Hikmicro Falcon FH25, FH35, FQ35, FQ50

Hikmicro Falcon FH25,
Hikmicro Falcon FH35,
Hikmicro Falcon FQ35,
Hikmicro Falcon FQ50
Márciusi felvétel, tiszta száraz időben, a hőmérséklet -3 °C volt.
Tartalomjegyzék:
00:00 - készülék adatok
00:10 - 427m: róka (vulpes vulpes)
01:05 - 346m: róka (vulpes vulpes)
01:27 - 313m: róka (vulpes vulpes)
01:48 - 300m: róka (vulpes vulpes)
02:34 - 258m: őz (capriolus capriolus)
02:46 - 544m: gímszarvas (cervus elaphus)
03:04 - digitális nagyítás (FQ35, FQ50)
03:28 - 173m: őz (capriolus capriolus)
03:38 - 440m: róka (vulpes vulpes)
04:02 - 169m: őz (capriolus capriolus)
04:29 - digitális nagyítás (FQ35, FQ50)
04:47 - 201m: őz (capriolus capriolus)
05:00 - 152m: őz (capriolus capriolus)
05:16 - digitális nagyítás (FQ35, FQ50)
05:39 - 118m: gímszarvas (cervus elaphus)
05:55 - 223m: gímszarvas (cervus elaphus)
06:08 - 311m: gímszarvas (cervus elaphus)
06:22 - 432m: gímszarvas (cervus elaphus)
06:38 - 237m: mezei nyúl (lepus europaeus)
06:57 - 157m: gímszarvas (cervus elaphus)
07:15 - digitális nagyítás (FQ35, FQ50)
07:24 - 292m: gímszarvas (cervus elaphus)
07:36 - 467m: gímszarvas (cervus elaphus)
07:45 - 220m: mezei nyúl (lepus europaeus)
08:08 - 249m: gímszarvas (cervus elaphus)
08:28 - 158m: mezei nyúl (lepus europaeus)
08:45 - 105m: mezei nyúl (lepus europaeus)
08:59 - 51m: mezei nyúl (lepus europaeus)
09:03 - 72m: mezei nyúl (lepus europaeus)
09:22 - 213m: gímszarvas (cervus elaphus)
09:43 - kijelző összehasonlítás
Simabőrű.hu
www.simaboru.hu/

[@MokhamadovElhan]

thank you so much
you are the best
I subscribed and like

[@nikossteinmetz9385]

Well done!! One of the best comparison videos I’ve seen so far. Thanks a lot.

[@josephmctschern3005]

Thank you for the great comparison.👋👋👌
I have the Hikmikro Lynx LH25 2.0, but I know that a video does not achieve the same sharpness as when you look through it.
Therefore, the "live image" of the FQ35 and FQ50 must be must be enormous.😮

[@jeb1246]

Absolutely supurb....!!! It shows Resolution, Magnification and Angle....

[@Epifani_Days]

The best video comparison I have seen 👍😊

[@jimmi7386]

sehr Anschaulich,.....Dankeschön!

[@pieterjacobs3479]

The video above is a very clear compirison that i had a very big problem with hikmicro. If that animal walking in the road there walked inside the trees and the pulsar is set correct. He wouldve been clear as daylight hotter than the trees. In the hik the person is just as hot as the trees. Just my 2cent😊

[@simabor]

Thank you for your comment.
I tend to agree.
Hikmicros have 2 modes, Forest and Identification. In this term one of these modes better than the other.
What I experienced is this particularity has improved at new models (eg. Thunder 2, Panther 2).

[@mrdojob]

I noticed that with a lot of higher resolution thermals. They become so detailed that actual heat sources become completely washed out against the detailed background.
I have a Infiray T2 Pro which despite being low resolution, never has problems with the software washing heat sources out by mistake.

[@melenacuriel5081]

Tengo el fh35 recien comprado y ayer fui a probarlo y no se así, no tan nítido, como lo puedo configurar bien?

[@user-wc7ly7hh1u]

Difference between H and Q
I was just looking for the difference in visibility due to the difference in sensor size
Thanks

[@krzysztofn7216]

FH35 have better view than FQ35...? 😮 Almost as good as FQ50 😮

[@simabor]

Thank you for your comment.
I think best to watch this comparison on a large screen to be able to see the full potential of the higher resolution devices. Watching on small screen misleads.
In terms of identification capabilities FH35 and FQ35 equal and FQ50 performs better. Here is why:
I calculate the pixel coverage at 100m of each device I compare. This is calculated by using the horizontal field of view and the horizontal pixel quantity. For example for FH35 and for FQ35 this number is 34mm @ 100, this means that one pixel covers a 34mm x 34mm area at a 100m distance.
So a 340mm tall heated object that is from 100 meters from the device, going to be displayed with 10 vertical pixels.
With FQ50 the same object will be displayed with 14 (340/24=14,2) vertical pixels. So the FQ50 has a better view of an object in terms of identification capabilities, because the calculated pixel coverage is 24mm @ 100m. (the smaller the better)
In this example I don't talk about display but only bolometer pixels. Usually thermal camera display resolution is higher than the bolometer resolution, and this provides some potential of displaying improvement for the image processing alghorithms at optical magnification (more potential at higher digital zoom levels). But this improvement potential is limited, because the base data that is processed for the display is limited by the bolometer resolution.
Since all Falcon device bolometers has 12μm pixel pitch, that is why identification capabilities depends here only on objective lens focal length.
At the same focal length devices (FH35 and FQ35) at base optical magnification only the field of view is different because of the different resolution. So without applying digital zoom on FQ35 you can see the object smaller and on a small screen you can not see the details.
To be able to see this, please check the following sections where digital zoom of FQ35, FQ50 is shown and compare it to FH35.
03:04
04:29
05:16
07:15