3 ms·
> At this point, I realized that I got the "V2" of the camera. This camera is regarded as worse than the "V1" mostly because the manufacturer removed the intern
by gsliepen 2y ago
> At this point, I realized that I got the "V2" of the camera. This camera is regarded as worse than the "V1" mostly because the manufacturer removed the internal processing FPGA?
That's actually better. In-camera processing will just reduce the amount of information you can get out of the sensor. For example, even if it does exactly the same flat-fielding as you do, the in-camera flat-fielded image has to be requantized to 8-bit format before sending to the computer, therefore losing precision.
You can get even better accuracy by taking a dark or bias field (might be possible if you can set the exposure time to something very short, but this might not be possible with these thermographic cameras) and taking flatfields at different temperatures, so you can get per-pixel linearity curves. That's a lot of work though, and ideally each camera was indiviually calibrated by the producer, but I am guessing that is not done for these cheap cameras.
- daniel_reetz 2y agoThe article points out that the FPGA was not actually removed. However it is true in some circumstances having access to data earlier in the pipeline is useful. Microbolometer cameras like these have their own quirks.
- sangnoir 2y ago> In-camera processing will just reduce the amount of information you can get out of the sensor More information is not necessarily better. For instance, if the FPGA does calibration and removes sensor noise, removing the preprocessing adds literal noise to the data, which is worse.