that something is
glowing, but you can not determinate the colour due to the scotopic
vision.

When the temperature is further increased, the absolute power levels
below 770 nm are increased significantly and sooner or later the
photopic vision will be smoothly activated and it becomes possible to
determine colours.

The level at which the transition occurs, depends of the absolute
level reaching the eye and hence also of the angle of view.

Paul
 
D

Don Klipstein

Jan 1, 1970
0
[email protected] (Hal Murray) wrote in


I'm not sure that citing it as any guide to precision matters much. I just
tried that test I mentioned, I used a Weller WSD-81 'station' and an LR-21
iron, set at 450°C. I could see it before my eyes were fully dark-adapted,
but could not resolve colour. I could see it pretty much equally with
photopic or scotopic vision, done by arranging wide angle changes off-axis
from central vision, but I could only resolve any detail when it was at the
centre. Not much either, I couldn't see the tip shape very clearly but I
could see the silhouette of the heavy guard coil wire as it passed across it.

This appears to me that you were seeing the very-dimly-glowing tip and
maybe the likely-slightly-hotter heating-element-area mostly with scotopic
vision.

450 C is 723 K. The surface over the heating element was likely
somewhat hotter, likely mid to upper 700's K.

The 798 K "Draper point" appears to me to be the threshold of achieving
significant stimulation of photopic vision to the point of seeing color
more than gray.
What did surprise me was that a small near-IR sniffer I built could not see
it. It's not very sensitive but I thought it ought to if I could, given the
stuff I've used it for before, so eyes are obviously rather good at this.

What wavelength range is your "near-IR sniffer" good at, and what
radiant power density in that wavelength range is lowest it will sense?
If you report this, I can figure temperature necessary to achieve this.
Couldn't see a thing at 400°C though.

I am not surprised - that is 673 K.

I consider myself optimistic at thinking that I may be able with best
dark adaptation to dimly see with blurred outlines and no color,
incandescence at 700 K.

I calculate the following values of candela per square centimeter to
photopic vision corresponding to the following temperatures low enough
to achieve glow so dim as to be seen primarily by scotopic vision despite
spectral content at wavelengths long enough to favor photopic:

775 K: 3.25 E-7 (s/p ratio is .131 on a scale where 555 nm
monochromatic yellow-green = 1)

750 K: 1.22 E-7 (s/p ratio is .119 on the above scale)

725 K: 4.27 E-8 (s/p ratio is .107 on the above scale)

700 K: 1.40 E-8 (s/p ratio is .096 on the above scale)

===============

Temperature at which s/p ratio achieved by a blackbody is "unity" as in
same as that of 555 nm yellowish-green monochromatic narrowband light:

2093 K,

which I have determined that a USA-usual 120V 100W lightbulb of
"Big 3 brand" and rated to last-on-average 750 hours and to
produce-on-average 1670-1750 lumens at 120 volts, to achieve at around
53-54 volts, maybe give or take another volt.

I am aware that a few lower-current longer-life vaccum-containing
incandescents have a fair chance of having color temperature this low or
slightly lower. However, it appears to me that more-usual for tungsten
incandescent lamps with design current low enough to be served better by
vacuum than by argon-nitrogen gas fill, along with design life expectancy
around 2,000-3,000 hours, is for color temperature to be not far from
2360 K (which achieves s/p ratio of 1.16 on scale where 555 nm achieves
unity).

The USA-usual 120V 100W incandescent with rated average life expectancy
of 750 hours, rated to produce 1670-1750 lumens, and having CC-6 or CC-8
filament, and of "Big 3 brand", appears to me to typically have color
temp. of 2870 K (2865 K by a slightly older definition revised by a
redetermination of one of 2 constants in the "Blackbody Formula"), appears
to me to achieve s/p ratio of about 1.42.

I hope the above supports my impression that human photopic and scotopic
vision have nonlinearities that differ from each other. I sense that
there is dynamic range compression achieved by both, less for human
photopic vision than for human scotopic vision.

I sense that human scotopic vision achieving greater dynamic range
compression than human photopic vision does, is the explanation for seeing
barely/hardly/minimally/dimly - incandescently-hot objects with color
"degrading to gray" (my words) as temperature decreases from about 800 K
or so to mid-700's K or so.

- Don Klipstein (Jr) ([email protected])
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
Thermal imaging is in the 10um range, It
really detects infrared.

I know what thermal imaging is. I do not need a primer.
 
D

Don Klipstein

Jan 1, 1970
0

Possibly related to your comment on colour degrading, or perhaps not, is the
IR lased diodes. When I have seen them (5mw single mode types, looked at
directly at range greater than 1 foot, almost certainly eye-safe conditions)
they go beyond the wine or rubt reds of visible types. The impression is of a
maroon colour. (Yep, maroon, I ought to have mentioned it earlier in this
thread, no? >:) And what makes THAT interesting is that it implies a bluish
interpretation! Interesting given that deep violet at the other end hints at
a reddish interpretation of what is just a very deep blue. Life is full of
cylic/linear transforms, but this is the single weirdest one I know.

This reminds me of sensing some barely visible IR LEDs as emitting a
slightly orangish shade of red. I have seen their spectra with a
diffraction grating, and I know that I am seeing only very long
wavelengths past 750 nm, generally past 800 nm. I have seen the slightly
orangish shade of red in the long wavelength spectral region shown by the
diffraction grating, with the shorter wavelength end of the spectral band
appearing to me closer to pure red in color.

I have heard of this being called "color reversal" or "infrared color
reversal".

As for the soldering iron tip becoming more focused but still appearing
gray when viewed with central vision: I suspect that there are some rods
in central vision, in smaller and more closely spaced clusters to achieve
better resolution. Possibly photopic vision plays enough of a role to
increase sensation of resolution, however. However, I do see dimly
gray-appearing incandescent objects becoming invisible when viewed
entirely with the most central degree or two of vision. And when I look
at such an object that partially falls into the supposedly rod-free
most-central degree or two of vision, I sometimes tend to see the whole
thing anyway - maybe I get prone to "seeing things" under such conditions.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
M

Martin Brown

Jan 1, 1970
0
JosephKK said:
Simply put, just harmonics (frequency doubling/tripling). Many more
complex things are significant contributors as well.

No. Frequency doubling requires very high light intensities and usually
a crystal lattice with a heavy highly charged ion in it.

It is more likely to be a quirk of the light sensitive pigments of the
eye. A lot of nominally blue pigments and dyes have near IR leaks and I
expect the eye pigment is no different. Also at the low sensitivity
needed for near IR most of the colour vision is gone for me so it is
essentially grey with a hint of orange. NB red is constructed by the
brain as yellow-green. The eye cones are sensitive to yellow, green and
blue. Red is a construction of the brain.

You can have fun with this perceptual feature by using a neodymium
filter over the eyes which creates out of gamut colours for the brain to
contend with that are "redder than red" and "greener than green".

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Top