Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by IshKebab 1138 days ago
Emphasis being "on paper". When I worked for a research company we got a cheaper Korean company to demo their thermal cameras. They were just way way worse than FLIR and the software was abysmal (FLIR's software is surprisingly good).

Ended up going for the £4k FLIR camera (not my money tbf). On the plus side I didn't even know about the 9fps thing at the time and they didn't ask me about it, but we still got a 25fps camera. Not exactly sure how that happened.
1 comments
Goz3rr 1138 days ago
I intentionally mentioned the on paper part because I can't attest to the absolute accuracy, but in the aspects that are easily comparable I would say it's way ahead of the FLIR C5 that cost 4x as much I use at work.

Both are used for diagnostics of electronics, so the resolution and framerate make a noticeable difference here. On top of that mine boots up and is ready to go in under 5 seconds, while the FLIR takes close to a minute to get ready for some reason.

link
IshKebab 1137 days ago
Likely because it is self-calibrating or waiting for some internal temperature to stabilise.

For a lot of uses that doesn't really matter tbf. IIRC in the FLIR software you can disable the periodic self calibration they do (which is quite annoying). Maybe that would improve startup time.

link