Flir....flir.....

[S.M.S]

folks what is the best flir syetem to be fitted in the aw139 star safire 3 or the wescam MX-15i ???

:sad:

[[email protected]]

What do you want to use it for and where in the world will it be used? Police surveillance? SAR? Do you need one optimised for seeing humans? Or is this less about the pure FLIR capabilities and more about the turret/mountings/integration with TV etc?

Our SAR ones are STARQ provided by FLIR Systems UK - a Quantum Well Infrared Photodetector with a Stirling Rotary Cooling Pump. Optimised for locating a person in the water. It's V good.

[farmpilot]

Or rather a Cineflex V14 MS2 much better

[handysnaks]

For ease of control, go for the MX 15.

[leopold bloom]

Anyone got any experience of the Selex Galileo EOST 45?:confused:

[timex]

MX15 is pretty good, easy to use and fairly light.

[S.M.S]

crab cx ur mail...:)

[20Minuter]

SMS - Both are capable products. However, look at product support and that will tell you which way to go. I don't know where you are based and that may affect your choice. I would agree that the MX15 range is easier to control, but I believe you still can't put an MX15 on an MX15i mounting if you needed to due to the MX15i failing. The is due to the CEU being built into the MX15i itself. However, that may have changed since I did my research and may be dependant upon how you mounted the MX15i in the first instance and some form of adaptor may have been produced? With the StarSafire 3, although not as easy to control in the narrower FOV without using Geopointing, upon failures, you can swap out with other SS turrets, including the SSHD which takes the same mounting/wirings. If the info helps.

[S.M.S]

Cineflex V14 MS2 much better

but the star safire HD

Zoom ratio 120X !!!! don't you think it's important ???

[S.M.S]

20Minuter...

yes sir that information helps a lot but still my question about the zooming do you think it's improtant? and if we fitted the flir in the nose do you think the clearance will be enough to land in rough ground (desert):)

[blade root]

I think you should worry more about deal, dealer support and parts availability.

They all do the same thing...when they are working.

[[email protected]]

SMS - this is a link to a good article regarding FLIR technology - I thought you might be more concerned with the type of detector/sensor but from reading your posts it seems like a fitting/useability question - I don't fly the 139 so can't help on that score.


http://www.ausairpower.net/NCW-101-6.pdf

[sling]

Have a serious look at the Cineflex MS2, amazing piece of kit.. Safire 3 is old crappy tech with very inferior zoom capabilities and even worse support from manufacturer.....

You should get all three and do a fly off.. Each manufacturer will crawl all over you to sell one, so put the hard word on them..

[southerncanuck]

sir, we supply some components to agusta on 139 camera install. all the aforementioned cameras are excellent choices (comes down to personal preference and particular requirements), that said, the V14 will not fit, or any camera with a long lens due to ground clearance. a long lens camera would have to be placed on the side of the airframe.
cal

[S.M.S]

They all do the same thing...when they are working.

yes 100% but my point is i'm looking for a good zooming and small for desert landing clearance ?






crab thanks for the link..:ok:

[S.M.S]

Safire 3 is old crappy tech

sling what do you think of safire HD sir..?????

[S.M.S]

we supply some components to agusta on 139 camera install

so what is your recommendation sir for aw139 ??:ok:

[southerncanuck]

sir, we also supply direct to:
- flir
- wescam
- axsys
- tamam
- polytech
- denel/zeiss
- swesystems
- gyrocam
- thales
- etc

therefore, we do not promote one over the other, nor should anyone else unless you are specific:

- budget
- number of sensors
- itar controlled
- long-long, long or short nose 139
- marinized
- weight
- HD, spotter, range finder, geo positioning, low light

being one of the very few that has either operated or been around the majority of cameras, i know only one thing for sure, there all pretty good when they work : )

[S.M.S]

southerncanuck can you send your details to my mail please.:)

[JerryG]

Guys

First let me declare an interest; I own three Cineflex and I’m the distributor for Australasia and SE Asia. Now that we’ve got that out of the way…..

1. Southerncanuk has been incredibly helpful to me and is the guru on how to mount cameras on helicopters. If he hasn’t hung it then it probably can’t be hung.

2. Yes, a Cineflex has a snout. Yes, there has been an issue with the snout drooping in the event of a total power failure, but this is now resolved and the default parking position in that event will now be “snout up”.

3. Yes, a Cineflex has a snout….because it’s got a long lens and you can’t beat the path of light (or not since Einstein so far!). It’s my understanding (but I stand to be corrected here, or at least better informed by those who have hands-on experience) that any of the gimbal systems that don’t have a snout use a system of prime lenses that revolve into position in front of the CMOS. Thus they don’t actually zoom but instead go to pre-set steps of focal length. Apart from being rather an agricultural optical effect, this apparently results in the central focus of attention jumping to another point on the monitor during the switch over. I understand from those who’ve done it that this can make it very difficult to visually re-acquire the target you were looking at when you flicked the switch?

4. It’s my belief that the IR sensors on all three cameras are pretty much identical in capability these days. I believe all three systems mentioned have a 640 x 512 IR sensor.

5. In making an overall judgement on a surveillance package it’s worth bearing in mind that all HD cameras deal with low light conditions much more effectively than SD. So, for example, it would be normal to use the HD EO camera to read a car number plate from 2,000’ over a dimly lit urban area. IR cameras are good for searching for warm bodies in cold woods or water but they form part of a package and shouldn’t usually be assessed in isolation, other than in very specific circumstances.

6. To date I’m not aware of anybody having carried out a genuine side by side comparison of the three products. If anybody is game, and prepared to openly share the results on this forum, I will fly a Cineflex to anywhere in the world to achieve a certified head to head fly-off that we can all rely on.

I hope I haven’t broken any forum rules here. I genuinely want to know the answer to these questions from an operator’s perspective and not have to rely on the manufacturers’ blurb.

Cheers to all
JerryG

[Senior Pilot]

If anybody is game, and prepared to openly share the results on this forum, I will fly a Cineflex to anywhere in the world to achieve a certified head to head fly-off that we can all rely on.

I hope I haven’t broken any forum rules here.

No rules broken there, Jerry.

As long as I get to fly one of the "head to head fly-off" machines, of course!

;) :p

[JerryG]

Right then! So that's two pilots and a Cineflex so far. Anybody want to bring an MX 15 or a Star Safire to the party? I'll buy the beer.
JerryG

[mickjoebill]

No doubt the Cineflex has the highest quality and res TV camera and lens.
The camera can also work at 60 frames per second which makes looking for detail much easier on the eye than an interlace image.
Recording such images is becomming easier and cheaper and police aviation has yet to wakeup to how valuable HD recordings can be ...


I would personally ditch the extra optical doubler in some versions of the MS.


Most of the others have single chip HD sensors with (in theory) 0.7 x resolution of the 3 chip system.


Side by side test is the way to go.....



Mickjoebill

[S.M.S]

Guys in this case what is the deference between the cineflex and the star safire HD interim of zooming and resolution weight size etc.....???

[southerncanuck]

sms, sent you a PM if you have any questions,
thanks
cal
[email protected]

[JerryG]

SMS, I'm not sure what you mean by "star safire HD interim". Here are the differences I have noted from personal experience of the Cineflex and product information for the others. Once again I stand to be corrected if anybody has better information:-

STABILIZATION SYSTEM
Cineflex V14 MS2 - 5 Axis HD, 4 Axis IR
Wescam MX-15i HD - 4 Axis
Safire HD - 4 Axis gimbal, 2 Axis IR
Safire 3 - 4 Axis

WEIGHT in lbs
Cineflex V14 MS2 - 69
Wescam MX-15i HD - 94
Safire HD - 98
Safire 3 - 98

TURRET SIZE in inches
Cineflex V14 MS2 - 14.5 x 19.5 x 19
Wescam MX-15i HD - 15.5 x 18.75
Safire HD - 15 x 17.5
Safire 3 - 15 x 17.5

HD TV LINES
Cineflex V14 MS2 - 1000
Wescam MX-15i HD - 1000
Safire HD - 800
Safire 3 - 525/625

EFFECTIVE IR PIXELS
Cineflex V14 MS2 - 640x512
Wescam MX-15i HD - 640x512
Safire HD - 640x480
Safire 3 - 640x480

ZOOM RATIO
Cineflex V14 MS2 - Continuous smooth 100x (+10x additional E Zoom)
Wescam MX-15i HD - Stepped 120x
Safire HD - Stepped 120x
Safire 3 - 18x (+12x additional E Zoom)

In all other areas that I've been able to ascertain so far it seems they are pretty similar, but the big subjective issue on which most people comment is image stability and the only way to do that is by head to head visual comparison. I'm happy to post a couple of Cineflex examples if anybody can reciprocate with the alternatives?

Not sure if that answers your question?

JerryG

[mickjoebill]

The numbers aren't that relevant when it comes to comparing image quality.
Surveillance relies on discerning shadowy characters in shady situations.
This is where high fidelity camera and lens system wins hands down.

My description of the V14MSII is a 25x smooth zoom with optical 2x doubler + electronic 2x doubler. When using Electonic doubler the images quality drops down to standard definition resolution.
The lens is a pucker HD broadcast lens that will dleiver same quality as you see on a HD broadcast of football ect. Camera is also same camera used on HD sports broadcasts.

The wescam uses a miniature single chip HD sensor.
V14 uses 3chip split head with considerably more horsepower.


Mickjoebill

[southerncanuck]

jerry, great post, going to print that, as mentioned, i'm just a mount guy but your apples to apples comparison should be required reading for anyone interested in "big" camera's

footnote to your list: increase all up weights to account for
- vibro isolators: apprx 20lbs
- QDD quick disconnects: apprx 6 lbs
- dovetails: apprx 5 lbs
- adaptors: varies

cal

[mickjoebill]

footnote to your list: increase all up weights to account for

Weight of onboard camera processors varies between models and although less important a consideration than the payload in the slipstream, should be included in a comparison.
Also, the weight of vibration isolators and brackets vary between manufacturers.


Mickjoebill

[tonyosborne]

Chaps, a few questions about podded electro-optical systems or FLIR pods, if I may.

There seem to be a few dozen available in the civil market. Are they much of a muchness, or are there dramatic differences in quality between the numerous brands/makes?

How do operators, such as those in Police or SAR for example make the choice between one or another system, what are the considerations? How much of a difference do the High-Definition systems make, are they worth the extra cost, indeed, what are the running costs?

and finally, are there any issues with them, such as reliability, complexity, I presume they are simply sent off to be checked over by technicians for an annual service?

Any answers would be much appreicated.

[JerryG]

Tony

See this thread
http://www.pprune.org/forums/rotorheads/330003-flir-flir-2.html
Cheers
JerryG

[tightrope]

why the interest tony...??

may be able to provide more focused response if we know what angle your coming from..

just curious as you appear to be a photographer.. (i think)

Great pictures on your website by the way..!